Intelligent Design versus Natural Selection

The controversy is not over evolution, but over the means by which it happened. The crux of the issue is not evolution, but teleology.

The concept of evolution existed at the time when Darwin published his “The Origins of the Species” in the nineteenth century. The existing concept was akin to what is called microevolution these days. According to this concept, evolutionary changes do occur in time within a given species but the species does not change inherently. For example, the dogs although develop evolutionary changes in time but they still remain fundamentally dogs; they do not evolve into another species (by macroevolution). What Darwin formulated was a revolutionary concept, which he called theory of natural selection. According to this theory, life on this planet evolved from a single ancestor. The diversity of life forms that we observe around us is due to different species evolving from the host species by small changes that occurred every generation and accumulated into major effects transforming a mutation of the host species into a different one. This process is continuous so that discernable evolutionary transformations occur over a long period of time. Consequently, on the ladder of evolution by natural selection, man’s immediate predecessor, for example, was chimpanzee that evolved from a monkey and earlier mutations.

This was very unpalatable to the traditional religionists who believed that the humans were the noblest and most preferred creation of God. Earth, the planet inhabited by the humans, had a special place in God’s scheme of creation; it was the center of the universe around which all the planets revolved.

Within this intellectual backdrop, Darwin’s theory created an unprecedented furore. The clergy and the church turned upon him and the other evolutionists who supported his concept and took them harshly to task. Their criticism was not always courteous and disciplined; some of their critical and intended derogatory remarks have now become historical (see Note at the end).

Even after the passage of more than a century, theory of natural selection continues to be hotly debated although the criticism has now become more sober and disciplined. The scientists have not found any reason to abandon the theory; every new discovery in biology, genetics, molecular biology, and the other associated fields of inquiry seems to enhance and add support to the basic tenet of the theory of natural selection. It is true though that the scientists have not yet produced a knock out punch, which would put the ongoing debate to rest. For instance, theory of relativity was contentious in the beginning and many renowned physicists did not accept it. In due time, empirical evidence accumulated to such an extent in its support that the theory of relativity could not be refuted. The same goes for theory of quantum mechanics.

There is no similar development in the theory of natural selection. In fact, this is one of the reasons that natural selection is so severely criticized. The antagonists claim that the theory does not make any predictions and is therefore not falsifiable. Whatever new facts are discovered, theory adjusts itself to them. But then nothing has yet been discovered either which would refute the theory definitively. The bag of arguments offered on both sides is a blend of scientific facts, philosophical arguments and the extrapolated inferences. Some basic things have changed though in favor of the theory.

Previously, the creation story included in the Bible was the immutable word of God for the religionists. Now it is hardly mentioned. It is now generally accepted by majority of the people that the world was not created in six days. Also it is generally accepted that the world is not recent as it was previously contended. The creationists however stick to their position that creation of man was an act of God according to a plan, which they call the intelligent design. This is typically epitomized as follows:

“The Church insists that man is not an accident; that no matter how He went about creating Homo sapiens, God from all eternity intended that man and all creation exist in their present form. Catholics are not obliged to square scientific data with the early verses of Genesis, whose truths – and they are truths, not myths – are expressed in an archaic, pre-scientific Hebrew idiom; and they can look forward with enjoyment and confidence to modern scientific discoveries, which more often than not, raise fundamental questions, which science itself cannot answer,” http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals?Issues/Darwin.html.


Recent Status of the Controversy

So much has been written on Darwin’s theory, both pro and con, ever since it was formulated that it becomes very difficult for a beginner to understand the respective viewpoints clearly. Initially, the theologians believed in the letter of the Genesis text in the Bible according to which God created the world including the stars, planets, and Earth with all kinds of animal and vegetative life in it, just in six days. The land animal life including man was created on the sixth day. On the fifth day, the whales and fishes were created. According to Genesis, 1:21, “And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” Note “after their (his) kind.” This seems to exclude (macro)evolutionary transformation. Lastly, God created man in his image. Lest there be any doubt about six days, the Bible says that God rested on the seventh day. Since man was created in Godly image, the idea of transformation of a mutation of an ape into a human (homo sapien) through evolution by natural selection was simply abominable, to say the least.

Later on, however, many theologians didn’t find the idea of evolution so repulsive and they started believing in microevolution; such of them are now called theistic evolutionists. But the crux of the issue, macroevolution through natural selection, is still moot.

The scientists have produced the results of genetic research, which show that homo sapien sapien (evolved form of homo sapien, i.e., the modern man) is only marginally different genetically from a chimp. They interpret this result as transformation of a chimp mutant into a human, over a period of thousands and thousands of years. The antagonists insist that chimps are chimps and cannot evolve into a homo sapien.

