Evolution under fire? -- Part 1

By David F. Dawes

Kirk Durston is the head of the New Scholars Society.

The first interview presents Kirk Durston, national director of the Ontario-based New Scholars Society -- a Campus Crusade for Christ ministry consisting of faculty members from Canadian universities. The organization's aim, says Durston, is "to promote Christian scholarship in every field, with a special interest in those areas where philosophy, faith, and science begin to intersect, and the problems and issues that arise out of that intersection."

CC.com: What is being done to increase public awareness of the extent to which evolutionary theory is under attack by people with legitimate scientific and scholarly credentials?

Kirk Durston: Rather than attack evolutionary theory, the Intelligent Design (ID) movement has taken a positive approach in its research program, focusing on evidence that intelligent design was involved in the origin and diversity of organic life. Of course, the evidence for ID has implications for Darwinism -- which I would define as the view that life arose and diversified through completely natural processes, with no divine design whatsoever.

Small pockets of the general public are becoming aware of ID; but unfortunately, the general media often misrepresents ID. Peer-reviewed works, such as Bill Dembski's The Design Inference, and videos such as Unlocking the Mystery of Life are helping to give a proper perspective on ID.

CC.com: As you know, evolutionists tend to use 'evolution' as a blanket term, without making the crucial distinction between 'micro-evolution' (physical changes within a single species) and 'macro-evolution' (transformation from one species into another). Because micro-evolution is scientifically provable, they can say that evolutionary theory is legitimate science -- and by using the general term 'evolution,' they imply that macro-evolution is also legitimate science. Do you think there is sufficient awareness of the fact that there is no concrete evidence for macro-evolution? Are evolutionists simply afraid to admit this to the public -- and perhaps to themselves?

K.D.: It is very important to make a distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution has been known for thousands of years, with the first documented case occurring in Genesis, when Jacob [manipulated] his father-in-law's sheep and goat herd so he could get more striped and spotted livestock. Any examples of evolution we observe today fall into this category.

Darwinists, however, believe that micro-evolution is just macro-evolution in process. They would also argue that there is a great deal of evidence for macro-evolution. For example, we share many genes in common with yeast. They would also point to other things that, in their mind, justify rationally their belief in Darwinism.

It is not too difficult to believe in macro-evolution -- provided one just looks at bones, teeth and genetic sequences that we share in common with other organisms. But evolution does not occur on the level of bones and teeth; it occurs on the molecular level -- and that is where serious problems arise.

Bones, teeth and body shape are just some of the things that are coded for in the genomes of organisms. The information that encodes these things is digitized. Genes are digital 'sentences' that code for RNA and proteins. The proteins are the nuts and bolts of an organism, but the instructions as to how these nuts and bolts are to be assembled into a particular organism must also be encoded into the genome (the entire set of digital instructions encoded in DNA).

Natural processes, over the history of the universe, have the potential to produce up to 70 bits of information. Unfortunately, just one, average 300-residue protein requires about 500 bits to encode. The simplest theoretical life form would need somewhere in the neighbourhood of 250 protein-coding genes.

If there are some anxious thoughts within the minds of Darwinists right now, it has to do with getting the first organism assembled, and getting all the thousands of novel protein-coding genes necessary for the diversity of life.

Research in this area is increasingly relying on computer simulations, the latest of which was just published in Nature this past year. That simulation failed to achieve 32 bits when the intervening stepping stones were removed. In the formation of a stable, folding protein, there are no intermediate non-folding steps that can be selected for.

That being said, however, I observe that most evolutionary biologists are not heavily involved in the information aspect of evolution -- and, thus, can continue to work, quite confident that macro-evolution occurred.

CC.com: Are a significant number of scientists now open to alternatives to evolutionary theory?

K.D.: I know quite a few university professors who are in the biological sciences, and who believe that ID was involved in some way. Very few of them, however, would want that to become public knowledge. I think that quite a few scientists would be open to ID if they had a proper presentation of it.

CC.com: Are a lot of schools and school boards showing increasing willingness to give a platform to origins theories other than evolution?

