The ID Report

By Robert Deyes
ARN Correspondent

The notion that the universe was purposefully designed for the advent of life, if confirmed, would contradict orthodox Darwinism. After all, a life-directed universe and more particularly one that invariably leads to intelligent beings such as us that are able to look back through cosmic history and make scientific discoveries, by definition contravenes the random, goal-less ends inherent in a natural selective process. Darwin's success came from his convincing rebuttal of a guided, goal-directed evolution of life through a thesis that amassed evidence, albeit circumstantial, in support of his macroevolutionary model. Through his claims of colonization and subsequent adaptation of island archipelagos by mainland fauna (Ref 1, pp.528-546), Darwin saw no reason why small adaptational differences could not, given enough time, result in the large differences observed between all life forms. His triumph came in proposing that natural selection was the mechanism by which the branching of the evolutionary tree, from a few common ancestors, could occur (Ref 1, pp.107-108).

Darwin's observations on homologous resemblances (Ref 1, pp.577-578) and the origins of varieties through animal breeding (Ref 1, pp.24-49) only served to strengthen his conviction that all forms of life could be traced back in history to a few common progenitors. With the Malthusian predictions of famine and plague (Ref 2, p.120) and Ernst Haeckel's claim of unity of form during embryonic development (Ref 3), Darwin found the sociological and biological ammunition he needed to do away altogether with the typological framework that defined the Special Creationist world view (Ref 1, p.247). For Darwin, the entire notion of a designer who had fashioned life with the culmination of man as a creature made in His own image, directly contradicted what he saw as the apparent toil and suffering readily visible throughout nature (Ref 4, pp.12-13). A benevolent designer such as the biblical God, Darwin concluded, would not have wished such depth of suffering upon His creation. And so Darwin's theory of evolution became a theory of 'His volition' the principle tenet of which was that life seemed too haphazard and pitiful to be a willful act of divine love. An unplanned struggle for survival appealed more closely to the status quo (Ref 2, p.90).

Darwinism and later its more contemporary equivalent neo-Darwinism seemed scientifically and philosophically indisputable. In 1953, all that changed. The elucidation of the DNA double helical structure by James Watson and Francis Crick signaled a new era of scientific discovery that would eventually lead to the molecular biology revolution. One fundamental revelation that emerged was that not only are different genes involved in the formation of apparently homologous structures in different species but supposedly related genes also code for structures that are dissimilar and would not be categorized as homologous under the Darwinian definition (Ref 5; 6; 7). Together with the lack of a viable explanation for how complex organs such as the eye supposedly evolved (Ref 8) and the absence of intermediate forms needed to unite the diversity of life, which Darwin conveniently explained away by resorting to the idea of an imperfectly kept fossil record (Ref 1, pp. 213-214), the Darwinian paradigm faced a formidable onslaught from conflicting data.

In his testimony to the United States Commission on Human Rights, philosopher Stephen Meyer argued that there is scope for consideration of another theory, that of Intelligent Design, as an alternative to Darwinian evolution (Ref 9). Intelligent Design theory does not aim to identify the designer in any metaphysical or theological sense but simply looks at aspects of the natural world that, "reliably signal the action of an intelligence, whatever that intelligence might be" (Ref 10, p.314). What Intelligent Design theory does not allow for is the idea that Darwinian descent with modification can account for the transformation of a single-celled ancestor into the full panoply of life that we see today. Within this limitation, philosopher William Dembski argues that natural laws cannot explain the origins of the highly specified genetic instructions found in DNA (Ref 10, p.149).

Central to the scientific argument of Intelligent Design is the notion of irreducible complexity which, as biochemist Michael Behe has famously demonstrated, exists in many biological processes (Ref 11, 12). Behe's observation is that for such processes a critical set of interacting components is required before they can work properly to achieve a specified function. That is, if any component were to be removed, these processes would cease to work (Ref 11, 12). The intricacies of blood clotting, the motion of the bacterial flagellar motor, the beating of cilia and the co-operative elements of the immune response fall central to Behe's argument. More recently the activation pathway of enzymes involved in programmed cell death has been shown to display irreducible complexity (Ref 13). Hypothetical precursors to such processes would have been by definition non-functional, lacking the components that give at least a minimal level of functionality. Irreducible complexity defies the piece-meal assembly inherent in a Darwinian selective process.

Today perhaps more than ever before, we have a responsibility to look at the scientific theories that we hold dear and reassess their validity in light of the latest evidence. Darwinian theory should not be excluded from the rigorous questioning of objective discourse. Those who choose to elevate Darwinism to the level of an unquestionable 'fact' that is universally applicable to all aspects of biology do so at an enormous cost to the enterprise of scientific debate. Intelligent Design proponents do after all present their own cogent arguments in support of their assertions (Refs 11-14). Such arguments go against the random directionless tenet of Darwinism and present us with new avenues for scientific research into the existence of life.