The thread of the debate is frequently lost in linguistic fineness and it invariably degenerates into a metaphysical discussion. Writing under “Doubts about Darwinism”, (Chapter 12, Darwinism: Science or Philosophy), Peter van Inwagen stated, “I accept the thesis that natural selection is one of the mechanisms connected with the existence of biological diversity. It has certainly been demonstrated that natural selection is a real phenomenon, a mechanism that actually operates in nature, and I see no reason to doubt that it is at least among the causal ‘inputs’ that have produced the diversity of terrestrial life.” He appears here to support natural selection but leaves a loophole in his statement by qualifying ‘..that natural selection is one of the mechanisms..’ thus allowing for other mechanisms also which can cause evolutionary changes. Then he went on to state, “I am not sure that a true amphibian, say, could be descended from a true fish across a few score thousands of generations by the small steps that Darwinism allows.” This kind of duplicitous mindset pervades among the debaters. One of his concluding statements read, “Like St. Augustine, I am not a literalist about the first three chapters of Genesis. Writing early in fifth century, Augustine held that the six ‘days’ of creation in Genesis were not meant to be taken as literal twenty-four hour days, but were a rhetorical figure used to describe six aspects of creation. He held that in the beginning the world contained much less actual order that it does today, and that the order we observe in the world evolved – that is, ‘unfolded’ – out of the potential order that God had placed in the things at the moment of creation.”

Rebutting Inwagen, Frederick Grinnell wrote, “..it does not surprise me that Professor Inwagen has noticed the variable meanings and implications of Darwinism. Like much of science, understanding Darwinism requires us to use our imagination in novel ways that go beyond everyday experience….
The situation is like trying to explain to some one who has never seen a red object what the color red looks like. Simply telling the person about the physical events involved in seeing red color – that is, light of a certain wavelength interacts with pigments in the photoreceptors of an observer’s eye, etc. – misses entirely the sense of personal experience of redness.”

The preceding observations are typical yet not very definitive of the debate that is raging between the evolutionists and creationists. Both parties interpret the scientific data from their own vantage point and seek support for their respective positions. But it is only the scientists who collect such data not only to refute the creationists but to do what they normally do, namely, to advance the frontiers of human knowledge.

The modern theory of evolution is substantially different from the one propounded by Darwin because he did not have the benefit of the research results in genetics and DNA, which were not developed at that time. But the mechanism of natural selection that Darwin suggested remains central to all the modern theories. His basic idea thus seems to be correct.

How Much Different are the Chimps from Humans?

..for most non-scientists, evolution is about macroevolution and the changes by which reptiles become mammals or fish become land dwelling tetra pods is more to the point than how moths or beetles become different colored moth or beetle. We can now merge developmental genetics and population genetics to explain the biodiversity of life on earth, (http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/articles/dembski.html)

The chimps were considered to be immediate ancestors (hominids) of humans even when there were no definitive genetic and DNA evidence to support this relationship. Studies conducted in the closing years of the twentieth century have shed light on the genetic closeness of humans to the chimps.

According to “Random Mutation and Intelligent Design Hypothesis,” (http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/articles/dembski.html), “The genetic distance between chimp and human is quite small, and the distance is even smaller between either of them and their common ancestor. In fact one study produced evidence that suggested the chimp and man genomes were nearer to each other than either of them (is) to the gorilla genome.” Does it suggest mutated transformation from one species to another? The scientists believe that it does.

In another article “Pinpointing how humans differ from Apes,” (http://www.post-gazette.com/healthscience/19980923apes4.asp ), Michael Woods asserted, “Scientists have recognized since the 1970s that humans and chimpanzees, for instance, differ genetically by the slimmest margin. About 98.5% of the genes in humans and chimps are identical. The human genome consists of anywhere from 60,000 to 100,000 genes. Thus only 900 to 1500 genes set humans apart from the rest of the animal kingdom (chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas, author) in their ability to speak, write, reason, create complex technology, philosophize, strive to ethical and moral ideals and other distinctly human traits.” The leap from chimps to humans is a leap from micro- to macroevolution; it is extrapolation from micro- to macroevolution. The gap may be bridged with the help of developmental genetics.

According to Scott Gilbert,” Having established that evolution (genetic changes in species over time) happens, we can then show how evolution can be explained genetically through mutation, recombination, meiotic drive, and drift. This genetic explanation of evolution is called the Modern Synthesis. However, this model (does) not tell us all about evolution. First, it assumes but does not explain, the types of variation; and second, it can be tested only within the species. Macroevolution has to be extrapolated from it. If genetics is “Darwin’s missing evidence,” then only part of this evidence is being used. Until recently, the only areas of genetics that were brought to evolutionary biology were population genetics and molecular genetics. What was missing – and what can now be added – is developmental genetics.”

Concluding Remarks

One of the arguments, which the creationists (such as Phillip Johnson, author of “Darwin on Trial”, for example) have used against Darwin’s theory, is that it is not scientific because it is not falsifiable. On this basis, they claim the creationist science should be allocated equal time in school curricula. For a theory to be falsifiable, it should be capable of making testable predictions. The argument is that the theory of natural selection doesn’t make testable predictions at the macroevolution level.

