Darwin’s Paradigm is Crumbling

Before I start I wish to tell you that I am not interested in invading your privacy since this article will probably cause some of you to rethink your belief system.  I am more interested in inoculating the people who are willing to explain away the implications of Darwin’s theory.  I have attempted to keep this article fairly simple and short without there being a necessity for you do some serious research.  I have nothing against the man known as Darwin.  I have something against what people have done with his theory and how it has influenced the minds of various people.  If you believe that reason is a pathway to truth then, I would encourage you to read on.

According to philosopher Daniel Dennett, Darwinism is and has been viewed as a universal acid.  Obviously the ramifications of the theory have not just been permeated throughout science but in political and social arenas as well.

http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/dennett.htm

You maybe asking, who does this guy think he is by challenging evolution and also think he is correct?

First of all, I can’t claim responsibility for changing the paradigm.  Some of the researchers from the intelligent design - I.D. movement are doing this quite well.  They are to be commended for their brilliant work and risking ridicule from mainstream science and possibly threats from various powers.

Secondly, there is science and there are authors of books with controversial information.  A book that was written solely upon scientifc principles would be boring.  Let's distinguish the difference.  I do not have permission to cut and paste quotes straight out of their books.  But here are some quotes that state almost the same things.

“Evolution is true.” or “Evolution is the only theory, in principle, that explains how we got here.”  However, look at this link below.

 http://www.tki.org.nz/r/science/science_is/nos/theme_19_change_e.php

All science knowledge is, in principle, is subject to change.

You see, various theories within science, in principle, shouldn't be seen as the truth.  A theory explains something until another theory comes along and an explains it better than the other one. 

Here is another quote they might use. “Once you credit supernatural causations for explaining phenomena, you effectively shut down all inquiry.  Why would we question anything if God did it?”

It would be true that citing a supernatural explanation would leave the realm of science.  The reality is there are many people who would do their best to explain away any explanation that infers the supernatural.

Neo-Darwinism

Let's look at the basic formula for neo-Darwinism.

Random mutations + natural selection = evolution

Neo-Darwinism can be a convincing theory when it is explained in terms of gross anatomy.  However, neo-Darwinism MUST be able to be understood and articulated at the molecular level because, random mutations occur at the molecular level and changes are made from it.

I believe neo-Darwinism makes sense because it is a reconstruction of the shadows of what happened with an earthly twist.  As you follow this article, you will see that this ‘secular twist’ just doesn’t make sense.

First, I want you to think about Darwin’s formula from the perspective of two possibilities that attempt to explain how life arrived.  Let’s put neo-Darwinism on the left side and put young earth creationism on the right side.  Remember that quote that says that evolution is the only theory that can explain how life evolved?  I guess some people didn’t read or believe that quote because there are other theories you probably haven’t heard of that attempt to explain it also.

Some other theories that have been proposed and discussed within the scientific community are evolution by symbiogenesis (Lynn Margulis), biological self-organization (Stuart Kauffman), evolution through natural genetic engineering (James Shapiro), evolution by intelligent design (Michael Behe), and creationism (Leonard Brand).  We now have a spectrum of theories between one side and the other.

These six theories can be categorized (starting from the left) from most naturalistic theory we know as neo-Darwinism to the most supernatural explanation (on the right) known as creationism.

It is important to understand that once you leave the left side of the spectrum where accidents and randomness occur you have to have some sort of organization.  You don’t even have to leave the realm of randomness.  You can mix ‘guided’ with ‘random’ and throw a monkey wrench into the neo-Darwin equation.

Symbiogenesis and biological self-organization are the next logical steps once randomness is left behind.  Michael Behe has referenced these theories in his two books.  I have not researched them much because, although both of these theories explain some things, they apparently haven’t been able to explain other things.  And these theories have critics from both the scientific and the I.D. communities.  So if organization doesn’t explain life’s origins, then what does?

The next logical step would be ‘guided’.  And guided is a word that is taboo to many liberal evolutionists.

Why I Think Neo-Darwinism is Based on Faith

In recent decades a whole new world of biochemistry was opened.  Thanks to advances in technology, biochemists have been able to study and tinker with microscopic systems.  They tinker with them because they want to know how they work.  It would be one thing to view an engine of an automobile and another to know how it would work.  According to biochemists, we are dealing with biochemical machines.  Biochemists have discovered complexities that scientists from Darwin’s era were completely unaware of starting with the DNA molecule.  Neo-Darwinism was formulated without the participation of biochemistry because biochemistry was founded after that time.

To give you some ideas of how unlikely neo-Darwinism was responsible for the evolution of life, let’s first look at the HIV virus.  The mutation rate of this virus is about 10,000 times faster than the cell!  Some people are naturally immune to it because their immune systems somehow burn the bridges the virus uses to invade a certain cell.  Even though it mutates at incredible evolutionary speeds and becomes resistant to various drug cocktails.  Also, the virus hasn’t found another type of protein to bond with and it hasn’t found a way to defeat the immune systems of some people who are immune from it.

The reason why some microbes mutate at a much faster rate than more advanced organisms is because the genome has sophisticated error correction mechanisms that actively prevent mutations.  Don’t get me wrong, mutations do get by the systems but, even if an error gets by, it still has to be the right type of mutation to be recognized by natural selection.  Natural selection will not preserve it if it isn’t recognized.  Even if the error points in the right direction, would the mutation be signifigant enough to be recognized?  In certain cases it is.  An example would be the sickle cell.  However, this is an example where the neo-Darwin explanation didn’t triumph in the best theoretical way because we know that the sickle cell has detrimental effects.

You can also look at this from another perspective.  Are there any nutritionists out there who believe that mutations caused by toxins and a lack of antioxidants would lead to something that would benefit individuals?  Perhaps it is theoretically possible but, it is certainly not within the framework of beneficial advancements that would help individuals.   

We can compound my skepticism even further with the theory known as “punctuated equilibrium”.  This theory was founded in order to explain a fossil record that lacks a linear and gradual appearance.  In order for punctuated equilibrium to be true, there must have been rapid periods of evolution followed by periods of almost complete stasis because this appears to be the case in the fossil record.  Neo-Darwinism still has to explain those periods rapid evolution.

Irreducible Complexity

Michael Behe has written two fine books.  His books have been influential on the content of this article.  The first of them is titled “Darwin’s Black Box”.  This book introduced “irreducible complexity” to the public.  Irreducible structures such as the flagellum, cilium and some others have presented a daunting challenge to neo-Darwinism.  Michael Behe argues that these complex structures required ‘multiple coherent mutations’ for their existence.  The second book is called “The Edge of Evolution”.

Neo-Darwinism’s Last Ghasp

Jason Shapiro’s research led him to uncover a new theory known as natural genetic engineering.  You can read about it in the link below.

http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.ed.....eeting.pdf

This research shows us that the bulk of mutations are clearly not random since these findings can be observed over and over again. The question now becomes, where do miracles stop and where does I.D. begin?  There is one thing that appears to be clear, this research will lead to neo-Darwinism's last ghasp.

The immediate link above and more information about natural genetic engineering was found at the I.D. website below.

http://www.uncommondescent.com