Slaying yesterday’s dragons
Illustrated by Caleb Salisbury
Darwinism as a science has been evolving. That is, it has changed from its original concept and continues to change. It would do us well to pay attention to the latest trends so as not to be caught arguing against yesterday’s theory. When Charles Darwin initially postulated that all living species could be traced back to a single common ancestor, he suggested the mechanism causing these changes was natural selection.1 That was in 1859. Later, he backed off from his initial hypothesis and suggested that other forms of selection (e.g., sexual selection2) were not only involved, but were more important. Worse, not knowing anything about genetics, he came up with and strongly promoted a Lamarckian3 idea that the environment caused changes in organisms which were then inherited by their offspring. This was contradicted by his contemporary, Gregor Mendel, who published the laws of genetics4 in 1862, but that was the state of evolutionary theory at the close of the 19th century.
More changes occurred when genetics was finally brought under the Darwinian umbrella in the early 20th century. This involved a wholesale rejection of much of Darwin’s later writings and eventually led to the ‘Modern Synthesis’ of evolution, genetics, and population genetics under which most biologists today were trained. This ‘gene-centric’ view dealt with populations and gene pools, ignoring the fact that the individual (a complex combination of traits) was the unit of selection and not individual genes. Proponents of this view also ran into mathematical difficulties5 early on, but these were pushed aside by further speculation that most of the genome was junk DNA.6
Now that we have entered the 21st century, things are changing once again. As we have learned more about genetics and the inner workings of the cell, neo-Darwinism (another name for the Modern Synthesis) is having to adapt. Evolutionists have had a difficult time explaining incredibly complex systems like the human genome, and the naturalistic origin of life flies in the face of all known laws of physics, chemistry, genetics, probability, and information theory. The idea that most of our DNA is ‘junk’6 is now untenable. The mathematical difficulties discovered decades ago are only getting worse as our understanding of life becomes more and more complex. What is an evolutionist to do?
Thomas Kuhn, a famous philosopher of science, said that scientific revolutions occur every several generations. When a new theory rises to the top, it is promoted heavily. The next generation of scientists runs with it, often using it as a basic assumption of how things work. Eventually, however, enough cognitive dissonance7 is raised, especially among the younger scientists who often find older ideas unsatisfactory, that a wholesale turnover of ideas occurs. For example, the phlogiston theory of combustion once ruled academia, but a few experiments in the late 1700s put an end to it. Another revolution occurred in the 1960s when plate tectonics suddenly replaced a geology based on static continental blocks. A scientific theory tends to have a certain amount of inertia and it takes a considerable effort to change it once it is established as a ruling paradigm, but it can change.
Will another revolution occur in evolutionary theory? Probably so, and we can see early rumblings of it already. This is not to say that lots of scientists are going to become biblical creationists, but that there are a significant number of people in science who are less than satisfied by mainstream ideas of how evolution works. We can see young scientists pushing the pagan-esque Gaia hypothesis8 and others talking about nebulous self-organizing properties supposedly inherent in matter that drive evolution inexorably forward.9There is a Kuhnian10 revolution in the works, no doubt. The movers and shakers of the new revolution, though, are leaving mathematics and population genetics (because these failed Darwin and because the problems have not been resolved by neo-Darwinism, i.e. the Modern Synthesis) and are turning to more philosophically speculative ideas.
Things are shifting under our feet. We need to be careful not to be caught slaying yesterday’s dragon. Yet, the new trends within science do not necessarily require a different type of counter-argument. Interestingly, I find myself arguing population genetics as a cogent weapon when confronted by these newer ideas. I find myself talking about what we know about physics and chemistry and how that contradicts all ideas about the physical origin of life from non-life. I find myself saying that what we have discovered through experimental science argues against there being any inherent property in matter that would drive it to spontaneously form high-level organizational structures, let alone codified information strings.11 It is as if they are suddenly admitting to a ‘Darwin of the Gaps’ model of evolution while we creationists stick to empirical science, and I find this ironic, even oddly humorous.
Although evolutionary theory is threatening to change its basis, the argument has not really changed all that much. Why is this? Because evolution is a smokescreen for a raging spiritual battle. The how of evolution is really not all that important, and evolutionists will readily shift their beliefs about the mechanism behind it, often using these shifts to claim science is self-correcting. The alleged fact of evolution, however, must be defended by its adherents at all costs, because there is no escape from accountability to a Creator unless nature made itself somehow.
Although this shift away from neo-Darwinism is certainly not yet the majority view, it is a rapidly popularizing trend within science. It seems, therefore, as if the big question we are going to face in the future is similar to one faced when trying to share the Gospel with the new generation of public school kids (you know, the ones that could not say that taking down the Twin Towers was an act of evil men). That is, how do you talk to a science buff who has left empirical science and whose mind is full of philosophical speculation?
