Is Darwinism dying?

Creation of the Animals, by Tintoretto

By David F. Dawes

THE THEORY of evolution may be in big trouble, according to no less an authority than Charles Darwin.

"If it could be demonstrated," he once wrote, "that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, excessive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

The breaking down has begun, according to many critics of evolutionary theory -- who are more convinced than ever that Darwin's concept is destined for the slag heap of humanity's failed ideas.

In recent years, science has made great strides in understanding the immense intricacies of various organisms. "Inside every human cell sits a tiny encoded DNA coil five-thousandths of a millimeter in diameter -- which, if unfolded, would be one meter long," writes Jay Richards of the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based non-profit education foundation. "Even Bill Gates has observed: 'DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created.'"

Evolution theorist Charles Darwin

Bible under fire

Since the 1859 publication of Darwin's The Origin of Species, biblical creationism has been under fire and losing ground -- a process that escalated dramatically with the colorful 1925 Scopes 'Monkey Trial.'

Most creationists now generally accept what they call 'micro-evolution' -- physical changes evolving within a single species -- as scientifically provable. However, they reject the Darwinian concept of 'macro-evolution' -- transformation from one species into another -- and its underlying assumption that life on earth has developed through a random, unguided process of countless small mutations over millions of years.

At one time in North America, it was against the law to teach the theory of evolution. Now it is broadly unacceptable to teach, as scientific theory, anything but evolution as an explanation for the origins of the world and its inhabitants.

Evolution has become unquestioned scientific orthodoxy. In the process, attempts to link life's origins with anything beyond material causes have been written off as 'religious' -- and therefore, scientifically invalid.

But some observers believe evolutionary theory is on the defensive -- and slowly on the way out. The Intelligent Design (ID) movement is the chief weapon in this new offensive against Darwinism.

ID advocates generally do not address the Bible's creation account. Instead, they muster persuasive scientific arguments that the universe is intricately designed. The obvious implication is that, where there is a design, there is a transcendent Designer.

Irreducible complexity

One of the crucial ID concepts is "irreducible complexity." Biochemist Michael Behe introduced the theory in a key ID book, Darwin's Black Box. Behe states that an irreducibly complex biological system, such as the human cell, is made up of well-matched and interdependent parts. To function properly, all the parts must be present at the same time, fully-formed and in the right combination. ID argues that it is impossible for the separate parts to develop in isolation from each other, accumulating their essential characteristics one by one over a period of time, and then accidentally fuse together as a perfectly working organism.

Darwinian evolution is increasingly being called into question because of ideas like irreducible complexity. Over the past two decades books promoting ID -- by authors such as Behe, Phillip Johnson, Jonathan Wells, Michael Denton and William Dembski -- have created a sensation in Christian intellectual circles.

While ID has had its greatest impact in the U.S., Canadian evangelicals are becoming increasingly aware of its significance.

Ed Neeland, associate professor of chemistry at Okanagan University in Kelowna, expresses exasperation toward die-hard evolutionists who refuse to consider the design alternative. He compares them to detectives whose preconceived notions blind them to clear evidence. Even as they view a body that has been tied up and shot in the back, they are already convinced that the gunshot somehow caused itself.

"They will say that we don't understand how ropes can self-cut to length and self-knot . . . or how a bullet could be created without intelligent design and fired... But if you give us enough time, we will solve these problems." At what point, Neeland asks, "do you face the obvious and admit that the death was designed?"

"I think there's an increasing skepticism that's got the Darwinist community thoroughly alarmed," says Mark Hartwig, editor of Focus on the Family's Teachers in Focus magazine. "The reaction to the ID movement's success has been shrill, and marked by denial, intimidation and ad hominem [attacks]."

ID proponents believe they have struck a nerve in the body of evolutionary theory. Indeed, some observers believe that ID concepts have done more to discredit Darwinism -- and provide an alternative to it -- than most traditional creationist arguments.

Some creationists forcefully disagree. "The average Canadian has never heard of ID," says David Herbert, chairman of the London, Ontario-based Citizens Concerned about Education and Origins. He believes it is more effective to challenge the thinking of high school teachers by offering presentations that examine the underlying philosophical assumptions of both evolution and creationism. ID, he maintains, "is seen as an elitist, ivory tower thing. How much of it is filtering down into school boards and textbooks? I don't think it's made any impact in Canada. And I don't think it will."

Bad science?

"ID is just plain bad science," asserts Denis Lamoureux, an assistant professor of science and religion at St. Joseph's College in Alberta, who considers himself an "evolutionary creationist." An evangelical Christian, he has debated proponents of ID, such as Phillip Johnson. "I have known -- and have been friends with -- the main leaders since 1994, and I have yet to see a theory of origins outlined. If they are going to inspire a scientific revolution and usher in 'theistic science,' then they need to present a theory . . . ID anti-evolutionism is theologically motivated."

