"More scientists are admitting it"

Below is a short excerpt from Michael Crichton's fine book "The Lost World" that touches on the evolution-ID debate. What I liked about it is that he has no problem at all in describing some of the problems with evolution. (The chapter is entitled "Problems of Evolution".) You should know that Ian Malcom, the main speaker below, is an archetypal scientist-oracle whose words can be fairly construed as Crichton's own. The below starts on page 205 (hardback). I make no further comment at the present and all that follows is from the book (heavily edited for space).

... "I think it's fair to say that every scientist in the world agrees that evolution is a feature of life on earth," Malcom said. "And that we are descended from animal ancestors. Yes."
"Okay," K. said. "So, what's the big deal now?"
Malcom smiled. "The big deal," he said, "is that everybody agrees evolution occurs, but nobody understands how it works. There are big problems with the theory. And more and more scientists are admitting it."
[Discovery of extinction precedes theory of evolution.]
"Then along came Darwin, .... The implications ... upset lots of people. But [Darwin] ... made an overwhelming case. So gradually his idea ... was accepted .... But, the question remained: how does evolution happen? For that, Darwin didn't have a good answer."
"Natural selection," A. said.
"Yes, that was Darwin's explanation. ... But as many people realized, natural selection isn't really an explanation. It's just a definition: if an animal succeeds, it must have been selected for. ...."
"But it's genes," K. said.
"[History of subsequent rediscovery of genes and discovery of DNA.] ... , evolution is just the result of a bunch of mutations that either survive or die. right?"
"But there are problems with that idea," Malcom said. "First of all, there's a time problem. A single bacterium - the earliest form of life - has two thousand enzymes. Scientists have estimated how long it would take to randomly assemble those enzymes from a primordial soup. Estimates run from forty billion years to one hundred billion years. But the earth is only four billion years old. So, chance alone seems too slow. Particularly since we know bacteria actually appeared only four hundred million years after the earth began. Life appeared very fast - which is why some scientists have decided life on earth must be of extraterrestrial origin. Although I think that's just evading the issue."
"Second, there's the coordination problem. If you believe the current theory, then all the wonderful complexity of life is nothing but the accumulation of chance events - a bunch of genetic accidents strung together. Yet when we look closely at animals, it appears as if many elements must have evolved simultaneously. Take bats, which have echolocation -- they navigate by sound. To do that, many things must evolve. Bats need a specialized apparatus to make sounds, they need specialized ears to hear echoes, they need specialized brains to interpret the sounds, and they need specialized bodies to dive and swoop and catch insects. If all these things don't evolve simultaneously, there's no advantage. And to imagine all these things happen purely by chance is like imagining that a tornado can hit a junkyard and assemble the parts into a working 747 airplane. It's very hard to believe."
"Next problem. Evolution doesn't always act like a blind force should. Certain environmental niches don't get filled. Certain plants don't get eaten. And certain animals don't evolve much. ...."
T said, "Are you saying evolution is directed?"
"No," Malcom said. "That's Creationism and it's wrong. Just plain wrong. But I am saying that natural selection acting on genes is probably not the whole story. It's too simple. Other forces are also at work. ... And it turns out, again and again, that living things seem to have a self-organizing quality. ... From complexity theory, we're starting to have a sense of how this self-organization may happen, and what it means. And it implies a major change in how we view evolution."

Under your nose

A friend and I were vigorously debating Intelligent Design some time ago. After finally admitting (some of) the shortcomings of evolution, he asked me a question. He said, "Do you have any reason to believe that when we do discover how life came about that it will not turn out to have been by some natural process?" Wow, that was an eye opener. Of course, my answer was no. Everything else we've found so far follows predictable laws of nature, so I've really no reason to expect anything different in this case. You can't rule it out entirely, of course. But, if I was betting on it, I'd definitely have to say that the origins of life will be found to follow some laws of nature -- very likely including some that have yet to be discovered, based on the current implausibility of "evolution".

And, the thing is, I've got to be deeply concerned about people that are putting too much energy, and even hope, into the Intelligent Design theories. I think that Intelligent Design theories still have great value as a check on the sometimes outrageous claims of radical evolutionists. I also believe that some of the ideas behind Intelligent Design could further our understanding of the origins of life one day. But, when push comes to shove -- and sooner or later it always does -- we've got to ask this question: could there ever be a fact, uncovered and proven, that is so revolutionary that it causes committed materialists to renounce their metaphysical world view? I'm guessing not. Many of these people have shown themselves to be so devoted to a God free universe that it's hard to imagine what discovery they would be unable to explain away to maintain their, well, religion.