In short, there is, to this point, no coherent science coming from this new paradigm of neo-pagan metaphysics with nature as a self-creating entity, demonstrating that the battle is really being waged at a deeper philosophical level. Therefore, the creationist arguments that have been developed over the past several decades remain relevant and powerful. Resources like The Creation Answers Book, creation.com, Journal of Creation and Creation magazine are still the best sources of information one can use to prepare a defence, for there is nothing truly new under the sun.
References and notes
- See creation.com/natural-selection-questions-and-answers. Return to text.
- Catchpoole, D., creation.com/peacock-poppycock, March 2007. Return to text.
- Carter, R., creation.com/epigenetics-and-darwin, 1 March 2011. Return to text.
- Lester, L., creation.com/genetics-no-friend-of-evolution, March 1998. Return to text.
- Batten, D., creation.com/haldanes-dilemma-has-not-been-solved, April 2005. Return to text.
- Carter, R., creation.com/junk-dna-slow-death, 9 June 2009. Return to text.
- This term refers to the holding of conflicting beliefs, and the tension/discomfort this causes. Return to text.
- Wieland, C., creation.com/pagan-panic, December 1992. Return to text.
- Depew, D. and Weber, B., The fate of Darwinism: evolution after the modern synthesis, Biological Theory 6(1):89-102, 2011. Return to text.
- Kulikovsky, A., creation.com/sloppy-lazy-and-dishonest, December 2007. Return to text.
- Gitt, W., creation.com/information-science-and-biology, August 1996. Return to text.
i love reading your [cmi] articles [even those i can't fully understand due to math equations etc]. i just have one objection. your in-consequent usage of the term 'theory' and 'hypothesis'. during postgraduate studies the difference was hammered into my head and i can for the life of me not see how most of the evolutionists 'hypothesis' are turned into 'theories' - unfortunately also by some of your contributors as in this article, for instance '...but that was the state of evolutionary theory at the close of the 19th century.' and just before that '... Later, he backed off from his initial hypothesis .' [or do many hypothesis make a theory? - it is not logic!].
if we want to be effective in putting forward the creationist argument, as God did in His word, we must clearly define the meaning of our words and be absolutely consistent in using them in the right context.
in as far as i can see, evolutionists utilize suppositions, conjectures, postulations, assumptions [pick your synonym...] and turn it into 'theories' whilst the latter should all be relegated to the hypothesis valley of hinnom. the worst any creationist can possibly do is to partake in the verbal/scriptural and hence factual 'resurrection' of such.
yours in Christ Jesus
Technically, you are correct in that people often confuse the terms 'theory' and 'hypothesis'. We have attempted to correct these issues several times:
I do not believe I used the term 'theory' incorrectly in this article, however. If we really wanted to get into semantics, I would say that the Theory of Evolution (note that I did not use this phrase in the article) states that all species can be traced back in time to a single common ancestor. Natural selection is but one hypothesis used to explain the how and why.
But thank you for the comments. They will help me to stay on my toes in the future!
Well put! I like your keen insight into how the tables have turned re: metaphysics.
I'm encouraged by this - since it was always true that no particular thing could be apprehended apart from a comprehensive metaphysical commitment - now the people whom deny the Lordship of Christ (particulary in the area of thought / knowledge) are allready attesting the necessity of believing in the overarching nature of reality
It is now easier to see that there are only two worldviews (at base)- the Christian and non-Christian. And only one makes sense and is possible
But it remains that only the Lord can change a heart
Thanks for your delightful and bold insights into the nature of shifting sand (the attempt to supress the knowledge of God and replace it with an anything can happen philosophy - although this entails that anything can happen except God'd sovereignty :)
Not that I wish to be accused of sucking up to the author, but I really like everything you write and your DVD's. If I see one with your name on it, I get it and it's always been money well spent.
I'd like to add this perspective to the issue of what and how to argue. Ever since I've read John Sanford's book on Genetic Entropy I've realized several things: a) of course he's right!, b)duhhhh! Any reasonable, thoughtful person should have been able to come to the same conclusion without a book. (Guess that let's me out since I needed the book.), and c) I don't need (and neither should anyone else) anything more than the simple facts he brought out!
What I'm getting at is that if the very idea of evolution is irrefutably shown to be impossible, then why get drawn into the unending, tangled arguments that people invariably invent. These are usually arguments that would require someone of your level of expertise to really address and that lets me out! It also lets out most everybody else. IF, like yourself, one CAN knowledgeably address other issues that's a different story of course. And I'm glad we have people like you to fight the good fight.
So, for myself, I don't think I should let the argument stray from the basics. Any argument from an evolutionist is akin to thinking that a large number of typos will eventually turn "Peter Rabbit" into "War and Peace". Long before Peter morphs into Natasha Rostov, the publisher would trash the copy and redo it from the original. And that's the idea of genetic entropy. Errors will accumulate and long before a dog morphs into a cat, the mutant strain of dogs will self destruct. So really, why do I need anything more? That's my own, personal perspective on things.
