-----------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1996 by the CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY (CRS), Inc.
-----------------------------------------------------------
SOCRATES MEETS DARWIN: A STUDY IN QUESTION BEGGING
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Gary Colwell, Ph.D.
Creation Research Society Quarterly 33(2):127
September, 1996
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cf. The Darwin upheaval. One circle of admirers who said: "Of
course", and another circle [of enemies-R] who said: "Of course
not". Why ... should a man say `of course'? (The idea was that
of monocellular organisms becoming more and more complicated
until they became mammals, men, etc.) Did anyone see this
process happening? No. Has anyone seen it happening now? No.
The evidence of breeding is just a drop in the bucket. But there
were thousands of books in which this was said to be the obvious
solution. People were certain on grounds which were extremely
thin. Could not there have been an attitude which said: "I do
not know. It is an interesting hypothesis which may eventually
be well confirmed"? This shows how you can be persuaded of a
certain thing. In the end you forget entirely every question of
verification, you are just sure it must have been like that.
L. Wittgenstein
_Lectures & Conversations on Aesthetics,
Psychology and Religious Belief_.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The year is 1995. The place is an imaginary after-world from
which all aspects of life on earth can be monitored. A gigantic
party is underway with all the famous thinkers of history in
attendance. Socrates, who is a little more boisterous than
usual, weaves his way among the guests, calling out, "Darwin! ...
Darwin! ... Where is that man?!" Eventually Darwin hears his
name being called and answers:
D Socrates! Over here!
S Oh, there you are. Look, I've got to have a talk with
you. The matter is serious. I have been following the
development of evolutionary thinking for over one hundred and
thirty-five years and after listening to the experts I still
cannot make head or tail of it.
D What is your problem?
S Well, first of all, I simply do not know what people mean
when they say things like "man evolved" or "because of evolution
this or that happened." Now I realize that today even the
earthly school children can say the word "evolution" with an air
of confidence and understanding. And I also see that the word
appears in all manner of magazines and popular books on biology.
But do these people really understand what they confidently talk
about? I mean, it is possible to fit a supposedly technical word
into an informal conversational sentence without making a
grammatical mistake, and still not have a fig of a notion as to
what one means by it. It seems to me that nothing but the vaguest
of ideas is being traded in all this talk about evolution.
D You ought to realize, Socrates, that scientific words
have a way of slipping their moorings in the technical
disciplines and drifting into the mainstream of everyday
conversation. And when they do, not everyone who uses these
words has a clear understanding of their meanings. Practically
every discipline suffers because untrained people use its jargon
vacuously, usually because they want to impress their friends.
But for every one hundred people who mindlessly parrot a
scientific term like "evolution" there is probably at least one
person who can explain its meaning. Also, you must not assume
that because a technical term comes tripping off the tongues of
individual discussants in a conversation they do not know what
the word means. It would be very awkward indeed if a person
always had to explain the underlying concepts of such terms in
order to speak intelligibly. It is precisely because some words
stand for a whole cluster of concepts that they find their
usefulness as shorthand notation in scientific discourse.
S Well said, Darwin! You are just the man to explain this
whole business to me. Please tell me then what evolution is.
D You suggested that you are familiar with the literature.
Surely you do not want me to start with the basics.
S Yes, I do. Be as simple as you can without sacrificing
the truth, because I must have missed something at a very
rudimentary level.
D The word "evolution" simply means "change"; and the
scientific theory of evolution is the theory which states that
organisms have gradually changed from the most simple forms into
the most complex forms, beginning with unicellular organisms and
ending with man--at least ending for the time being. This
gradual change took place during the course of millions of years
and its basis in fact has been established by the observations of
science. The best way to ...
S But do not scientists today speak of evolution as a fact?
You say it is a theory. Which is it?
D Yes, you can say that it is a fact. The theory is based
upon observed facts and ...
S But is the process of change itself observable? I mean
that change to which, presumably, the word "evolution" refers.
D Yes! Now will you please stop interrupting and let me
continue?
S I'm sorry. Please continue.
D As I started to say, perhaps the best way to see this
change is by examining some of the more important explanatory
parts of the theory. First, the structural explanations of the
theory of evolution explain the similarities of body structure
found among organisms of widely diverse species living today.