Ken Ham, president of Answers In Genesis, an organization which promotes the idea that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old, believes that ID proponents are only "adding some kind of intelligence to evolution, but it's still a secular viewpoint. They're not giving evidence of who the designer is. Speaking philosophically, their creator has to be an ogre, whose creation is full of mistakes, death and disease." ID advocates, he concludes, are "doomed to failure because they have no biblical perspective."

Ham's assertion "is a gross misrepresentation of ID," contends Kirk Durston, national director of the Ontario-based New Scholars Society, a Campus Crusade for Christ ministry made up of faculty members from Canadian universities. "I know many people involved in the ID movement who are young-earth creationists."

Not all creationists dislike ID, and some welcome its contribution to the battle against evolution. Ian Taylor is a Kingston, Ontario-based author who produces the internationally broadcast Creation Moments radio series. He believes ID "has had great impact in stirring the minds of people towards alternatives to godless evolution."

ID appeals to Christians who are uncomfortable with a literalist reading of Genesis. Believers who have stood in the middle ground of the debate, uncomfortable with both traditional creationism and the claims of Darwinism may feel that they can finally be a part of the creation/evolution debate, specifically because of the Intelligent Design movement.

Golden opportunity

Some creationists are missing a golden opportunity to support a key means of challenging evolution, according to Laurence Tisdall, president of the Creation Science Association of Quebec. "ID, instead of evolution or creation, is what should be presented in science classes, because it represents the limit of what observable science can tell us."

ID's low profile in this country is changing. Canadian evangelical Grant Jeffrey has released Creation: Remarkable Evidence of God's Design; late last year, he spoke on the topic several times on the 100 Huntley Street broadcast. An interview with Michael Behe was featured on Vision TV's Test of Faith.

More significantly, there is also a growing interest in the academic community. "I know quite a few university professors who are in the biological sciences, and who believe that ID was involved in some way," says Campus Crusade's Durston. "Very few of them, however, would want that to become public knowledge."

Durston has given ID presentations in both Canadian and American universities. "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."

The Canadian secondary school system is more resistant, according to Durston. But there are opportunities to share the ID message. Last spring a pro-evolution teacher invited him to make presentations at two Grade 13 biology classes. "The teacher was enthusiastic, and he would like to have me back again this year." Some critics of Darwinism are convinced that evolutionary theory is crumbling. Others believe that evolution is still too deeply entrenched to be disavowed. "I can provide you with a list of more than 450 individuals," says Tisdall, "who have been refused their PhD because they were creationists."

Every major university "has a whole faculty devoted to evolutionary biology," says Herbert. "There are jobs, textbooks and big money involved. There's a tremendous vested interest."

While evangelicals, especially in the face of ID's progress, may find this intransigence mystifying, O'Leary maintains that Darwinian evolutionists "simply [need] 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."

Darwin argued that something which cannot adapt to changing times and conditions simply cannot survive. That very thing may eventually happen to his theory of evolution.

Days are numbered

Mark Hartwig believes evolution's days are numbered. "Over 300 scientists have signed a public statement voicing skepticism about Darwinism, and urging schools to encourage a careful examination of the evidence. I think that's the tip of a good-sized iceberg."

If he is right, the implications are potentially staggering. If a significant enough portion of the scientific establishment accepts the design concept, it would involve rethinking everything from biology to evolutionary psychology. Hence, evolutionists will likely fight tenaciously to preserve their dominance in the educational establishment.

Evolutionary theory "is definitely in trouble in almost every discipline. It has every earmark of a religion in decline," says Creation Moments' Taylor. Some scientists "are feeling the winds of change and beginning to venture out beyond their constraining paradigm." However, he adds: "I do not think that evolution will ever be totally discredited, anymore than I believe that all men will accept Christ and creation."

O'Leary predicts that the design concept "will be restored as a normal part of our understanding of the universe, just as it was before Darwinism appeared." Evolution, she maintains, "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."

ID activists believe good science can be the grounds upon which creationists challenge their local school boards to include ID in science curriculums. Mark Hartwig says this strategy has had some success in the United States. He maintains there is "enormous public support for teaching alternative scientific theories."

American ID proponents are also considering legal challenges to evolution-only public education in their country. Francis J. Beckwith, author of Law, Darwinism and Public Education, asserts that a statute allowing ID teaching could be justified because allowing only evolutionary teaching is tantamount to "advocating, aiding, fostering and promoting irreligion, which . . . is constitutionally forbidden." He adds that it could also be legally argued that students should be exposed to "reputable scholarship that critiques evolution," and that "an ID statute protects the academic freedom of teachers and students."

Meanwhile, those who believe in ID also believe that their numbers will continue to swell; and Canadian proponents are watching the movement in the United States with interest.

"It is just so interesting that it's going to prove irresistible to scientists who aren't hardcore naturalists," says Mark Hartwig. "If ID becomes accepted as a legitimate scientific approach "the effects will be revolutionary -- and will lend great credibility to Christian thinking as a whole."