Download Document

The Theory of Evolution:
An Incomplete Hypothesis?
The battle between Intelligent Design and Darwin’s
theory of Evolution
Bachelor Thesis
Majlie de Puy Kamp
June 2011
Preface
To be honest, I am not a very religious person. Though I’ve visited many temples,
mosques and churches and I’ve always admired the mystical atmosphere, I’ve only
once or twice sat through a service of any kind. My interests neither lay with science,
though that might be due to the fact all to often I just don’t understand it. So the
topic of this thesis is, you might say, somewhat random. However, to me, it is all but
random. My curiosity and passion have led me to the field of dispute resolution and
mediation, which I’ll pursue in a masters program next fall. And the reason I was
drawn to the topic of this thesis is that it seemed to me the conflict between religion
and science could still do with some mediation.
After studying Darwin for a couple months, the battle between intelligent
design and evolutionists intrigued me. The intelligent design movement is often
ridiculed and portrayed as a religious crusade, and I had trouble understanding why
seemingly intellectual scientists would affiliate themselves with it. Isn’t our society a
bit too modern for proclamations of God’s influence in our lives? And if this
movement was all about finding an Almighty God, why did the scientific community
even bother participating in such a fiery discussion? I figured there had to be
something intelligent design scientists were saying that somehow aggravated
evolutionary scientists to the point that article after article comes out to defend
their own and defeat the others’ arguments.
I was also a little surprised by the arrogance of the scientific world that
seemed to be claiming that they knew everything about our universe. Though
science today can accomplish pretty much anything you can imagine, it seemed to
me there are still so many mysteries left to uncover. I, for one, cannot grasp the
concept of an un-ending universe.
So I went and studied this intelligent design movement a bit closer. I think
they did a bad job deciding on a name as “intelligent design” implies that you’re
going to point to a “Creator” which is all too often “God”, which is not something
you want to point to if you want to be taken seriously by the scientific community.
However, besides the unfortunate name, I found that intelligent design
scientists do raise valid questions. Questions evolutionary scientists have not yet
been able to satisfyingly answer. My aim is not to promote either theory, it is merely
my intention to point out that what we think we know may not be built on such solid
ground and that there are other perspectives we might want to consider. Like the
American musician Frank Zappa once said, “a mind is like a parachute, it doesn’t
work if it’s not open.”
Majlie de Puy Kamp
17 Juni 2011
Bachelor Scriptie
Majlie de Puy Kamp - 3238083
2
Table of Contents
Introduction
4
The Scientific Challenge
7
The Fossil Challenge
11
The Biochemical Challenge
15
Conclusion
20
Bibliography
21
Bachelor Scriptie
Majlie de Puy Kamp - 3238083
3
Introduction
Nearly two centuries after Darwin published his theory of evolution based on natural
selection the dust has still not settled. Though the battleground has shifted from
literary clubs in London to American courts, laboratories, and scientific journals, the
debate is just as fiery.
Many scientists worldwide have accepted the evolution hypothesis and
schools and universities continue to teach Darwin’s theory. In fact there seems to be,
at least in the Western world, a general agreement regarding the evolution of life on
earth. However, as science progresses, questions arise and unfortunately the
answers to these questions do not always confirm our trust and belief in the theory
of evolution.
Darwin’s evolutionary process is based on three elements, variation,
selection and reproduction. Random variation is important as it allows certain
preferable traits to distinguish themselves over less-preferable traits. Selection is
then based on these preferable traits. Females, for example, will select strong and
healthy males as this increases their chances of producing healthy offspring.
“Survival of the fittest” thus implies that those who are best adapted to their
surroundings have the best chances of being selected and therefore have better
chances of reproducing. The ultimate goal for a being or a species is to produce as
many offspring as possible so as to spread your genes; this is the reproduction
element in Darwin’s evolutionary algorithm.1 Slowly, through random variation,
natural selection and reproduction, species can change and evolve over time.
“Evolution means a process whereby life arose from non-living matter and
subsequently developed entirely by natural means. This is the sense that Darwin
gave to the word and the meaning it holds in the scientific community.” 2 This is also
the sense in which I’ll use the term evolution in this thesis.
1
2
Buskes, Chris. Evolutionair Denken. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Nieuwezijds, 2009. 42.
Behe, Michael. Darwin's Black Box. 10th Anniversary edition. New York: Free Press, 2006. xi.