For example, although the whale, the bat, the horse and man are
members of quite diverse species, their appendages exhibit marked
similarities. The flipper of the whale, the wing of the bat, the
leg of the horse, and the arm of man are all structurally alike,
even though they are functionally different. Evolution explains
the presence of these structural similarities by pointing out
that the organisms of these diverse species have an ancestor or
ancestors in common from which they have descended. Over many
years of descent from a common ancestry these different organisms
have changed; though not enough to erase the structural
similarity we still observe today. Descent, with change, from a
common ancestry also accounts for the presence of vestiges in
many different organisms. You must have read that vestiges are
remnants of larger and once useful body parts--organs,
appendages, etc.--which have atrophied through lack of use as the
whole body of the organism descended and changed. For some
reason these original parts did not disappear completely,
although their functional contribution to the organism
disappeared. The vermiform appendix in man and the wings of
flightless birds are two familiar examples commonly cited.
S All of this sounds disturbingly familiar. You see it is
this business about descent and change that bothers me. I asked
you what evolution is; you said that it is the change of
organisms from one form into another. Further, you said that
this change can be seen by looking at the structural similarities
between members of diverse species, which presumably illustrate
the change in question. But since I have only the vaguest notion
as to what this process of change is like, it is hardly
enlightening to point to the perceived structural similarity
between organisms and to their vestigial organs as evidence of
this change. In other words, the idea of descent with change is
what I am asking you to explain; but you have presupposed it with
your reference to similar structures and vestigial organs.
Unless I have missed something, this looks like a subtle species
of question begging.
D Look, the evidence is as clear as the nose on your face.
How else can we account for these similarities between life
forms? Why should these organisms exhibit a similar structure
unless in fact they had descended from a common ancestry?
S I can't see the nose on my face very well and neither can
I see very well this vaguely conceived change you speak of. If
you are going to start asking "why" questions at the very general
level of structural similarities between organisms can you not
exercise your imagination and think of something which has
greater conceptual definition than "descent, with change, from a
common ancestry?" Of course, I do not know the answer to this
biological riddle, but I can think of at least one theory which
will account for such similarities. Perhaps the god which sent
me on my philosophical mission to the people of Athens devised a
good plan by which to make the species of his creation function
well. He may have used the same basic structural design in many
diverse species, much the same as automobile manufacturers today
on earth retain the same basic design for different models. The
same design, with modification, can serve many purposes. Just as
you asked your "why" question, so I can ask mine. "Why should a
creator throw away a perfectly useful basic design?"
D You can't be serious! That is a preposterous notion.
The scientific community generally rejects such antiquated
thought.
S That may be a true statement about what most scientists
believe, but you are not suggesting that truth in science is
established by counting the beliefs of scientists, are you?
D Even if I were so backward as to entertain the
possibility of such a creation, your theory still would not work.
Just because similarities between the structural designs of
automobiles can be accounted for in terms of a modification of
the ideas of the inventor or manufacturer, it does not
necessarily follow that the structural similarities between
organisms can be accounted for in the same way by referring to a
creator of living organisms. Change in complexity and in
apparent design can be accounted for in more than one way.
S True enough, but this establishes my point. Just as it
does not follow necessarily that the developmental changes in
automobiles and the developmental changes in organisms are the
result of essentially the same kind of process, neither does it
follow necessarily that those changes are not the result of the
same kind of process. They both could be the result of creative
planning. And at this level of observation, where you seem to
see evidence of evolutionary change I merely point out that there
is a good alternative way of explaining the same perceived
phenomenon of structural similarity. But more importantly, my
idea of creation gives an intelligible account of what the change
is and how it is to be conceived: namely, a creative change in
the basic plan of the god. Your notion, however, still lacks
definition; it presupposes that some kind of change occurred
within nature and among different organisms. You have yet to
conceptually identify for me what this change is which presumably
is at the heart of evolutionary theory.
D You might be able to conceive of possible alternatives to
evolution but you cannot dismiss the facts which evidence
evolutionary change.