So it is that I end on a personal note. Well known throughout the world are the colorful festivities of the Brazilian carnival where the 'Sambadromo' sets entire cities dancing on the streets during the month of February. 2009 will be no different. Perhaps less well known are the traditional, remembrance celebrations in June for Saint John who, according to folklore, is responsible for the good harvest that Brazil reaps every year. So strong is lure of St John that, even when the harvest is poor, his contribution to the harvest is whole-heartedly acknowledged. One of the many ways that children celebrate the event is by releasing and chasing small hot air balloons through the cities, the aim of this game being to catch them wherever they land. Having grown up in Brazil, I remember chasing these balloons over six-lane highways, across bridges and through neighborhoods in the hope that I would be the first to arrive at their point of landing and, in the process, discover what mysterious mechanism kept them airborne.

Needless to say disappointment always followed when, arriving breathless at the landing spot, I discovered not only that a crowd of kids had arrived long before me but that the balloons had entered someone's backyard. Like navigators on a voyage of discovery, we would peer through tall impenetrable fences at the balloons beyond, filled with the realization that we would have to wait for another day to uncover their secrets. Reflecting on these experiences, I somehow think that Darwin must have faced a similar predicament when confronted with the black box of the inner workings of life. This black box would have been Darwin's own 'balloon of the backyard'. Peering across the fence that was the limited knowledge of molecular biology at the time, Darwin must have hoped that this black box would not upset his grand theory. He was nevertheless able to brush off the lack of knowledge by filling in the gaps of knowledge with the apparent power of natural selection. As he wrote in his autobiography

"The old argument of design in nature...which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered...There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows" (Ref 2, p.87)

Unfortunately for Darwin we now know that such generalities regarding his grand theory were premature (Ref 9). What we see emerging today is a gradual disquiet and dissatisfaction with Darwinian orthodoxy. Like the beat of a distant drum that is getting louder, the rumblings of unrest are making themselves increasingly known throughout the scientific community. Biophysicist Cornelius Hunter points out why such a state of affairs is unremarkable given the "vague explanations" put forward in evolutionary literature which rely on "such dubious mechanisms" as "chance" or "opportunism" (Ref 4, p.75). We can thus understand the cries that call out for a radical upheaval in the way that we view biology not only in its form but also in its complexity. Indeed, the inner makings of life are threatening to topple the 'house of cards' that is modern evolutionary biology.

References
1. Charles Darwin (1859), The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection Or The Preservation of Favored Races In the Struggle For Survival, Modern Library Paperbacks Edition (1998), New York

2. Charles Darwin, The Autobiography Of Charles Darwin, Copyright held by Nora Barlow in 1958, W.W. Norton and Company Inc, New York

3. Michael K. Richardson, James Hanken, Lynne Selwood, Glenda M. Wright, Robert J. Richards, Claude Pieau, Albert Raynaud (1998), Haeckel, Embryos, and Evolution, Science Vol 280, p.293

4. Cornelius Hunter (2001), Darwin's God, Evolution and the Problem of Evil, Brazos Press, A division of Baker Book House Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan

5. Philip W. Ingham and Andrew P. McMahon (2001), Hedgehog signaling in animal development: paradigms and principles, Genes and Development Volume 15, pp.3059-3087

6. Patrick Callaerts, Patricia N. Lee, Britta Hartmann, Claudia Farfan, Darrett W.Y. Choy, Kazuho Ikeo, Karl-Friederich Fischbach, Walter J. Gehring and H Gert de Couet (2001), HOX genes in the sepiolid squid Euprymna scolopes: Implications for the evolution of complex body plans PNAS Vol 99, pp.2088-2093

7. Sean Carroll (2005), The Origins of Form Natural History Magazine, November 2005. Article can be found at http://www.naturalhistorymag.com

8. Walter J. Gehring and Kazuho Ikeo (1999), Pax 6 mastering eye morphogenesis and eye evolution, Trends in Genetics, Volume 15, pp.371-377

9. Stephen Meyer (1998), Testimony to the United States Commission on Civil Rights Concerning the Teaching of Biological Origins, http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_uscommcivrights.htm

10. William Dembski (2002), No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc, Lanham, Maryland

11. Michael J Behe (1996), Darwin Under the Microscope, Appeared in the New York Times October 29, 1996, Section A, p.25

12. Michael Behe, Eddie N. Colanter, Logan Gage, and Phillip Johnson (2008), Intelligent Design 101: Leading Experts Explain The Key Issues, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, Michigan, pp. 115-129

13. Robert Deyes (2008), The Disarming Cell: Taking The Wind Out Of The Sails Of Darwinism, ARN, http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2008/09/11/the_disarming_cell_how_cellular_biology

14. Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards (2004), The Privileged Planet, How Our Place In The Cosmos is designed for Discovery, Regnery Publishing Inc, Washington D.C, New York