Bachelor Scriptie
Majlie de Puy Kamp - 3238083
4
In the 1990s a new movement, called Intelligent Design, arose. Intelligent
design is a scientific research program, which interprets the evidence for evolution in
a different way. Unfortunately, intelligent design is often dismissed as a form of
“new Creationism” or a desperate move to prove God’s existence. This, however, is
not the essence of intelligent design nor is it the essence of the debate between
evolutionists and intelligent design. “Contrary to popular belief, this struggle is not
simply between science and religion, or even between science and philosophy. It is
about competing explanations of the data.”3
Scientists who are part of intelligent design do not deny evolution, unlike the
followers of Creationism. They merely state that the evolution theory, though a good
theory, is not enough to explain life’s origin and its development. They also point out
that the evidence for the evolution theory is not as strong and powerful as the
common public has been led to believe.
The debate plays out in laboratories and specialized journals filled with
jargon, not quite accessible to the general public. The media, always longing for
more drama, has exploited this and labeled the intelligent design movement as
fundamentalists whose arguments have nothing to do with science or scientific
research.
I can’t account for everyone involved with intelligent design, but in this thesis
I merely rely on those scientists who, without a religious, or any other agenda,
investigate and study the data after which they draw their conclusions. The
complexity they find in our world is, for them, reason to doubt that evolution acting
on natural selection is the only force at work. However, and this is crucial, the
complexity does not have to point to God.
The scientists who will mostly feature in this thesis are, among others,
Michael J. Behe, Philip Johnson, and Casey Luskin. Behe has studied chemistry and
biochemistry and has been awarded a Ph.D. for his dissertation research on sickle
cell disease. He is currently a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University. Johnson
is a Harvard law graduate, he taught at Boalt School of Law at the University of
California at Berkeley in 1967 and has been a professor emeritus since 2000. Though
3
Wayne House, H. "Preface." Intelligent Design 101. Ed. H. Wayne House. Grand Rapids, MI, USA: Kregel
Publications, 2008. 17.
Bachelor Scriptie
Majlie de Puy Kamp - 3238083
5
he is not a scientist, his main contribution is his expertise in reasonable and sound
argumentation. Luskin has earned his bachelor and masters degree in Earth Sciences
at the University of California at San Diego and holds a Juris Doctorate from the
University of San Diego as well. He has been published in many leading science and
legal journals.
The purpose of this thesis is to explain the debate between intelligent design
and evolutionists and make it available to the general public. I will focus on three
main challenges intelligent design poses against the theory of evolution. The first is a
somewhat philosophical challenge to what we define as science and how that might
limit us in our understanding of the world we live in. Then, I’ll discuss the fossil
record, which appears to be less complete than we have been taught. Finally, I’ll dive
into the real science and try to clarify the notion of irreducible complexity and the
mysteries surrounding the origin of life. With a better understanding of the three
main arguments of intelligent design, I hope to open your mind to the possibility that
science, at this point in time, does not know everything.
There was a time when even the brightest minds thought the Earth stood still
in our universe. Galileo, the brilliant physicist, was said to be a suspect of heresy and
eventually even sentenced to lifelong house arrest for suggesting the Earth moved
around the Sun. In other words, science progresses and people never like it when
their paradigms change along with it.
We live in a very complex and beautiful world, filled with processes, systems
and organisms we do not (yet) understand. It is important to always keep that in
mind and to not let ourselves become too cocky and think, even for a minute, that
we know all simply because we know more now that we ever did before. The
evolution theory is a good theory, it may even be the best theory we have, yet this in
itself does not make it true. Irving Kristol, a renowned social theorist wrote in an
essay for the New York Times, “Darwinian theory, which explains complex life as the
product of small genetic mutations and ‘survival of the fittest’, is known to be valid
only for variations within the biological species. That Darwinian evolution can
Bachelor Scriptie
Majlie de Puy Kamp - 3238083
6
gradually transform one kind of creature into another is merely a biological
hypothesis, not a fact.”4
Intelligent design offers a new outlook based on the same evidence. Let’s
take a closer look.
