I remember the beginnings of my online debates with Philosophical Naturalists (atheists) over evolution. This was perhaps fifteen years ago or more. They were adamant, with unshakably certainty, and heaps of scorn for those with any doubt, that evolution was entirely responsible for the full diversity of life on earth. There was no need for, and certainly, positively, absolutely without any doubt no evidence for, any input from a so-called "Creator".
Back in those days I would point out a particular amazing transformation which "evolution" was supposed to have done in an unguided manner. Then I would express doubt that "chance" could accomplish such an amazing feat. The result was invariably derision and mockery and insistent assurances that not only was I daft, but I "don't understand how science works". At the time I was either at the end of my twelve-year stint as a public school science teacher or this was just after it concluded.
The basis for the fusillade of such accusations was that "it's not chance you nitwit, it's natural selection acting through chance." So then "chance" was not said to be powerful enough to produce these changes, but I was assured through many insulting remarks that natural selection was powerful enough. These pronouncements were always made with an air of absolute and unshakable confidence. Any hint of doubt as to whether natural selection could really achieve such feats was dismissed with instant and palatable contempt- followed by opinions that there must be something wrong with me personally in order to even make such a suggestion.
I didn't stop there though because I didn't see how natural selection, once one looked at the details of how it worked, was powerful enough either. This only provoked new rounds of laughter, derision, and an implacable opposition to even consideration of the idea that I might have a point, on anything whatsoever. This was all well-established science and my crack-pot ideas about letting a supernatural foot in the door were deserving of all the scorn which they could muster.
Fast forward to today. Michael Behe has come out with another book, "Darwin Devolves". In it, he claims to show that Darwinsim has been falsified because changes through natural selection can't build new structures. just evolve by "devolving" or losing information/functionality. Basically you can't get from a bacteria to a man by losing information. And then of course he repeats the argument which he is known for, Irreducible Complexity. Certainly not everything claimed to be "irreducible complex" really is, but he doesn't have to be right every time to win. If he's right one time out of five, that's still too much for the naturalist side to bear.
Oddly, Behe isn't that far removed from the naturalist view. He still thinks that all living things evolved from a common ancestor. He just thinks that the first life forms were Designed by the Creator with the capacity to evolve into all the rest of the living things in earth's history without any more specific guidance from outside of nature. Even this tiny proposed exception to naturalism has produced an uproar, and this before the book actually came out.
One of the charges against him is that he has ignored instances where his claims have been falsified. Once I read it I will be in better position to say if he is really evading contrary evidence or if this is simply a reflection of what I have said before: He doesn't have to be right in every instance in order to win the argument on irreducible complexity. He only has to be right sometimes. Nor does showing he was incorrect in one instance necessarily say anything important about another instance. To any philosophical naturalists who think this standard of measure is "unfair" I must point out that you are the ones making sweeping and absolutist claims about the nature of reality. This goes to the extent of making claims about reality based on science concerning questions that science is probably not even able to answer! If you think the burden of your task unfair, consider adopting a more intellectually-defensible position. Or at least bring a modicum of humility and reflection to your current one.
The other charge against him I found more salient, and more interesting. It comes from eminently qualified evolutionary scientists who are on the cutting edge. That is that Behe is beating on a "strawman" because classical Darwinism, and even neo-Darwinism, is not where evolutionary science is right now. I think "strawman" or I have also heard "tilting at windmills" is an unfair way to put it because the ideas Behe is challenging were at least fairly recently the mainstream view of evolutionary science. They are the same ideas I was castigated for not believing in those online dialogues I spoke of earlier. A "strawman" was never a real man and a wind mill was never a dragon. But Behe is fighting ideas that reflected evolutionary thought in the fairly recent past that do not appear to be the current state of evolutionary science. So the cliche that may fit to describe what Behe is doing would be "fighting the last war."
So it appears that "Darwinism" has been "falsified" by evolutionary science and science has now moved on to an idea called "Constructive Neutral Evolution." The gist of the new thinking is that natural selection is not the big dog driving evolution. It's a role player for minor changes and may have little to do with the kind of big evolutionary change people have been arguing about. Chance is the big player according to the new evolutionary thinking. If so, all of Behe's carefully constructed case that natural selection is too weak to be responsible is essentially too dated to be relevant to the present discussion on evolution. It is "the last war" not the current one.
The astute reader may notice that this revelation brings your humble writer full circle. When I began this journey, I was assured by the naturalists I was debating that I was a nit-wit and a gasbag who probably doesn't even know enough to participate in their lofty discussions, my voice disturbing the harmony of their echo-chambers. The reason for this is that I was so so wrong about chance being the major driver of evolution. It was natural selection which was so powerful that even unguided it could make the earth fruitful with every form of life. That I didn't accept that conclusion at once merely amplified how bigoted, childish. and narrow was my thinking.
Now it seems their whole case was built on a house of cards and I was exactly right about natural selection not being powerful enough to produce these changes and further that the power of chance is ultimately what their case rests on. Nevertheless, I am presently assured that chance can, after all, do what they were saying that natural selection was responsible for fifteen years ago. And the amazing thing is there was absolutely no change in tone or any hint of doubt whatsoever at any stage of the transition from one idea to the other. They displayed an attitude of meta-physical certainty that their views, even when conflicting the views held previously by their school of thought, were 100.0000000% correct with zero chance of their being anything but a zero chance that they were wrong at any point in time. And that from people who explicitly reject the concept of meta-physical certainty!
Look, despite their claims over the years that this is all about the evidence it has become crystal clear that it's not all about the evidence. It's not even about whether evolution is responsible for all life on this earth. This is about men and women who very very strongly do not want there to be a god who intervenes in His creation. It's about sin in the human heart, not evidence in the laboratory. It is about folks who want to hide behind "science" to say there is no evidence for God - when by definition science looks for natural causes only and couldn't see God if God were standing right in front of it. It's an evasion. An excuse to avoid an accountability to one's Maker that they had rather not face. Ironically, the world's most likely candidate for God allowed us to escape all accountability for our sins by placing the accountability on His own Son Jesus Christ instead.
Michael Behe may have some good arguments to make in Darwin Devolves or he may have some bad ones. If he has good ones, they are liable to be dated. But I still bought the book, because I have become convinced that the arguments are the excuse, not the reason. If the neutral theory of evolution is shown to be inadequate then I have little doubt that these same people will go right back to chirping about "natural selection" so quickly that you will not be able to detect the moment they switched stories. Excuses to avoid God are like fashions. There is nothing new, it all goes round in circles. If Behe has missed this round, I'll just save it for the next one.
PS- I also have a book. It is more theology than science and it's work to get through but if you want to do the work, the glorious truth about Early Genesis is there for the having...
Please "like" and "share".
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.