S But that is precisely the point of contention. What is
factual is not changing, at least not to the degree needed to
transform one species into another. All the organisms which you
claim have descended from a common ancestry--the whale, the bat,
the horse and man--have not changed into different species
throughout the thousands of generations of their observed
existence. Furthermore, any of the organisms which you may
imagine to have been their ancestors and which are still living
today--some of the reptiles, for example--also have not changed
throughout successive generations of their offspring. The change
which is supposed to distinguish evolution as an important
scientific fact is precisely what is lacking when we examine it.
And speaking of the facts, as your disciples today are wont to
do, the evidence you adduce in support of this vaguely conceived
notion of change is highly suspect. In reference to your own
example, I have noticed over the years that as the knowledge of
animal physiology has increased, the number of vestigial organs
so-called has dwindled drastically. Earlier in the history of
evolutionary theory some biologists writing on the topic listed
more than one hundred and eighty of these rudimentary structures.
The human body alone became a veritable museum of evolutionary
remnants. But today I see that most textbooks which treat the
subject at all list only about six vestigial organs, with of
course the vermiform appendix in man still being given the most
prominent place. Unfortunately, the category of "chief vestigial
organ" has itself become vestigial; because immunologists now do
not think that the appendix is a useless remnant. The role of
the appendix in human immunology is well established.
D So, what are you ultimately saying Socrates: that with a
few examples like those you can overturn the scientific theory of
evolution? I suppose the next thing you will tell me is that the
entire fossil record is also not a fact! What do you propose we
do with the countless fossils laid down in the strata of the
earth's crust in such a fashion that only the most obtuse
observer could fail to get their message?
S I have always been slow to understand popular concepts.
Will you please tell me what that unmistakable message is that
you get from the earth?
D Come now, my friend! You must know that fossils have
been laid down in the earth's strata in a clearly discernible
pattern. The pattern I refer to--as I think you already know--is
the gradual and progressive change in complexity of the life
forms which have been fossilized. Beginning with very simple
organisms fossilized in the Cambrian layers, you can see, as you
move up through successive layers, a graduated complexity in the
forms of life, until you reach the most complex organisms in the
most recent layers at the top. The unmistakable message is that
simple organisms have progressively changed or evolved into
highly complex organisms.
S You asked me what I proposed to do with the fossil
record. I do not propose to do anything with it except seriously
try to give it the most sensible interpretation, and I must say
that your interpretation does not strike me as the most sensible
one. Your traditional account of the fossil record manifests the
same weaknesses as your so-called structural explanations.
First, the alleged facts upon which you construct your theory of
evolutionary progression--whatever that is precisely--are not
nearly so factual once you look carefully at them. Second, given
an account of the facts as they really are, there is a better
alternative explanation than evolution: as I said, a creative
change in the basic plan of the god.
You claim that the fossils evidence a gradual progressive change
in the complexity of life forms, beginning with simple organisms
in the bottom layers and ending with complex organisms in the top
layers. But unfortunately the evidence cannot be made to conform
to such a simple account. In actual fact the change one observes
is neither gradual, nor progressive, nor does it begin with
simple organisms.
Whatever you wish to say about those life forms at the bottom of
the evolutionary ladder, organisms such as sponges and protozoa,
you ought not to say that they are simple. Contrary to public
opinion the story of evolution does not begin with simple
organisms, but with very complex ones. Even single-celled
organisms exhibit a degree of complexity which is awe-inspiring.
It seems to me that accounting for the composition, structure and
sophisticated functions of such allegedly primitive organisms is
a major problem for the theory of evolution. As well, among the
oldest fossils one can find evidence of prehistoric animals which
seem to have been at least as complex as modern animals; perhaps
more so. Therefore, because the organisms whose remains are
found in the deepest strata are not "simple" in any ordinary
sense of the term, and because the remains of highly complex
animals are found where they should not be found if evolution is
true, it is a misrepresentation of the facts to simply say that
the change which fossils exhibit begins with simple organisms or
that it always progresses from simple organisms to complex ones.
