Evolution under fire? -- Part 2

By David F. Dawes

For the previous interview in this series, click here.

CanadianChristianity.com: Does the general public realize the extent to which evolutionary theory is under attack by people with legitimate scientific and scholarly credentials?

Denyse O'Leary: Well, how could they? Darwinism is the orthodoxy of textbooks. It is the staple of TV science programs. In the United States, it is even protected by law.

I only discovered how much trouble Darwinism was in when I took a year out of my life -- late 2002 to late 2003 -- to study the situation. I was appalled. Darwinism has nothing like the support that we are accustomed to for theories in physics or chemistry.

CC.com: There is a crucial distinction between 'micro-evolution' (physical changes within a single species) and 'macro-evolution' (transformation from one species into another). Do you think there is sufficient awareness of the fact that there is no concrete evidence for macro-evolution?

D.O.: First, we need to distinguish between two ideas: Darwinism and macro-evolution. Darwinism says that evolution occurs as a result of the natural laws of physics and chemistry acting on purely random mutations in organisms. The origin and development of life is explained entirely in this way. The main driver (not necessarily the only one) is natural selection. Natural selection means that only those organisms that survive and breed leave offspring, so their traits are passed on. All other drivers -- for example, constraints on development -- are equally the outcome of law and chance.

Regarding macro-evolution: We know it happens. After all, there were trilobites in the Cambrian, but not horses. There are horses today but not trilobites. The unanswered question is -- how does it happen?

Theories of evolution have been proposed since the 18th century. Darwinism became the orthodoxy because it ruled out design. But it is not the only way of understanding evolution.

CC.com: The PBS special on evolution a few years ago was a clear demonstration that the theory is still deeply ingrained in scientific thought. Why does the scientific establishment (in a general sense) seem to be so determined to cling to evolutionary theory? How did this theory become so deeply entrenched as 'scientific' orthodoxy?

D.O.: Darwinism became entrenched because it eliminates design. Traditionally, three factors -- a sort of triangle -- accounted for creation and life: law -- what must happen; chance -- what might happen; and design -- art, engineering, intelligent design. Darwinism eliminated design from life forms. Design was merely an illusion. Life was really the outcome of law and chance.

Eliminating design enables a purely mechanistic world, which is easy for science to understand if -- and only if -- it is true. Is it true? Are the miracles of the cell and the eye, and the Cambrian Explosion really the result of blind chance, compelled by law? Of course not. Darwin knew nothing of these things. He was a clever man, but he had no idea what he was talking about. He lived and died before these wonders came to light.

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

D.O.: Yes and no. Many scientists are not happy with Darwinism. But Darwinism is more than a theory in science. It is the chief prop of an approach to science called methodological naturalism. Put simply, this approach means that law and chance are assumed to govern everything in the universe. In principle, design is ruled out.

The Big Bang theory and the discovery that Earth is a favoured planet -- not a mediocre one -- have dealt serious blows to this idea in physics and chemistry. When the COBE satellite confirmed the Big Bang, physicists were shouting that they had seen 'the face of God.' Stephen Hawking has nonetheless been trying to avoid God for decades, but does not appear to have succeeded.

Don't expect scientists to admit this. They don't like it, and are looking for a way to avoid it. It is a very unwelcome discovery.

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

D.O.: No. And they would be the last ones to do so. They have to please a variety of stakeholders, and the good union joes are still solidly behind Darwinism. To be fair, they have seldom had a chance to look at what is wrong with it. It won't be the establishment's fault if they do get a chance.

CC.com: To what extent has the Intelligent Design (ID) movement given added credibility to creationist views? Is ID making serious inroads into the scientific, educational and philosophical establishments? Specifically, do you know if much is happening in Canada, in this regard?

D.O.: Intelligent design is not a form of creationism. Creationism can be seen as a form of intelligent design, in that it identifies a designer. However, intelligent design simply argues that design is real, not apparent. Not everything that looks like design is in fact design. The frost patterns on the window are law and chance, not design. On the other hand, the origin of life forms continues to defy any explanation other than design.

I doubt that much is happening in Canada. Advocating intelligent design is costly even in the United States, where minority views are more easily tolerated. My book features lots of stories of people who have suffered career damage simply for saying that they believe that Darwinism is not true.

Ironically, one of Darwin's strongest supporters, Thomas Huxley, warned that Darwinism might become an ignorant superstition one day -- and it has.

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?

D.O.: Actually, I very much doubt that belief in 'evolutionary theory' is crumbling. I certainly hope it isn't. After all, 31 phyla appeared in the Precambrian era . . . and of these, nine are extinct. Of the surviving ones, many have diversified remarkably -- vertebrates are a good example.

It is interesting to reflect that we humans have the same basic body plan as frogs, snakes, dinosaurs, and birds. We need some explanation for where we are today, that takes into account our planet's past.

On the other hand, the evidence from embryology shows that, while we have the same five-digit limb as they do, we do not get it by the same embryology path. That is not what Darwinism would lead us to expect. There are many remarkable puzzles waiting to be solved.

My prediction is that design will be restored as a normal part of our understanding of the universe, just as it was before Darwinism appeared in the 1850s. Thus, evolution will be seen as, in part, a function of design.

That, of course, leads inevitably to talk about God in biology. That's okay, really. Physicists have been doing it for decades. It didn't stop them from doing good science. It didn't stop Newton or Kelvin. It won't hurt biology either.

God does not tell us how he does things. He makes us find out all by ourselves.

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?

D.O.: Let's see . . . One Darwinist, encountering the Burgess Shale (where 31 phyla appeared suddenly) suggested that maybe it can all be explained by assuming that the Burgess creatures evolved eyes. Eyes explain all the complexity, he said. They enabled the complex evolution. The trouble with his idea is, what explains eyes?

Vision is a fantastically complex ability, quite apart from the eyes that enable vision cells to function. The eyes are complex too, but that is a separate story.

How did the complex vision cells start? Darwinism asks us to believe that, by accident, most of the Burgess creatures hit on this incredible series of steps at once, even though the creatures are so unrelated that they are put in different phyla by taxonomists. But some creatures never even developed vision and got on just fine. How is that?

After a while, I realized that the Darwinist simply needed to believe that there is no design. There is a huge investment in this sort of thing in our society. Many people simply cannot afford to see the design. They keep looking for chance, and it isn't there.