The Scientific Challenge
Karl Popper, the famous philosopher of science, raised an objection to Darwin’s
evolution theory saying; “it is not really a scientific theory because natural selection
is an all-purpose explanation which can account for anything, and which therefore
explains nothing.”5
The arguments the intelligent design movement puts forth are often said to
be unscientific. ‘Real science’ focuses on natural explanations and has no business
looking for answers in immaterial dimensions. Therefore, “the customary strategy
has been to use some criterion that is supposed to distinguish science from nonscience definitively (that is, in all cases) […] and argue that ID fails to satisfy it.”6 This
makes sense of course, for if science did not reject the possibility of immaterial
dimensions as a matter of principle and methodology “what kind of research would
one do, what kind of methodology would one use, if the premise were that God can
do whatever He pleases, whenever He wishes to do it?”7
Barbara Forrest, noted professor of philosophy, explains “introducing
supernatural explanations into science would destroy its explanatory force since it
would be required to incorporate as an operational principle the premise that
literally anything which is logically possible can become actuality, despite any and all
scientific laws; the stability of science would consequently be destroyed.” 8
4
Johnson, Philip E. Darwin on Trial. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Books, 2010. 29.
Johnson. Darwin on Trial. 41.
6 Sarkar, Sahotra. "The science question in intelligent design." Synthese. 178.2 (2011): 291-305. 294.
7 Pigliucci, M. "Methodological Naturalism?." Intelligent design creationism and its critics: Philosophical,
theological and scientific perspectives. Ed. R.T. Pennock. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002. 339-361.
8
Forrest, Barbara. "Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the connection." Philo.
3.2 (2000): 7-29. 10.
5
Bachelor Scriptie
Majlie de Puy Kamp - 3238083
7
In order to give science structure and meaning, the scientific world relies on
the concept of methodological naturalism. This belief states that nothing exists
beyond the natural world and only natural forces and laws operate our lives. It is not
difficult to understand why scientists choose to follow this notion, if they did not,
their profession would not be able to grant any meaning or truth to the results of
their research. It is important to note, however, that methodological naturalism is
not so much a claim of science rather than a claim about science. It has implications
for what we perceive as science rather than was actually is scientific. The aim of this
particular section is to explain that our notion of what real science is might limit our
understanding of the world and how it came to be.
The debate between evolutionists and intelligent design is suddenly quite
clear, where evolutionists concentrate only on natural phenomena, intelligent design
is not afraid to suggest dimensions we may not understand. “Unlike creationism,
however, ID, is not derived from a particular religion’s special revelation, but it is the
result of arguments whose premises include empirical evidence, well-founded
conceptual notions outside of the natural sciences, and conclusions that are
supported by these premises.”9
Evolutionary scientists are often quick to make statements about, or dismiss,
religion on the basis is can’t be ‘true’ in scientific terms. Religion and science are
thought to be two different spheres and should under no circumstances enter each
other’s field of profession. It seems though, as Johnson points out, that the “very
people who insist upon keeping religion and science separate are eager to use their
science as a basis for pronouncements about religion.”10
This same trend is seen in the debate between evolutionists and intelligent
design. Though evolutionary science is limited by a self-imposed commitment to
methodological naturalism, which leaves its scientists incapable of dealing with
claims of the supernatural,11 it is exactly this profession that attacks intelligent
design the hardest and publishes the most statements about the improbabilities of
9
Beckwith, Francis J. "Science and Religion Twenty Years After "Mclean V. Arkansas" Evolution, Public
Education and the New Challenge of Intelligent Design." Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. 26.2 (2002):
458.
10 Johnson. Darwin on Trial. 27.
11 Boudry, Maarten, Johan Braeckman, and Stefaan Blancke. "How Not to Attack Intelligent Design Creationism:
Philosophical Misconceptions About Methodological Naturalism." Foundation of Science. 15.3 (2010): 227-244.
228.