But worse still, the changes from one organism to another which
the fossils are supposed to exhibit cannot consistently be called
gradual. Within many important sections of the geological column
where you find a succession of fossils, from less complex in the
bottom layers to more complex in the top layers, the succession
is not gradual! At many junctures within these sections there
are tremendously large jumps in the complexity of organisms, with
no trace of a series of graduated intermediate forms to account
for the alleged evolutionary change. Doesn't evolution here
become a kind of "god of the gaps?" Where, for example, are all
the intermediate forms between birds and reptiles? I can see no
way that such leaps in complexity can be accounted for by a
theory which relies so heavily upon the "long - long - ago - over
- a - long - long - time" theme in its scenario. Even one
hundred million years of sedimentary deposition cannot begin to
account for the colossal jumps in the complexity of these life
forms. Is evolution consistent with its own canons? Don't you
see ...
D Now hold on just a minute! You talk so simplistically,
as though evolutionary development were a simple linear
progression laid out like beads on a string. You will do much
better if you think of it as a progression, using the model of a
tree. Granted, several of the branches are missing, which we
shall probably be able to draw in some day, but the main outline
is there. Evolution has been a very complex process which we do
not completely understand, but I am confident that eventually we
shall understand it and thereby clear up the major problems that
remain.
S I wondered when you were going to use that old ploy. You
appeal to scientific ignorance of the workings of this allegedly
complex evolutionary process, but at the same time assert the
existence of that process by emphasizing its inscrutability--when
all the while the very existence of the process itself is
precisely what is in question! It is in question because there
is neither a clear referent for the phrase "evolutionary change"
nor unambiguous evidence to support the evolutionary ideas of
change even supposing the referent for "change" were clearly
given. How is it that although you do not have the requisite
fossil evidence to support evolutionary theory you still know
that evolution occurred? And how does its occurrence gain
existential status in the deep recess of your ignorance? My
response to your claim that there is so much about the workings
of evolution that we don't understand, is: how do you know that
it is evolution that has been working?
D Obviously because we can see clearly the broad outlines
of its work.
S You are still begging the question. The vital evidence
you need to support the claim that it is evolution's work which
is broadly outlined, and not the work of some other force, is
missing. Do you not see that by the same kind of reasoning you
could say that a few different colored dots on a canvas are,
without further evidence, the broad outlines of a Rembrandt?
There is no disanalogy here because, contrary to popular belief,
it is not in fact the case that just a few branches are missing
from the tree of evolution--whole sections of the main trunk are
missing! The onus is not upon me to see how much I can exercise
my imagination by filling the blanks; the onus is upon you to
provide evidence which will support such an imaginative theory.
It is your responsibility to produce the important missing
pieces: not mine to trail after your flights of imagination.
D Socrates, I now think I see your problem. You fail to
make a distinction between the results of evolutionary change and
the process of change itself. Obviously we cannot observe the
change which modified all those species in the past; but we can
infer the existence of such a change from the fossil remains.
S Be careful now. You are wandering in a circle. We have
already discussed the gappy fossil record. Let us not wander
back to the fossil remains and what we are supposed to be able to
infer from them; for we have seen large problems along that path.
You seem not to be grasping the main point of my criticism. When
you say "results of evolutionary change," notice: you assume
that the "change" has taken place; when in fact it is precisely
this change that I am asking you to substantiate. What you
desire to call the "results" of change I have argued are really
the deficient beginnings of your case for evolution. Logically
you cannot call these weak beginnings "the results."
Furthermore, it is not only that the fossil record is lacking in
evidence--it presents contradictory evidence. Not only are many
fossils missing which should be present; there are many fossils
present where they should be missing.
Let me illustrate the point. Suppose that an earthling walks
into his dining room in the morning and sees a beautiful vase on
a table. Later that afternoon he returns to the dining room, but
this time he sees the vase smashed in pieces on the floor. There
has been a change all right, but the "how" of that change may not
at all be clear. Was it the cat, an earth tremor, a human hand,
gravity, the wind, or something else? Unless he has more
evidence than just the memory of the unbroken vase in the
morning, together with the spectacle of smashed pieces in the
afternoon, it is presumptuous of him to single out any one of
those agents as being responsible for the destruction. Notice,
however, that he can bridge the gap between his remembrance of
the vase intact and his perception of the broken pieces before
him, by using his imagination. But if all that he uses to bridge
the gap is his imagination, then the change which he proposes--
for example, the movement of the cat's tail against the vase--is
merely a conceptual change, with no basis in fact. He needs more
than a jumping imagination to account for change in the world
around him.
