The Washington Times
www.washtimes.com

End of Darwinism?
Philip Gold
Aretea

Published 10/25/00

     In 1962, an historian of science named Thomas Kuhn published a book
titled, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." He argued that science
(and, when you get down to it, most everything else) works on the basis of
paradigms, of general notions of The Way It Is. Study concentrates on
validating, expanding, and tidying the dominant paradigm. Gradually,
however, anomalies, discrepancies and contradictions begin to accumulate.
The paradigm breaks down; another takes its place in a paradigm shift. The
process begins again. The Earth is the center of the universe. The sun is
the center of the universe. The universe has no center. And on and on.
     At the moment, the various paradigms provided by the scientists and
allegedly scientific thinkers of the 19th and early 20th century West are
failing: this is the necessary prelude to the next set of shifts. Karl
Marx has been consigned to the trash compactor of history. Sigmund Freud
has been composted. Albert Einstein is in trouble. (The speed of light
isn't constant, and may have been exceeded recently in, of all places, New
Jersey.) Of the great thinkers who fashioned the modern worldview, only
one   Charles Darwin   remains inviolable. To question is to invite
automatic dismissal as a religious wacko, a low-dull-normal ignoramus, or
both. And if you are a scientist, don't expect a lot of establishment
funding . . . or cocktail party invitations.
     This is odd. Evolutionary materialism   the belief that life arose
and evolved by chance   is, after all, a mid-19th century notion. Since
then, this paradigm has remained, by modern scientific standards,
virtually stagnant. The missing links and vital fossil records have not
been found. The list of things the paradigm can't explain, from the
Cambrian Explosion and Chinese fossil records to the incredible and
irreducible complexity of a single cell, keeps growing. And now comes
Jonathan Wells to show that many of the traditional proofs of Darwinian
evolution are at best open to multiple interpretations, and are at worst .
. . faked.
     Jonathan Wells holds two Ph.D.s, one in biology from the University
of California-Berkeley and one in religious studies from Yale. He is a
senior fellow of the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture at the
Seattle-based Discovery Institute (with which I am also affiliated) and
one of the luminaries of the emerging Intelligent Design movement: the
scientific attempt to study evidence of intelligent design in the physical
and biological realms without asserting either the identity or the intent
of the designer. Many of the movement's scientists hold strong religious
beliefs and attempt to draw cultural and theological implications out of
the work. But the fundamental issue here is scientific truth, and the
movement will stand or fall as science.
     Mr. Wells is a member of the Intelligent Design movement, but
concentrates on Darwinism. It's a longstanding interest. As a graduate
student in embryology, Mr. Wells noticed that evolutionary biology
textbooks misrepresented the development of vertebrate embryos. Now he has
a new book out, "Icons of Evolution" (Regnery) that dissects 10 commonly
invoked evidences for Darwinian evolution. "Writing the book," he says, "I
felt like a dentist going into a very bad mouth. The more I dug, the more
rot I found."
     "Icons of Evolution" is a meticulous book, intended for a general
readership. He starts with an unassailable premise: Testing theories
against the evidence never ends. If a theory cannot hold up against the
evidence, it must be altered or discarded. No exceptions. He then works
through the icons, from the Darwinian Tree of Life to peppered moths and
embryos and finch beaks. With each passing chapter, Darwinian evolution
looks less like science and more like myth . . . or, more aptly, a
paradigm in serious need of shifting.
     Why hasn't it happened? Many reasons. One is pure self-interest. The
Darwinian High Priesthood stands to lose a great deal if they're wrong.
Another is that Darwinian materialism is impossible to test empirically;
evolutionary time is too long, past conditions too hard to define and/or
reproduce. Reality caught up with Karl Marx's risky scheme. Ditto Freud
and the psychobabble-infested civilization he did so much to spawn.
Einstein's work can be, and is being, modified by empirical research.
Evolution is not.
     But perhaps the greatest reason for Darwinism's survival is that,
culturally, it's too useful for some folks to live without. It is a dandy
way of thumping the Bible-thumpers. And if it is true we're nothing but
accidental creatures, purely and merely physical and endowed with neither
purpose nor rights, then anything goes. From anarchy to tyranny, from Jack
Kevorkian to Britney Spears there are no standards, and therefore who is
to judge?
     And yet, humans find it impossible to live without some sort of
spirituality, leading to notions of dignity, purpose and rights. We know
that, in some way or other, we're more than flesh. Materialism's official
creed may be, "If it isn't matter, it doesn't matter." But it's also Carl
Sagan's rapt, "We are the universe looking at itself."
     At the moment, Intelligent Design's in a deconstructionist mode.
Destroying Darwinism does not automatically validate Genesis or any
particular alternative. Will Intelligent Design ever achieve full paradigm
status? Perhaps the day an article appears in some prestigious,
peer-review journal, beginning: "We have discovered the identity and
intent of the Intelligent Designer."
     Probably followed by, "And we've got some good news and some bad
news."
     Until then, do read "Icons of Evolution" and the other fine books
coming out of the Intelligent Design movement. You owe it to yourself.
     And to the universe.

Philip Gold is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute in Seattle and
president of Aretea, a cultural affairs center.

Oryginal: http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/commentary-2000102516299.htm