Bachelor Scriptie
Majlie de Puy Kamp - 3238083
8
the supernatural. Moreover, Johnson states, evolutionary scientists increasingly act
like the ridiculed creationists in that they readily point to a fact but cannot explain
how it came about.12
Norman Macbeth, a Harvard-trained lawyer, appealed to reason when he
wrote “if a watchmaker is thus carefully excluded at the beginning, we need not be
surprised is no watchmaker appears at the end.”13 In other words, since the mere
definition of science leaves no room for any other explanations for life’s origin and
development than the evolution theory, we are almost tricked into believing this
particular theory must, by default, be true. More specifically “if science is defined as
a discipline that only permits naturalistic explanations, and if science is the only field
of study that in principle provides knowledge on the question of origins, then
evolution (but not necessarily Darwinism) must be true even if the evolutionary
paradigm cannot adequately address many questions about, or account for some
phenomena in, the natural world.”14
If evolutionary scientists would allow for a broader interpretation of science
and examine the evidence without a prior commitment to one theory or another, we
might eventually come closer to the truth. “A responsible, rational scientific
community should therefore assess ID arguments on the merits instead of dismissing
them a priori merely because their conclusions are inconsistent with methodological
naturalism.”15
In later chapters we’ll come to understand that the evidence for Darwin’s
evolution theory is not as strong as scientists would like us to believe, and for exactly
that same reason it is important to keep an open mind when it comes to intelligent
design and possible other dimensions. The truth is, we simply do not know. Science
has progressed enormously and is able to explain many of nature’s mysteries and
maybe at some point in the future it will be able to explain life’s origin and
development but for now, it is not quite able yet to create a convincing theory based
on indisputable evidence. It is important to understand that the theory of evolution
12
Johnson. Darwin on Trial. 29.
Macbeth, Norman. Darwin Retried. London: Garnstone Press, 1974. 126.
14
Beckwith. "Science and Religion Twenty Years After "Mclean V. Arkansas" 477-478.
15 Ibidem 478.
13
Bachelor Scriptie
Majlie de Puy Kamp - 3238083
9
is a good theory, but it may not explain all that is happening or has happened, which
means we can’t stop investigating other theories.
The intelligent design movement has raised some quite insightful critiques
and it is in our best interest not to dismiss these critiques on the basis that they
apparently do not meet qualifications we ourselves have put on ‘good’ science. And
let’s not forget, if we could apply natural knowledge to understand supernatural
powers, then, by definition, they would not be supernatural.16
16
Pennock, Robert. Tower of Babel: the evidence against the new creationism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999.
290.
Bachelor Scriptie
Majlie de Puy Kamp - 3238083
10
The Fossil Challenge
When Darwin published his evolution theory based on natural selection, the greatest
objection he received did not come from the clergymen as one might have expected.
In fact, it was the geologists and fossil-experts that doubted Darwin the most. Even
today, skeptics of Darwin’s theory include the leading paleontologists and
geologists.17
According to Darwin’s theory, species evolve from one another, constantly
adjusting and progressing forward into more complex and fitter beings. This gradual
change over millions of years implies many intermediate species that passed on their
best qualities to their off spring while there lesser qualities slowly died off. The lack
of evidence of such intermediate species in the fossil record posed a real threat to
Darwin’s evolution theory. As he wrote in The Origin of Species, “why then is not
every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?
Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this,
perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my
theory.”18
Darwin had hoped that future scientists would find the evidence in the fossil
record and elsewhere to ‘prove’ his theory, for the time being he claimed that the
gaps were due to the fact that the fossil record was incomplete and imperfect.
Future finds would close the gaps between different groups of species and would
prove their common ancestors, which would thereby solidify his theory of evolution.
Evolutionary paleontologist Niles Eldridge explains “there are all sorts of gaps:
absence of gradationally intermediate ‘transitional’ forms between species, but also
17
18
Johnson. Darwin on Trial. 69-70.
Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. 1895. London: Penguin, 1985. 292.
Bachelor Scriptie
Majlie de Puy Kamp - 3238083
11
between larger groups – between, say, families of carnivores or the orders of
mammals.”19 Moreover, “the discontinuities between major groups – phyla, classes,
orders, are not only pervasive, but it many cases immense.”20 The so-called ‘missing
links’ in the fossil record contradict Darwin’s theory of evolution greatly.
Since Darwin’s time many fossils, and reported missing links, have been
found and this should have given scientists a clearer picture of evolution. The most
famous find is the Archaeopteryx, which was a bird from the late Jurassic period that
had both bird-like features, such a wings, but also reptilian features such as teeth,
claws and a bony tail. The Archaeopteryx is said to be the transitional form, indeed
the ‘missing link’, between dinosaurs and birds. Yet “the theropod dinosaurs, from
which the Archaeopteryx is said to have been descended, lived at least 20 million
years after the Archaeopteryx.”21 The question how an animal can descend from
another animal that lived 20 million years later does not seem to trouble
evolutionists, they say it merely shows, yet again, that the fossil record is imperfect.
Evolutionists then quickly point to the fact that the fossil record does contain some
examples of possible intermediate species that could support the evolution theory.