The more pressing question is this: are there believers that are waiting for such a fact? Or claiming that such a fact is found already in Intelligent Design theory? I hope not! Don't get caught waiting for the train that's already arrived. The proof of God's existence is abundant and all around us. It would be a big mistake to make the evolution-ID debate any part of that decision, so to speak. Without a doubt, the beauty and wonder of the natural world is a testament to God. But, how exactly things, especially living things, got to be this way continues to befuddle everyone as far as I can see. If and when we unravel this mystery, I don't expect to find any evidence for God that's much more striking than what we already have. Such as what man is, what he is not, and what he ought to be.

"Lost ID?"

Last month's court decision in the Intelligent Design (ID) case in Dover Pennsylvania has caused quite alot of glee among evolution proponents. Gloating too. I come to this controversy with a perspective apparently not shared by either side. For one thing, I am familiar with the root concepts of ID, namely specified complexity and irreducible complexity. I find these ideas to have some merit. But, I cringe when I read that ID is an alternate theory of origins. It's nothing of the kind and never was.

ID is really a scientific criticism of evolution. In the parlance, you might say that it is an attempt to falsify the theory of evolution. Things get very messy here because the term "evolution" has come to encompass so much. To view the controversey fairly you've got to understand that ID theorists do not contest the many things under the evolution umbrella that are well known. It would be easiest to just say that natural selection is not evolution; inheritance of traits (genetics) is not evolution; the progressive, multi-billion year fossil record is not evolution. No reasonable person denies these well known things -- including the scientists who work on ID.

But, wait a second, if "designists" are really just creationists in sheep's clothing then how can they believe in all those things? ID proponents apparently do include quite a number of creationists who have jumped onto the bandwagon. The embarrassing, ham-handed way in which some school boards have handled things makes that obvious. But, the authors of the ideas and the many other earnest people who have bothered to actually understand ID -- and find these ideas credible and important and worthy of further research -- are not generally creationists. Simply put, ID theorists have raised critical questions about our understanding of evolution. These ideas cannot be dismissed with a wave of the hand or attacks on the motives of the evolution critics. They must be addressed.

But, still, if one believes in all those pieces and parts of evolution, then how can they not believe in evolution?? That's the big question all right. I think I have to speak only for myself here. I believed in evolution for most of my life, up until just a few years ago. (I also believe in God and saw no real conflict -- then or now.) Now, I'm not saying I no longer believe in evolution. Not exactly. I'm just saying that I've come to understand that we really have no idea how it all happened. We don't know how this earth went from no life to human beings in the relatively short span of a few billion years. So, I might believe in evolution. If someone would just explain it to me. No one's been able to yet and, believe me, I gave them a fair hearing.

"What? You don't believe in evolution? You stinking, creationist scumbag!" (Yes, that's usually the next stop on this little trip.) Well, not exactly. That's a big issue with ID, it doesn't actually answer the questions of our origins either. It simply is not an alternate theory of origins. Anyone who represents it as such either doesn't understand it or actually is a theory-hijacking creationist. (Note to ID theory authors: bad choice of name for your theories.)

Now, I wanted to talk about the science of the debate versus the politics of the debate. But, how can you separate them? The two have become so deeply intertwined that it is impossible. For example, I would like to see more honesty from the evolution proponents about the true limits of our knowledge in this area. But, they believe they are under assault from anti-scientific fundamentalists and that they must maintain a unified front and admit no inadequacies at all in their understanding. Is this a political stance or an honest, misguided attempt to keep the unwashed masses from being hoodwinked? The vitriol with which many denounce the authors of ID makes it difficult to accept that their motives are pure. Destroying a reputation now passes for science. And, again, it proves my point that we still have very, very much to learn about the origins of life. If the facts of the matter were as well known as some insist that they are, then the answer would be to explain those facts, not attack the people that merely point out that they are lacking.

Many ID proponents continue to disappoint me, too. They continue to be allied to and perhaps infiltrated with people who really do appear to be pursuing a religious agenda. What are they thinking?

The whole mess reminds me of the Cold War proxy wars, where the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. would support opposite sides of some small war between third world countries. There is a much larger cultural battle going on here and what should be a minor scientific controversy has been dragged into it.

intelligent design, evolution, creationism