The Globe and Mail, Friday, November 17, 2000
In defence of creationism
Don't be quick to condemn Stockwell Day
for his belief in creationism,
says JONATHAN WELLS. There's lots of evidence of an intelligent hand
at
work
By Jonathan Wells
Until recently, many people thought the debate over Darwinian evolution
was confined mainly to the Bible belt of the United States. But on
Wednesday, Canadian Alliance Leader Stockwell Day remarked that, "There
is
scientific support for both creationism and evolution." He and other
Alliance members have supported teaching alternatives to Darwinism
in
Canadian schools. There has been a predictable knee-jerk public and
media
backlash, but instead of rushing to condemn Mr. Day, Canadians should
be
having an open discussion about alternatives to Darwinism.
According to the prevailing view, Darwin's theory is supported by
overwhelming evidence and accepted by all knowledgeable biologists.
It is
opposed only by ignorant fundamentalists, who prefer a literal
interpretation of Genesis to the clear findings of modern science.
This stereotype is seriously misleading. The truth is that Darwinian
evolution is in deep trouble with the scientific community, and a growing
number of scientists now consider it inadequate as an explanation for
the
origin and history of life.
Darwin's theory is that all living things are related by descent from
a
common ancestor. The differences among them, according to the theory,
were
produced by natural selection (survival of the fittest), acting on
random
variations. High school students are taught that the first part of
this
theory (common ancestry) is a scientific fact, while the second part
(natural selection acting on random variations) is a well-supported
theory.
But most biology textbooks neglect to inform students that all the major
groups of animals appeared at about the same time, in a geological
period
known as the Cambrian, rather than diverging from a common ancestor,
as
evolution implies. Darwin knew about this, and considered it a "serious"
problem for his theory, but he thought that the problem would go away
as
more fossils were found. Yet continued fossil collecting has only made
the
problem worse, and most experts now think the "Cambrian explosion"
was
even more dramatic than Darwin realized. Some call it biology's "big
bang."
Considering this, it seems reasonable to conclude that the common ancestry
of all living things is not necessarily a fact. It doesn't even look
like
a well-supported hypothesis.
As for Darwin's mechanism of natural selection acting on random variations:
No one doubts that this occurs, though its observed effects are trivial.
The classic textbook example involves light- and dark-coloured moths.
Students are taught that since well-camouflaged moths are less likely
to
be eaten by predatory birds, dark moths become more plentiful in polluted
woodlands where tree trunks have been darkened by soot.
Even if this is true, a growing number of biologists question whether
it
can account for the major changes we see in the history of life.
At the very least, our students deserve to be taught the truth about
the
so-called "evidence" for Darwinian evolution. They also deserve to
hear
about alternative theories.
Despite the stereotype that the only alternative to Darwinian evolution
is
a literal interpretation of Genesis, there are other options -- including
what many U.S. scientists refer to as "intelligent-design theory."
According to intelligent-design theory, some features of living things
cannot be explained as products of law and chance, but could have been
produced only by an intelligent designer.
Baylor University mathematician William Dembski has formalized this
argument in a 1998 book, The Design Inference, published by Cambridge
University Press. Mr. Dembski argues that we always infer design when
we
encounter "specified complexity" -- by which he means something that
is
very unlikely (complex) that also conforms to an independent pattern
(specification).
For example, suppose that a person drops a handful of small stones on
the
ground. The arrangement formed by those stones will be quite complex
-- it
is very unlikely that the same pattern would result if the action were
repeated.
Yet the complexity would not lead to an inference that the pattern was
designed. On the other hand, if those same stones were arranged on
the
ground in letters and words, spelling out a Shakespearean sonnet, a
person
would reasonably infer design.
Mr. Dembski argues that when this concept of specified complexity is
applied to living things, it leads to the inference that some aspects
of
them are designed. He stresses that this is not natural theology --
that
is, he is not arguing that design tells us what we may want to know
about
the designer, much less that the designer is the God of the Bible.
Instead, Mr. Dembski argues, the design inference merely opens a door
to
possible theological interpretations -- a door that Mr. Day is comfortable
opening.
In a slightly different approach, Lehigh University biochemist Michael
Behe lists features of cells, such as the whip-like flagellum that
propels
a bacterium through a fluid, which he calls "irreducibly complex."
Mr.
Behe argues that such features could not be assembled piecemeal through
Darwinian natural selection, because they are made of constituents
that
have no function until they are all present in the finished product.
Whether or not intelligent-design theory -- or some other alternative
--
will replace Darwinian evolution remains to be seen. But the controversy
is unlikely to go away -- particularly when so much of the "evidence"
for
Darwinian evolution is missing.
Should we so quickly dismiss Mr. Day's beliefs? Should Canadian students
continue to be indoctrinated in Darwin's theory by textbooks that ignore
or distort the scientific evidence? Or should they be taught the truth
about the evidence, and permitted to consider alternative theories?
These
questions deserve the thoughtful attention of all Canadians interested
in
the quality of science education.
Jonathan Wells has a PhD in biology from the University of California
at
Berkeley, and is currently a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute
in
Seattle. He is the author of Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?