However Luskin argues, such cases “are rare in a record that shows rapid explosions
of biodiversity and the sudden, abrupt appearance of biological novelty.”22 Johnson
goes further and argues, “the fossil record does not convincingly document a single
transition from one species to another.”23 What ever the case, the many discoveries
scientists have made within the fossil record do not bring them any closer to hard
evidence for the evolution theory, if anything their finds keep contradicting the
hypothesis.
The gradual evolvement of species through time, gradualism in other words, is at
the basis of the evolution theory through natural selection and it is this gradualism
that scientists have been hoping to find through the fossil record. However, as the
fossil record expanded, it could be studied more closely. After extensive research
19
Luskin, Casey. "Finding Intelligent Design in Nature." Intelligent Design 101. Ed. H. Wayne House. Grand
Rapids, MI, USA: Kregel Publications, 2008. 98.
20 Johnson. Darwin on Trial. 76-77.
21 Luskin. "Finding Intelligent Design in Nature." 99.
22
Ibidem. 98.
23 Johnson. Darwin on Trial. 73.
Bachelor Scriptie
Majlie de Puy Kamp - 3238083
12
Stephen Jay Gould concluded that the fossil record includes two features that are in
fact quite inconsistent with the idea of gradualism:
1. Statis: Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on
earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when
they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by
the steady transformation of its ancestors. It appears all at once and “fully
formed”.24
In fact, the finds in the fossil record have revealed the so-called Cambrian Explosion.
The Cambrian Explosion was a period of time (five to ten million years to be more
precise) 530 million years ago in which almost all of the living phyla appear in the
fossil record for the first time. Five to ten million years, in geological terms, is almost
like the blink of an eye, which means it completely goes against the supposed theory
of gradual adjustment and progression of species. “The Cambrian Explosion denoting
almost simultaneous emergence of nearly all the extant phyla of the Kingdom
Animalia within the time span of 6-10 million years can’t possibly be explained by
mutational divergence of individual gene functions.”25 Johnson explains scientists
“rather than continually uncovering fossil evidence of transitional forms, actually
discovered species which appeared suddenly rather than at the end of a chain of
evolutionary links.”26
The fossil record, in other words, does not seem to support the theory of
evolution as neither gradualism nor intermediate species are consistently found.
“Darwinists can always explain away the sudden appearance of new species by
saying that the transitional intermediates were for some reason not fossilized. But
statis – the consistent absence of fundamental directional change – is positively
documented. It is also the norm and not the exception.”27
It is tempting to think that these trends in our fossil history are merely a byproduct of the incompleteness of the record as indeed, species only fossilize under
24
Johnson. Darwin on Trial. 73.
Ohno, Susumu. "The Notion of the Cambrian Pananimalia Genome." Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences USA 93. August 1996. 8475-8478.
26
Woodward, Thomas. Doubts about Darwin. Baker Books, MI, USA 2003. 122.
27 Johnson. Darwin on Trial. 73.
25
Bachelor Scriptie
Majlie de Puy Kamp - 3238083
13
quite specific conditions. However, Niles Eldridge, an American paleontologist and
Ian Tattersal, a paleoanthropologist point out that “the record jumps, and all the
evidence shows that the [fossil] record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in
life’s history – not an artifact of a poor fossil record.”28
Without these intermediate species, the evolution theory through natural
selection loses one of its main foundations. Darwin himself posed the question “why,
if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we
not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in
confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?”29
Darwin’s answer was the theory of extinction; this meant that according to
his theory, a descendant would be an improved variety of his parents, which implies
a disadvantage for its parents. All disadvantaged and transitional varieties would not
be able to compete with the improved varieties and thus slowly be exterminated.
This answer accounted for the fact that we don’t see any intermediate species alive
today, the one place where we would expect to find them, however, is the fossil
record. As Johnson eloquently puts it, “Darwin’s defense of the theory [of evolution
through natural selection] against the fossil evidence was not unreasonable, but the
point is, it was a defense.”30
28
Luskin. "Finding Intelligent Design in Nature." 96.
Johnson. Darwin on Trial. 68.