The need for evidence of a specific kind of change is much more
acute in the case of evolution; because there you want to argue
not only that a change took place in nature itself, but that
simpler organisms changed into more complex organisms, by chance.
Unlike the change in the vase, the notion of evolutionary change
is counter-intuitive; it is especially important to fill in the
gaps with something more than the imagination.
I am not denying, for example, that reptiles are different from
mammals. And there is of course a conceptual change which one
must make in moving from his thoughts about fossils of reptiles
to his thoughts about fossils of mammals. But unless one has
something more to offer than the catch phrase "because of
evolutionary change," his ideas remain groundless. The "how" of
evolutionary change is not, as many scientists seem to think, a
non-essential extra to be filled in at some later date. It is
the very heart of this putative process. If the "how" of
evolutionary theory cannot be identified and coherently
described, and if clear non-contradictory evidence at the crucial
points cannot be given in support of the theory, then, to speak
of "evolutionary change" as a distinctive occurrence within
nature is to speak vacuously.
D You keep harping on this business of change, as though
evolution had been discovered yesterday. You said that you have
been reading the literature. Have you not read anything about
natural selection and genetic variation?
S Yes, I have - and you would have done as well if you had
read Mendel instead of leaving him alone on your library shelf -
he is, after all, the father of your theory, is he not? But
never mind, like the rest of evolutionary theory, I cannot make
head or tail of natural selection and genetic variation. Now, I
will stop harping if you change your tune.
D Speaking of "old ploys," that one of playing the dummy is
wearing rather thin. I remember your tricks. Let me guess: now
you want me to give you a basic lesson in the mechanics of
evolutionary change?
S Yes indeed I do! And let me assure you that my ignorance
is not feigned--I really do not understand all this business.
That is why I have come to you, the expert.
D Well, when I first conceived of the theory of evolution I
accepted the Lamarckian assumption that hereditary changes are
produced by the environment. In order to adapt to a particular
environmental niche for which it was not viably suited, an
organism acquired the characteristics necessary for survival.
The environment, so to speak, urged upon the organism the
acquisition of these characteristics--or, so we thought. In
addition, I also thought that, corresponding to this change in
the organism's characteristics, hereditary changes were somehow
produced, such that the newly acquired characteristics could be
transmitted to succeeding generations. All of this of course was
before the advent of genetics. It is now believed by those who
still accept my basic evolutionary model that the mechanisms of
change are different. Neo-Darwinians hold that hereditary
changes are the result of gene mutations. Simply stated, instead
of saying that the environment produces adaptive changes which
are hereditary, it is now said that hereditary changes make
adaptation possible. Changes in the genetic makeup of an
organism alter that organism in such a manner as to prepare it
for an environmental niche into which it can emigrate. This
genetic preparation is sometimes called preadaptation. Let me
give you a simple illustration. It is often discovered that the
inhabitants of caves are blind and possess highly developed
tactile sense organs. According to my old view, the darkness
forced the would-be cave inhabitants to give up using their eyes
and acquire an acute sense of touch. The revised Neo-Darwinian
view says that this is putting the cart before the horse.
Actually, the would-be inhabitants must be equipped to survive
before they emigrate to the caves. That is, they are preadapted
by a genetic mutation which results in a heightened tactile
sensitivity.
S Please forgive another simple-minded question, but why
would anyone think in the first place that organisms adapt to
their environments, either in the manner you first proposed or in
the manner proposed by your followers today?
D Well, obviously, because of the compatibility which
exists between organisms and their environments. It must surely
be evident even to your critical mind how well organisms and
their environments fit together: the environment being suitable
to accommodate the organism and the organism being fit to exist
in its environment. This harmonious state of affairs can be
observed everywhere on earth.
S But have these adaptations of new organisms to new
environments ever been observed? I do not mean just those
changes in parts of an organism such as tails getting longer or
fur changing color, etc., as a result of cross-breeding within
the same species. These confined changes were observed and well
known to everyone hundreds of years before the word "evolution"
gained any currency. I mean, has anyone ever scientifically
observed a radical change in an organism at the specific or even
sub-specific level, such that the radically new organism could
fit into a radically new environment? Or, has anyone even
observed an organism like the bat losing its sight, then gaining
a heightened sense of touch and hearing, and then emigrating to a
radically new environment like a cave where it continued to live
and reproduce offspring similarly adapted?