K.D.: There is no general movement on the part of schools and school boards toward giving a platform to ID. However, I was invited to give an ID presentation in two Grade 13 biology classes last spring. The teacher believed in evolution, but a student in his class took the initiative to tell him about me. Both lectures went very well, the teacher was enthusiastic, and he would like to have me back again this year. This is an illustration of what high school students can do. If they do not have someone locally, they introduce their teacher to the video Unlocking the Mystery of Life.

CC.com: Is the ID movement making serious inroads into the educational establishment?

K.D.: The ID movement is not yet making major inroads into the scientific, educational and philosophical establishments, primarily because the media and certain high profile individuals and organizations continue to deliberately misrepresent ID.

Secondly, peer-reviewed publications are still insufficient in number to command a hearing. In addition, it is almost impossible to publish in peer-reviewed journals. For example, I know of one individual who wrote a paper revealing a method to detect ID utilizing Shannon information [theory]. Knowing that it would be a tough sell, he first had it informally peer-reviewed by five biologists at major institutions in the US and Canada. He then sent it off to a particular journal.

Only one of the three reviewers recommended the paper be published. The other two were mocking and hostile. One of the scientists felt compelled to write a five-page rant, liberally spiced with insults, suggesting that a religious publication would be more appropriate -- despite the fact that the paper focused only on mathematics and genetics, with no mention whatsoever of religion.

One begins to get an idea just how important it is to be a Darwinist if one wants to publish when one considers the case of Forrest Mims. Mims has authored over 60 books and hundreds of articles in magazines such as Nature, Science Digest, New Scientist and National Geographic. His position as writer of Scientific American's popular science column was terminated when the editor learned that Mims was a evangelical Christian and had doubts about Darwinism -- but not before Mims was coerced into signing a document waiving his right to take legal action for religious discrimination.

CC.com: How do you respond to the objections which some critics have expressed about ID?

K.D.: When critics raise objections to ID, it is almost always due to a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of ID. ID is often caricaturized as: "Wow, isn't this complicated! I don't see how nature could have done this, therefore, God must have done it."

In reality, ID seeks to devise a scientific method to detect ID that makes predictions that can be verified or falsified. That method is then applied to a phenomenon such as organic life, to see if ID was required. This approach to ID has tremendous promise and is ever so slowly making progress and gaining credibility in the minds of practicing scientists.

Another criticism, within the Christian community, is that the ID movement contains a very broad spectrum of thinking; it is 'ecumenical.' For example, many ID theorists believe that the diversity of life arose through an intelligently designed process of macro-evolution. Other ID theorists hold to a young-earth, six-day creation.

However, no one in the ID movement is compromising the doctrines they individually hold to. Rather, they are working with other scientists who hold to the same common ground of ID, in order to advance this concept within science, the media, and public thinking.

CC.com: You may recall that politician Stockwell Day was publically ridiculed some time ago for his belief in Creation. What do you think this says about Canadian society, mass media and the general public's view of origins?

K.D.: It says a lot about the secular media.

CC.com: Is belief in evolutionary theory crumbling, in a general sense? Can you speculate whether it will finally be publically discredited -- and if so, whether you think that may happen in the near future?

K.D.: At this point, I don't see belief in evolutionary theory crumbling. If anything is crumbling, it is the confidence that Darwinists can figure out how life arose through completely natural processes.

I also suspect that those evolutionary biologists who have a sufficient mathematics and engineering background to understand information theory are getting very uneasy about how nature could produce literally millions of bits of functional information, when all computer simulations and calculations are indicating that it cannot produce anything even close to 70 bits.

CC.com: Can you share an anecdote involving an encounter you've had with someone who believes in the theory of evolution, and their response to creationist concepts and materials?

K.D.: I have been doing a great deal of work in ID over the past few years -- and have given presentations of my work in universities, both in Canada and the USA, that are well attended by both students and faculty. I have been very surprised by the fact that no significant objections to the evidence I present are being raised in these venues. I never bash Darwinism, I simply show them the positive evidence for ID -- and it goes over very well indeed.

I am currently working on a paper dealing with functional information, under the guidance of a professor in bioinformatics who wants to see my work published. It will be very low-key, mentioning nothing about ID, yet laying the groundwork for some major advances in this field -- if it is, by some miracle, accepted for publication.