30 Ibidem 70.
29
Bachelor Scriptie
Majlie de Puy Kamp - 3238083
14
The Biochemical Challenge
The real scientific arguments raised by intelligent design are mostly unknown to the
wider public. This is because these arguments require such specific and in-depth
knowledge of science that the general population simple does not understand it, let
alone have an opinion about it. Yet the real war between science and intelligent
design is fought on this very specific level of biochemistry. Biochemistry is the study
of the foundations of life, to be more exact, the molecular foundations of life. It is
this field of profession that is most interesting to evolutionary scientists. Let us
suppose, for the sake of the argument but also because there seems to be
reasonable evidence proving it, that life evolves to some extent by natural selection
acting on variation. Let us suppose, despite the gaps in the fossil record, that indeed
we all share a common ancestor and that the ‘survival of the fittest’ mechanism
slowly pushes us forward. Even if this would be all undoubtedly true, we still don’t
know how life, that one cell that we’ve supposedly all evolved from, came to be. This
is the question biochemistry must eventually deal with.
The most famous story of origin-of-life experiments and theories come from
a young graduate student named Stanley Miller, working at the University of Chicago
in the 1950s. Miller knew that proteins are the building blocks of life, and protein is
made from amino acids. So he wanted to somehow create amino acids using only
materials that might have been present, billions of years ago, on a lifeless earth.
Hydrogen is a major element on earth and when hydrogen reacts with carbon,
nitrogen and oxygen, also quite common elements on earth, it forms methane,
ammonia, water vapor and hydrogen.31 Now Miller needed some source of energy
since methane, ammonia, water vapor and hydrogen don’t produce anything too
Michael Behe explains “the atmosphere of the early earth is now thought to have been quite different from the
one Miller assumed, and much less likely to produce amino acids by atmospheric processes.”
Behe, Michael. Darwin's Black Box. 10th Anniversary edition. New York: Free Press, 2006. 301.
31
Bachelor Scriptie
Majlie de Puy Kamp - 3238083
15
exciting without energy. This natural energy Miller was looking for could have been
present in the form of lightning. Thus, Miller created an atmosphere in his laboratory
in which all the gases were present; he added a pool of water and sparking
electrodes to simulate lighting and started his experiment. He boiled the water and
played around with the electrodes for about a week before an oily, insoluble tar
appeared and the pool of water became reddish.32 Miller then, after analyzing the
mixture of chemicals in the water, concluded that he had succeeded an indeed
created a couple kinds of amino acids.
The world was ecstatic, it seemed as though there was finally natural proof
for the beginning of life on earth. Nature’s biggest mystery had been solved! Many
other experiments were set-up; some used ultraviolet radiation to simulate sunlight,
others simulated explosions and eventually almost all of the twenty naturally
occurring amino acids had been found. It was hard to imagine anyone voicing a
pessimistic opinion about what science had accomplished. Surprisingly, it was
Stanley Miller himself who readily explained that though he was able to create
amino acids in his lab, it would be quite unlikely the process could have occurred
randomly in nature.33 He described how he had set up his equipment in many
different ways, which had only resulted in some oil before finding amino acids. He
acknowledged that he was hoping to find amino acids and thus had steered his
experiment and equipment in that direction.
Furthermore, even if this process could have occurred naturally, amino acids
would have to join in order to create protein, which could then start building cells.
“The major problem in hooking amino acids together is that, chemically, it involves
the removal of a molecule of water for each amino acid joined to the growing
protein chain. Conversely, the presence of water strongly inhibits amino acids from
forming proteins.”34 Scientists, most famously Sidney Fox, then came up with quite
unrealistic theories of how such a process might have occurred naturally but both
creationists and evolutionists have ridiculed all such theories. In the words of
chemist Robert Shapiro, “on perhaps no other point in origin-of-life theory could we
32
Michael Behe describes this experiment in greater detail in his book.
Behe. Darwin's Black Box.166-167.
33
Ibidem 169.
34 Ibidem.
Bachelor Scriptie
Majlie de Puy Kamp - 3238083
16
find such harmony between evolutionists and Creationists as in opposing the
relevance of the experiments of Sidney Fox.”35
The second major problem deals with the origin of the information contained
in the combined amino acids, in other words: DNA. It is a classic “chicken-and-egg”
difficulty. DNA needs enzymes and proteins to duplicate, however proteins and
enzymes can only be created by DNA. Furthermore, the DNA-enzyme package needs
the protection of the cell membrane, which, unfortunately, is also created by DNA.