D Of course not. Natural selection at the level you are
asking about cannot be directly observed. It is a very complex
process which has taken a great deal of time.
S But would you not agree that adaptation at that level has
got to be established before evolution may be called an
explanatory scientific theory about how organisms have radically
changed?
D Certainly the changes must have been radical but the ...
S Well, if small changes such as the variations in the size
of an appendage, or in the color of some body part, cannot
provide the evidence needed for the appearance of these radically
new organisms, upon what basis do you argue that such large scale
changes have occurred which enable an organisms to adapt to a
radically new environment?
D I have already told you: upon the basis of the
harmonious interaction of organisms with their environment. The
organisms must have changed dramatically in order to fit into new
environmental niches.
S Let me understand what you are saying. You say that
organisms and their environments fit together?
D Yes, that's right.
S And they fit together because the organism adapts to its
environment?
D Correct.
S And when I ask you how you know that the organism does
adapt to a radically new environment you say, because the
organism and its environment fit together.
D Yes, that's my position.
S Don't you see that you're arguing in a circle? You jump
from the observed harmony in nature to the mysterious conclusion
that organisms change dramatically and then adapt to a radically
new environment, providing no other factual support for this
grand inductive inference than the obvious facts about harmony
with which you started. It seems that evolutionists use the
notion of "fitness" both as a starting observation and as a
concluding explanation. The only facts involved in your case for
natural selection are those which are obvious and agreeable to
everyone before any inferences are drawn. As a description of
the way organisms and their environments are suited to one
another, part of your account is unobjectionable; but as a
putative explanation of how organisms have come into being,
natural selection really does not provide an answer. At best we
may learn how some existing organisms survive a radical
environmental change--such as black moths in sooty trees--but not
how they radically change in surviving. I repeat my former
criticism of putative "evolutionary change": the change that you
need to demonstrate is precisely what you assume throughout your
whole account. And, if you are going to take such liberty with
inductive inference you should not object to an alternative
inference of no greater breadth which is drawn from the same
observations about natural harmony. Why not infer that the
delicate balance of nature everywhere observed is the work of a
god who ...
D You might have gotten away with that kind of argument in
your time, or even one hundred years ago, but not now. I think
that I have already made it plain that the idea of genetic
variation forms an integral part of evolutionary theory as it is
taught today. No one any longer speaks about natural selection
without saying or implying that genetic variations form an
integral part of the evolutionary process.
S Well then, are you now admitting that the main support
for the belief in evolutionary change is found in genetics? I
should soon very much like to get to the foundation of this whole
matter.
D Yes, you could say that. The evidence for change you so
eagerly seek is found in the fact of gene mutations.
S But is there really any scientific evidence--I mean solid
data; not fanciful theorizing--which shows that a mutant form of
an organism can change it into anything like what is needed to
reproduce a new species?
D Come now, you must surely have read about the mutant
forms in plants, animals, and insects. Are you not familiar with
the fruitfly experiments? Countless mutants of the Drosophila
have been observed and written up in the literature.
S It seems that you are not the only one who thinks he is
not being heard. I have just asked a question the thrust of
which you seem to be completely ignoring. The weakness of the
genetic explanation for evolution lies precisely in the alleged
evidence you advance in support of it. Even if the highly
improbable occurred, that is, even if a thousand of such mutants
occurred in one and the same fruitfly, you would still not have
an organism whose total change represented anything like a new
species actually found in nature. And what is important here of
course is that such a large scale change never has been observed.
D I do not know what literature you have been reading, but
a mutation which can change an antenna into a leg is quite a
powerful piece of evidence for the mechanism of evolutionary
change.