"When Charles Darwin initially postulated that all living species could be traced back to a single common ancestor, he suggested the mechanism causing these changes was natural selection. That was in 1859. Later, he backed off from his initial hypothesis and suggested that other forms of selection (e.g., sexual selection) were not only involved, but were more important. Worse, not knowing anything about genetics, he came up with and strongly promoted a Lamarckian idea that the environment caused changes in organisms which were then inherited by their offspring. This was contradicted by his contemporary, Gregor Mendel, who published the laws of genetics in 1862, but that was the state of evolutionary theory at the close of the 19th century."
I have a question about one of these statements, because it confused me. The part about the "Lamarckian idea that the environment caused changes in organisms which were then inherited by their offspring." If the environment doesn't cause changes in organisms, how do organisms adapt to their environment? Like a bird that's beak gets smaller to accommodate small holes in trees, for instance. How does the change occur if not affected by the environment? Am I missing something here?
Anthony, there are two different idea here: physiological and evolutionary "adaptation". They are not the same thing. Physiological adaptation involve ideas like "exercise produces bigger muscles". These sorts of changes (outside of epigenetics!) are not inheritable. Evolutionary adaptation involves ideas like "if we constantly kill off the small and weak, only the bigger and stronger will have children. Thus, there will be a genetic change over time. The genes for smallness will become less common and may even be lost from the population". This is how the Clydesdale horse was made. Note that in your example, the beak of an individual bird cannot get smaller. He's either going to be able to get that worm, or he is going to starve. If there was another bird in that same species with a smaller bill, he might be able to get the worm, and live to have babies.
Thank-you for this article! I have taught Christian high school science and have been really disappointed that subjects like the "peppered moth" which is really an example of poor scientific method is taught as if evolutionists still believe the peppered moth survey is an example of evolution. I felt it left my students open to looking back on their Christian education with ridicule when they got to college and found out the "more evolved" version of evolution. I do believe the paradigm is shifting, I was more inclined to think evolutionists would grab onto viruses and bacteria being the source of the new DNA sequences called for to make evolution tenable, however your article opens my eyes. Thank-you for such a great article!
I have seen more and more TV episodes on the ABC and /or SBS in Australia which demonstrate perfectly this new approach by 'scientists.' Speculation and pure fabrication of ideas seems to be the new science. Like the one where we travel into the universe and meet aliens from far flung galaxies. The presenters speculate and hypothesize as if they are telling the truth and as if these events actually took place. The scientific community which favour this approach will soon be left with no leg to stand on as more and more people see the fallacy. It really makes me mad when science is replaced by these romanticized hypothesis' which cannot be proven. The same goes for evolutionary theory in general. Scientists repeatedly say that the earth or a particular part of it is so many mya and yet they offer no proof that it is as old as they say. And when they find evidence which does not support there long term ideas they speculate and often lie to cover that anomaly. For example I watching a new show last night on the bigfoot. The first show was on the Yeti. Science proved that two hair samples from two different parts of the Himalayas brought back results which identified the animal as being from an ancient polar bear approximately 100 thousand years old, but instead of saying, 'Gee that is incredible!' They say that it must be a hybridized descendant of that animal. The truth is that the animal is the same as the one they thought was 100,000 year old and proves that these animals are still roaming the highlands of the Himalayas.
While I agree with the first part of your comment, I am hesitant about the conclusions of the Yeti study. Yes, Brian Sykes (a famous geneticist) has run samples from various cryptozoology claims, and yes, he claims two of them from the Himalayas matched those of ancient arctic polar bears, but the results have not yet been published, and then we have to trust the people who sent the samples in the first place. There might be or might have been an ancient breed or species of bear living in the Himalayas, and perhaps they were genetically connected to arctic bears during the ice Age, but that is all we can say at this time. [note for posterity: I seriously edited my first response to this person after I read up on the Himalayan polar bear claims. My first reply was even more skeptical.]
How much is really known about the genetic code?
I feel that the origin of man soul is contained in the genetic code. What separates man from animals is that animals were produced by the earth and sea following God's directive to each while man received his existence directly from God through his breath. Is this evidenced by the genetic code. One of your members said since the soul was not physical it could not be studied. But we see things each day that cannot be explained through scientific observation. Case in point.
2 men same height, weight, body structure. One can throw a baseball at 100 plus mph while the other cannot reach 80 mph. Why?
Why was secretariat able to run so much faster than any horse in history?
Why do some people sing so beautifully while others cannot hold a tune. Is there a difference in the vocal apparatus, or the structure of the ear between them?
Why are some great chefs while others unable to distinguish slight differences in taste? Is there a difference in the taste bud construction?
Why do some possess great heart or determination while others are more carefree?
These things cannot be observed physically by examining only the biological apparatus. Are these the result of genetic information within the gene?
I hope I am making sense.
The body of man was created before God breathed life into him. Since the body contains the DNA, and since soul-less animals, plants, bacteria, etc. all contain DNA, and since there is no section of the human genome that says "the soul is coded herein", one must conclude that the soul is not stored or coded in DNA.