The crux is, DNA, enzymes, the cell membrane and proteins must all be present at
once, for life to exist.36 “This presents a challenge to the step-by-step evolution
required by Darwin’s theory, and exhibits irreducible complexity – a hallmark of
intelligent design.”37
Irreducible complexity is a term first coined by tenured biochemist, Michael
Behe. “By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several wellmatched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the
removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.
An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly […] by slight, successive
modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly
complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.”38
Irreducible complex systems pose a challenge to Darwin’s gradual evolution
theory since evolution through natural selection can only take something that is
already working and improve it, it can’t create something entirely new.39 Behe
usually explains these complex systems by describing a mousetrap, each part of a
mousetrap is important and with any part missing, the trap would not work.
Therefore, all parts need to be assembled at the same time for the trap to be
functional.
This principle is found in our biological system as well. Most famous
examples are the blood-clotting system and the bacterial flagellum. Since the
bacterial flagellum is slightly easier to explain, I’ll focus of that and won’t go into
35
Shapiro, Robert. Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life of Earth. New York: Summit Books, 1986.
192.
36 Luskin. "Finding Intelligent Design in Nature." 82.
37 Ibidem 82.
38
Behe. Darwin's Black Box. 39.
39 Teresi, Dick. "Lynn Margulis - Q&A." Discover Magazine. (April 2011): 66-71.
Bachelor Scriptie
Majlie de Puy Kamp - 3238083
17
deeper detail about the blood-clotting system, more information’s about blood
clotting can be found in Behe’s book, Darwin’s Black Box. The essence of the
argument however is that the blood-clotting system needs a couple ingredients, and
if one of them is missing or functioning incorrectly, the system breaks down. Partial
blood clotting is not an option for living beings, which means that as soon as redblooded species arose, the blood-clotting system had to be perfected.
The same argument goes for the bacterial flagellum. “The flagellum is a
micro molecular rotary engine, functioning like an outboard motor on bacteria to
propel it forward through some liquid medium to find food of a hospitable living
environment.”40 In simpler words, the flagellum is a kind of engine that pushes the
organism through water. The flagellum functions in a way that is very similar to a
rotary engine made by humans and all its different parts are essential to its success.
“Genetic studies have shown that thirty to forty different protein parts are required
for this apparatus to function in the cell. About half of those are actual components
of the bacterial flagellum itself, and another twenty or so are required to build the
flagellum in the cell, which is a rather large structure. It has to be built in stages, and
components have to be added in the right sequence and so on.”41 It is highly unlikely
that such a complex system has evolved through natural selection since every tiny
change within the organism or system creates a malfunctioning of its purpose.
The most popular counterargument against irreducible complexity is the idea
of “co-option”. This means that protein parts already have a different function
within a cell and are then “borrowed” and used in new ways. That way, cells don’t
need to actually “create” new things but rather adapt already existing parts, which
natural selection could facilitate. However, biology professor at the University of
Idaho, Scott Minnich, explains: “with a bacterial flagellum, you’re talking about a
machine that’s got forty structural parts. Yes, we find ten of them are involved in
another molecular machine, but the other thirty are unique. So where are you going
to borrow them from? […] You can only follow the argument so far, until you run
into the problem that you’re borrowing from nothing… but, even if you concede that
you have all the parts necessary to build one of these machines, that’s only part of
40
Luskin. "Finding Intelligent Design in Nature." 86.
Behe, Michael. "Darwin's Black Box." Intelligent Design 101. Ed. H. Wayne House. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel
Publications, 2008. 122.
41
Bachelor Scriptie
Majlie de Puy Kamp - 3238083
18
the problem. Maybe even more complex are the assembly instructions. That is never
addressed by opponents of the irreducible complexity argument.”42
The complexity of the bacterial flagellum is so startling that thousands of
papers have been published on the subject. It is surprising however, that the
evolutionary literature is absent. “Even though we are told that all biology must be
seen through the lens of evolution, no scientist has ever published a model to
account for the gradual evolution of this extraordinary molecular machine.” 43 Behe
goes even further and claims that the fact that neither the evolution of the bacterial
flagellum or the blood-clotting system (and other irreducible complex biological
systems as well) has been addressed by evolutionists is a very strong indication that
Darwin’s gradual approach is an “inadequate framework” to understand the origin of
biochemical systems, which lay at the foundation of life.44
42
Woodward. Doubts about Darwin.163.
Behe. Darwin's Black Box. 72.
