We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.On its surface, this list includes some seriously impressive credentials. Hell, I may be convinced to jump on the bandwagon and join the list, just to have my name appear beside such great minds and great titles. But forgot who has signed it for a moment. Whether it has 1 signature, or 1 million, let's examine what it really says [and what it doesn't].
Ok, let's start from the foundation--what is Darwinism? What is "Darwinian theory"?
Well, Webster.com defines Darwinism as:
a theory of the origin and perpetuation of new species of animals and plants that offspring of a given organism vary, that natural selection favors the survival of some of these variations over others, that new species have arisen and may continue to arise by these processes, and that widely divergent groups of plants and animals have arisen from the same ancestors; broadly : biological evolutionismOK. So which part of "Darwinism" do these scientists dissent from? Also, what is meant by "the complexity of life": abiogenesis, metabolism, reproduction, all of the above? According to their own statement, it is about "the complexity of life" being reduced to two mechanistic contributions--random mutation coupled to natural selection. This statement on its face has, in all honesty, no problem whatsoever...
Also, ask any biology professor, "Can random mutation and natural selection account for every aspect of every complex feature of every stage of life," and if your professor is a good one, he or she will answer, "Nope." Huh? Wassup? Development and abiogenesis fall completely outside of the realm of "pure Darwinism".
This statement leaves out the contributions to evolutionary biology which have developed since Darwin's time. See, Darwin published his book before Mendel's experiments were accepted (although they had been published), before biochemistry was known to any degree, before heredity was understood...etc. Sexual selection, genetic drift, some of these concepts are "new developments".
So what is necessary to invoke for some features? Like, for example, peacock feathers?? Other forms of selection, components such as ecological selection, or, with the peacock tail feathers, sexual selection...which is not related (so far as one can tell) on any surface level to "survivability" in an organism in one generation [they should make it more difficult, actually], but is obviously integral to the survival of genes. How do peacock feathers help the bird survive? They don't. They actually attract more predators, make locomotion more difficult, etc. But, it is this fact that "selects for" the fittest males. Why do they exist, and why are they so beautiful? The eye-catching effect on the females doesn't make sense until you consider that all female birds force males through a rigorous screening process -- to ensure the fitness of their mate.
Sexual selection, genetic drift, reproductive isolation, founder effect, bottlenecking...et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseum. There are many important concepts in evolutionary biology outside of simple "survival of the fittest", as one must consider fecundity and viability components of "fitness". Also, genetic mechanisms which are random (unselected)...genetic drift. None of those things were known by anyone in Darwin's day. For scientists today to look in Darwin's publication for a current definition of evolution is like physicists today looking in Newton's notebook for the measurements of gravity. Why then does "Darwinism", rather than "evolutionary theory", which incorporates these other concepts, preferred by the DI?
For Intelligent Design Creationism to want to stick to "Darwinism" and "Darwin's theory" is a political gimmick on their part for three reasons:
1) Darwin was one man, one scientist, who laid an all-important foundation down for evolutionary biology. However, he is still just one man, and he had some wrong notions. Using his name attempts to isolate a globally-accepted, modern theory which millions of experiments, from molecular biology to morphological analyses, and the entire geological record, have failed to falsify from the global context. This gimmick makes evolutionary biology seem much more fragile by pushing it back to one particular idea from one person at one time.
2) "-isms" are not used in any scientific theory. They are used for philosophical or pseudoscientific concepts only. In this way, Intelligent Design Creationists, Young Earth Creationists, and Old Earth Creationists want to avoid "Creationism" for Intelligent Design, and assign a parallel label to muddy the waters of evolutionary biology.
3) Darwinism is a hugely vague term. Its meanings can stretch from sociology to sociobiology to ethics to economics. By using "Darwinism" the Intelligent Design Creationists appeal to confusion and ignorance.
So this statement is a bit ironic: maybe these signers actually are better biologists than we suppose them for at first glance. After all, dissenting from Darwinism as the sole explanation for everything in "the complexity of life" is therefore not unscientific, per se, as I have just explained.
As for the second statement:
Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.Intelligent Design Creationists are charlatans. First, this begs two major questions:
1) Are they implying that this does not already occur? Does any scientist disagree with careful examination of evidence for, or against, any theory? Part of the distinguishing feature of science is the attempt to falsify paradigms in order to improve them.
2) What is "Darwinian theory"? Dare we conflate this phrase with "Common Descent from Universal Ancestors"? Again, the trick of these ID Creationists is to not be specific. People like Behe acknowledge common descent, after presumed "careful examination". This confuses what it actually being contested.
Since Intelligent Design Creationism is such a "big tent", attracting worldviews as disparate as the wholly unscientific Carl Baugh to the subtly, seductively pseudoscientific Dembski the real enemy becomes specifics. They wouldn't have two signatures on that list other than the "same ol' same ol'" bunch of YECs and OECs if they were willing to say, "common descent" in the place of "Darwin's theory" and "Darwinism". You wouldn't see nearly so many accomplished scientists, and you probably wouldn't see more than one or two life scientists.
Part of the political gaming here, part of the scheme, besides the Wedge, is forIntelligent Design Creationism to remain like YHWH, something whose name cannot be taken in vain because its subject is vague and uncertain. And they slip these important distinctions right by the uneducated and credulous.
________________
Technorati tags: Intelligent Design, Evolution, Creationism