S That is a very misleading description my friend. What
you are suggesting is the origination of a new complex structure,
a leg, is really just the switching of an already genetically
encoded structure to a new location, the place of the antenna,
where it then develops. What is worse, however, is that this
sort of aberrant switching is disadvantageous to the fly, even
if, hypothetically speaking, one could say that some new genetic
material were being added to the blueprint of the fly, which
definitely is not the case. If you are going to gain any
distance with the genetic argument you will have to show that an
organism can create new genetic material which increases
radically the complexity of the structure or function of the
organism, thus enabling it to adapt to a radically new
environment. If, for instance, we have evolved from protozoa,
where did the genes for a nervous system, bones, etc. come from?
There is a huge gap here which needs to be filled.
D Even so, the small genetic changes that we do observe
provide us with a good working idea of how large scale changes in
organisms could have occurred and thus produced radically new
organisms.
S Has anyone ever observed these grand genetic changes
which you imagine could have been the impetus for evolutionary
advancement?
D No, of course not, but just because they have not been
observed, it does not mean that they did not occur! You have not
shown that such changes could not have happened.
S No it does not--but neither does it mean that they did
occur. But, since you are the one advancing the theory, the onus
is yours to establish its truth. It is not my responsibility to
satisfy your impossible request, to show that some imagined
events, such as large scale genetic changes which, as purely
imagined events, are not logically impossible, could not occur.
That kind of demonstration cannot be provided in any world, let
along be provided in evolutionary theory. Nor is it ever a
reasonable request that it should be provided. How, for example,
would you ever demonstrate that a creator could not possibly
exist? You must base your case for evolution on positive
available evidence--unless of course you decide to give your
ideas, as they now stand, a more suitable title: "a poetic
vision" or "a secular faith" or something similar. I am afraid
that you have not yet felt how heavy the burden of proof is which
rests upon your shoulders.
D And you seem to have something against speculation in
science. In fact, you misrepresent the scientific process.
Listen, it would be ridiculous for scientists to formulate only
theories for which there was already confirming evidence. Surely
it is not necessary to present the confirming evidence for
possible advantageous macromutations before I theorize that they
have occurred?
S I have nothing at all against speculation, in science or
anywhere else. I only wish that you--and especially your
followers--would call it exactly that, instead of making
grandiose claims about the evidence for evolution. You give
everybody the impression that evolution is firmly grounded on
facts. You claim that genetics has the answer to the questions
of change which I have just been pursuing. And yet when the
truth is told, either, the changes which can actually be observed
are small, not radical, and most often disadvantageous to an
organism, thus providing no relevant evidence for the large scale
changes required by evolution; or, the changes are large but non-
existent, purely products of your imagination, having no basis in
fact. So, in either case the foundational support for the claim
that evolution has occurred has yet to be established.
D I grant you that the theory may have some weaknesses in
each of its various explanatory parts, but when the explanations
are taken altogether, I think you will have to admit, they
present a very convincing account.
S That's like saying that although one leaky bucket will
not hold water, ten leaky buckets will.
D It depends on how far you want to carry the water!
S Yes, and how big the holes are! But to carry the
progressive development of life forms all the way from
noncellular organisms to man? That is a very long way, my
friend. You began by discussing structural similarities and
vestigial organs. When I pointed out that your account not only
contained factual mistakes but also presumed without
justification the answer to my basic question of evolutionary
change, you directed our discussion to the fossil record and the
supposedly unmistakable pattern which is exhibited there. When I
pointed out further factual errors and emphasized again your
persistence in assuming without warrant the very change in
question, you then led us into a discussion of what are
apparently the dual pillars of evolutionary theory, natural
selection and genetic variation. And now after I have once again
pointed out that even in the genetic account radical change is
being assumed, not evidenced, you still want to go back over this
whole business and say that somehow all the missing supports for
your theory are able to make it stand. Is not that an odd kind
of argument?
D How else can we account for the existence of complex life
forms?
S Goodness gracious! You are surely not suggesting that a
bad theory is better than none at all? Has it never occurred to
you to say, "I do not know"? You ought to read Wittgenstein.
D But no intellectually respectable scientist today could
doubt it!
S That is the problem with you people. You hold your
theories with such religious fervour that you cannot detach
yourself from them long enough to ask a few basic questions.
D And the problem with philosophers is that they are always
preoccupied with semantics. Clever word play, that's all!