44 Ibidem 178.
43
Bachelor Scriptie
Majlie de Puy Kamp - 3238083
19
Conclusion
The essence of this thesis has not been to claim Darwin was wrong, but rather that
his theory is incomplete. At this point in time, there seems to be too much we do not
know and too much the theory of evolution cannot explain to proclaim it as a fact.
Though the evolution theory has proven itself when it comes to small mutations
within species, the larger questions remain.
From our self-imposed limitation of science to the gaps in the fossil record to
the problematic biochemical issues, the theory of evolution seems less stable than
we would wish it to be. The difficult part is, we may never know the truth, or, and
this is just as likely, maybe in a hundred years our grandchildren will look back as say
“what were you arguing about? The answer was right there!” Either way, we must
admit that right now, we do not know all the solutions to nature’s mysteries. And
that is okay as long as we acknowledge it so that we can continue searching for
possibilities. Like Bob Dylan once said, “don’t criticize what you don’t understand.”
The most important part, I believe, is that we keep an open mind. If anything
I hope this thesis has shown the limitations of the evolution theory and how
important it is to remain critical and curious, even towards a field of profession that
is thriving in so many ways.
Whether intelligent design has or does not have the answers is not the point.
They’ve raised valid concerns and now it is up to the scientific community to discuss
and debate them fairly and figure out where to go from here. To dismiss the
arguments against the evolution theory without evaluation, on whatever grounds,
not only implies a weakness within the theory, but it is also an act of unprofessional
and unscientific behavior.
Personally, I believe there is another dimension, a force we know nothing, or
very little, about, which plays a big role in our life and universe. I don’t believe that
force has anything to do with an old man on a throne in the clouds with a long white
beard and a Bible in his hand, which is how I picture God. But I am open to the
possibility that something exists beyond the realm of our knowledge. And that
something might be visible through the origin and evolution of life on earth.
Bibliography
Bachelor Scriptie
Majlie de Puy Kamp - 3238083
20
• Beckwith, Francis J. "Science and Religion Twenty Years After "Mclean V. Arkansas"
Evolution, Public Education and the New Challenge of Intelligent Design." Harvard
Journal of Law and Public Policy. 26.2 (2002).
• Behe, Michael. Darwin's Black Box. 10th Anniversary edition. New York: Free Press,
2006.
• Behe, Michael. "Darwin's Black Box." Intelligent Design 101. Ed. H. Wayne House.
Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2008.
• Boudry, Maarten, Johan Braeckman, and Stefaan Blancke. "How Not to Attack
Intelligent Design Creationism: Philosophical Misconceptions About Methodological
Naturalism." Foundation of Science. 15.3 (2010): 227-244.
• Buskes, Chris. Evolutionair Denken. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Nieuwezijds, 2009.
• Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. 1895. London: Penguin, 1985.
• Forrest, Barbara. "Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism:
Clarifying the connection." Philo. 3.2 (2000): 7-29.
• Johnson, Philip E. Darwin on Trial. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Books, 2010.
• Luskin, Casey. "Finding Intelligent Design in Nature." Intelligent Design 101. Ed. H.
Wayne House. Grand Rapids, MI, USA: Kregel Publications, 2008.
• Macbeth, Norman. Darwin Retried. London: Garnstone Press, 1974.
• Ohno, Susumu. "The Notion of the Cambrian Pananimalia Genome." Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences USA 93. August 1996.
• Pennock, Robert. Tower of Babel: the evidence against the new creationism.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999.
• Pigliucci, M. "Methodological Naturalism?." Intelligent design creationism and its
critics: Philosophical, theological and scientific perspectives. Ed. R.T. Pennock.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002. 339-361.
• Sarkar, Sahotra. "The science question in intelligent design." Synthese. 178.2
(2011): 291-305.
• Shapiro, Robert. Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life of Earth. New
York: Summit Books, 1986.
• Teresi, Dick. "Lynn Margulis - Q&A." Discover Magazine. (April 2011): 66-71.
Bachelor Scriptie
Majlie de Puy Kamp - 3238083
21
• Wayne House, H. "Preface." Intelligent Design 101. Ed. H. Wayne House. Grand
Rapids, MI, USA: Kregel Publications, 2008.
• Woodward, Thomas. Doubts about Darwin. Baker Books, MI, USA 2003.
Bachelor Scriptie
Majlie de Puy Kamp - 3238083
22