Copyright 2000 | The Globe and Mail
http://www.globeandmail.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letters, The Globe & Mail
Chicken and egg theory
BARRY BROWN
Monday, November 20, 2000
London, Ont. -- Jonathan Wells suggests that
creationism should not be dismissed from
science education in Canada. It is, he
suggests, a respectable alternative to
Darwinian evolution, which is in "deep trouble
with the scientific community." Both of these
suggestions are incorrect.
Creationism is not science. Almost all
religions have a creation myth, a story
developed before science to account for how
the Earth came to be. The myths were not
developed from evidence. They are forms of
poetry designed to give human meaning to an
inexplicable world. The task of science is to
explain the existence of intelligence and design in
the world. A belief that assumes the prior existence
of an intelligent designer explains nothing and is
not science.
The constellation of theories referred to as
evolution, on the other hand, represent
science at its best: theories with enormous
explanatory power developed from the
evidence and, like any scientific theory,
capable of refutation by other evidence. Dr.
Wells offers two reasons to doubt evolution's
accuracy. One is the flowering of life in the
Cambrian period. Mr. Wells makes it sound
as though most species came into being over
a short period of time and, therefore, could
not be descended from a common ancestor.
But the Cambrian period lasted for over 70
million years. However many species
developed over this span, it is hardly a sound
basis to leap to the conclusion that only the
supernatural can explain life on Earth.
Dr. Wells then offers the argument for design.
Although differently clothed, this is the same
argument demolished by David Hume 250
years ago. Evolution can account for highly
designed systems such as eyes and minds. No
designer is necessary. Only those whose
religious beliefs require a role for a
supernatural being continue to insist that there
must be facts that science can never explain.
Dr. Wells and Stockwell Day are, of course,
free to hold whatever religious beliefs they
choose. But those beliefs must not be
confused with science and must not be
allowed into our science courses. They are
the very antithesis of science: a declaration
that science, by definition, cannot explain the
world.
Chicken and egg theory
GUILLERMO BARRON
Monday, November 20, 2000
Edmonton -- I read with growing
disheartenment Jonathan Wells' spirited, but
ineffectual, defence of creationism (In
Defence Of Creationism -- Nov. 17).
Dr. Wells' argument, despite its "scientific"
merits, is a timeworn one. It goes like this:
The various parts of living organisms are
functional and complex, but functional
complexity can't arise by itself from mere
chance and natural law, nor can it simply pop
out of nowhere. Things which look designed
must obviously have a designer.
Nice enough, so far, but look at this: This
designer, if it created all life, must also be at
least as functionally complex as its creations. Then
-- by the creationists' own argument -- the designer
must also have a sufficient cause for its existence,
a designer which designed the designer. And whence
this designer?
Creationists airily reply that, obviously, the
designer could simply create himself. But this
isn't obvious at all. And it denies the very
claim -- that complex functional things don't
pop out of nowhere -- that the creationists
relied on in the first place.
Sure, scientists haven't solved all of
evolution's puzzles. Maybe, given the vast
scope of time involved, they never will.
But creationists don't even have a chance of
explaining how a designer could engineer its
own existence. The evidence for evolution
may be controversial, but the evidence for
self-creation is simply non-existent.
Chicken and egg theory
MARIE-ODILE MARCEAU
Monday, November 20, 2000
North Vancouver, B.C. -- Jonathan Wells
wrote an uncovincing defense of creationism.
As an open-minded person, I welcome the
formulation of new theories that may add to
our knowledge of what are still the mysteries
of life. As a parent, however, I would be
furious if undemonstrated theories had the
same status in our education system as
theories that are logical, substantiated and
overwhelmingly supported by our scientific
community. If creationism is to have its place
in our education system, its proponents need
to convince us with the scientific evidence and
truth Dr. Wells refers to but still does not
provide.
Oryginal:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Wells, Letter to the Editor of Toronto Globe and Mail.
Dear Mr. -----,
Thank you for publishing my op-ed on Darwinian evolution and intelligent
design in Friday's Globe and Mail.
Given the short time we had to write and edit the piece, it's not
surprising that some inaccuracies crept in. For the record, I
would like
to correct them.
First, the title which you added ("In Defence of Creationism") has
apparently misled some readers into thinking that I defend "young-earth
creationism" -- the view that the earth is only a few thousand years
old.
In fact, I am not a young-earth creationist. My comments are
limited to
criticizing the evidence for Darwinian evolution, defending the evidence
that some features of living things are intelligently designed, and
supporting the consideration of alternative theories.
Second, I originally wrote that "Darwinian evolution is in deep trouble
with the scientific evidence." In the published version, "evidence"
is
replaced with "community." While the former is correct, the latter
is not
-- at least, not yet.
Third, some of the references to Mr. Day that you added -- while
understandable given the desirability of placing my remarks in the
context
of current events -- have apparently given readers the impression that
I
endorse all of Mr. Day's views on evolution and creation. But
other than
agreeing with Mr. Day's support for considering alternatives to Darwinism,
I take no position on his views.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.
Discovery Institute, Seattle