The micro changes that are responsible in creating a random mutant occur over a period of several generations and are not reproducible in the laboratory, at present at least. This is a situation similar to that of the string theory in quantum mechanics. The string theory is also not directly testable in laboratory or by actual observations in the universe. There is however indirect evidence that it might unify all the fundamental forces of nature and if it does, there may be methods of testing its veracity. Many physicists have staked their careers in this hope and are working ceaselessly on string theory. Science has progressed without any help or direction from Popperian criterion of falsification and it will continue to do so.

In the mean time, Darwin’s theory continues to attract discussion and criticism from all directions. Phillip Johnson, a law professor who was a clerk to Chief Justice Earl Warren, wrote a book called “Darwin on Trial” from a creationist’s viewpoint. The book drew lot of discussion of all sorts. Philip Johnson not only criticizes the evolutionists but also the theistic evolutionists. He wrote (Darwinism: Science or Philosophy, Chapter 4), “The name (theistic evolutionists) implies that they consider evolution to be a process initiated and guided by God, presumably to bring about the existence of human beings. My impression is that most theistic evolutionists in their hearts think of evolution as God’s chosen means of creation, although in their heads they know that the concept is more a form of ‘soft creationism’ than genuine evolutionism as Darwinist scientists use the term.” Responding to Johnson’s comments, Owen Gingerich who is a scientist at Harvard-Smithosonian Center of Astrophysics wrote:

“..the theory of evolution requires two basic elements: variation and selection. Darwin was greatly baffled as to how variation could arise, and his theory was rejected in many scientific quarters until a much greater understanding of genetics, and ultimately of the chemical basis of genetics, was achieved. There still is no satisfactory detailed mechanism for producing large enough, non-lethal variation of the DNA to produce a new species in a single jump, and it remains an act of faith on the part of evolutionists that there is some way for it to have happened bit by bit. As a Christian theist, I believe that this is part of God’s design. Whether God designed the universe at the outset so that the appropriate mechanisms could arise in the course of time, or whether God gives an occasional timely input is something that science, by its very nature, will probably never be able to fathom. But as a scientist, I accept evolution as the appropriate explanatory structure to guide research into the origins and affinities of the kingdoms of living organisms.”

It will be quite a while before the dust settles down and the status of theory of evolution by natural selection becomes clearer and is universally accepted. The burden of proof, as always, is on the scientists. One thing is however certain and quite reassuring. If there were any fundamental flaws in the theory of natural selection, the scientists would have cast it off because it is their business to construct reliable theories which withstand the test of empirical evidence. Any scientist who brings forth a better theory than natural selection will be considered a revolutionary scientist by his compeers. The scientists do not adhere to a wrong theory out of misplaced devotion. History of science bears witness to this fact.

I will end this essay with a quotation from Ernst Mayr’s book, Evolution and the Diversity of Life.” In the Introduction of this book, Mayr wrote under the title of “Darwin Vindicated” as follows:
“The situation is made worse when physical scientists and mathematicians attempt to ‘prove’ by calculations that Darwinian model will not work. Many philosophers, perhaps the majority, including such a distinguished person as Karl Popper, are still holding out (The book was published in 1976 when Popper was alive, Gill). Well-read, well-educated lay people like the jurist Macbeth show in their writings how little they understand the Darwinian theory.
All the evolutionist can do in the face of such resistance is to attempt again and again to explain the nature of the Darwinian argument, analyzing it down to its basic components and citing the evidence supporting the argument.”

Note
The following is an extract from “The Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley” regarding the historical Huxley – Wilberforce Debate at Oxford in 1860.
“The Bishop (Wilberforce) spoke thus "for full half an hour with inimitable spirit, emptiness and unfairness." "In a light, scoffing tone, florid and fluent, he assured us there was nothing in the idea of evolution; rock pigeons were what rock pigeons had always been. Then, turning to his antagonist with a smiling insolence, he begged to know, was it through his grandfather or his grandmother that he claimed his descent from a monkey?"
………….
………… ;…………..
On this (continues the writer in Macmillan’s Magazine) Mr. Huxley slowly and deliberately arose. A slight tall figure, stern and pale, very quiet and very grave, he stood before us and spoke those tremendous words - words which no one seems sure of now, nor, I think, could remember just after they were spoken, for their meaning took away our breath, though it left us in no doubt as to what it was. He was not ashamed to have a monkey for his ancestor; but he would be ashamed to be connected with a man who used great gifts to obscure the truth. No one doubted his meaning, and the effect was tremendous. One lady fainted and had to be carried out; I, for one, jumped out of my seat. The fullest and probably most accurate account of these concluding words is the following, from a letter of the late John Richard Green, then an undergraduate, to his friend, afterwards Professor Boyd Dawkins:
I asserted - and I repeat - that a man has no reason to be ashamed of having an ape for his grandfather. If there were an ancestor whom I should feel shame in recalling it would rather be a man - a man of restless and versatile intellect - who, not content with an equivocal success in his own sphere of activity, plunges into scientific questions with which he has no real acquaintance, only to obscure them by an aimless rhetoric, and distract the attention of his hearers from the real point at issue by eloquent digressions and skilled appeals to religious prejudice.”