S I have never pretended that philosophy is anything but
the art of asking uncomfortable questions about fundamental
assumptions. Say what you like against philosophers, but that
will not remove the serious criticisms which hound your theory.
D Do you realize what you're suggesting? Are you asking me
to believe that all of these venerable men of science are
misguided because they do not have any clear idea of evolutionary
change? One should not dignify the suggestion with a response.
S I do not know this, but let me tell you what I think is
the main reason for the perpetuation of this conceptual
confusion. The pseudo-explanatory force of evolutionary theory
derives its psychological power from the fact that
anthropomorphic terms within its narrative are readily understood
in non-scientific speech contexts.
D What in thunder does that mean!?
S Consider the fanciful character of the stories that are
spun around the fossil remains. We read about vertebrates who
left their aquatic environment and developed limbs by a happy
accident. And with their newly developed limbs these amphibians
learned to linger about the drying pools. In the story of the
descent from the trees we read of men-like, tree-borne primates
who became earth-borne creatures. They assumed an erect posture,
lengthened and strengthened their lower limbs; and the latter
became organs of the mind. A more anthropomorphic story would be
difficult to write. It is hardly a step at all to imagine a
group of turtles getting together for a conference to make plans
for an exploring expedition. Of course if these action verbs and
nouns are read anthropomorphically then the conclusion towards
which the evolutionary argument moves is assumed at the outset.
Presumably the lower forms of life somehow developed into the
complex form called man. Therefore, in the beginning they did
not possess, even at the amphibian stage, the motivation and
ability to direct their destinies, as man is able to do. To
smuggle into the language of explanation the suggestion that they
did is to gain a psychological support for the central thesis of
evolution which needs to be established legitimately by non-
semantical means.
This dramatic-scientific story of evolution is conceived so
generally that it can accommodate almost any idea, which in fact
it does. Not only does it deposit in its store the scientific
jargon of "fossils," "strata," etc., but it also incorporates
with ease the anthropomorphic language of epic poetry. The
scientist learns to speak in one breath of "carbon dating,"
"developing limbs" and "happy accidents." His narrative
explanation admixes science and saga, with a strong emphasis upon
the latter. And the anthropomorphic action terms find ready
acceptance in the minds of readers because their minds are
accustomed to using such terms daily in ordinary sensible
contexts. For example, "the development of limbs" is thought to
convey something intelligible because "the development of
muscles" or "the development of talent" are perfectly sensible.
It is this practice of semantical borrowing which makes popular
books on evolution so saleable. People see beautifully colored
charts and read in the captions below all about the saga of
evolution. Even the children can repeat with confidence the
story of "amphibians developing limbs" and "reptiles taking to
flight." And all of this is done with an air of clear
understanding, as if evolution were really being explained.
D Socrates, I am afraid that you have now stepped out onto
a very long limb from which, sadly, there is no return. Don't
you realize that no scientist in his senses would claim that
these narrative accounts explain how evolution occurred? They
serve merely as an heuristic device, that's all.
S Are you saying that these accounts are used only for
teaching purposes and are not intended as explanations of the
evolutionary process?
D Yes, that's right.
S That leads me to ask two questions. If the narratives
are meant to be taken only as a kind of grand mnemonic, then
ought not the writers of these accounts say so unequivocally, to
make clear the metaphorical nature of their language? For it
certainly seems that they intend for the narratives to be taken
as explanations. My second question, however, leads me to doubt
your easy interpretation of these narratives. In order for the
story of evolution to represent the truth it must surely be based
upon a knowledge of the mechanisms for evolutionary development--
otherwise there is no guarantee that the story corresponds to the
actual developmental process which it merely wants to picture.
But if that is the case, what are these known mechanisms of
progressive radical change in the development of organisms?
D Natural selection and genetic variation, of course!
S But you're arguing in a circle again. We have already
seen that there is nothing in genetics which can account for the
radical changes required by your theory. And now you want to
base the epic, "protozoa to man," on this foundationless support.
You know, Darwin, the longer I talk with you the more questions I
have. Could it be that the theory of evolution is not only a
question-begging argument, but something even more problematic?
Is it even empirically significant? I mean to ask, does the key
phrase "evolutionary change" have an empirical referent?
If one tries to discover how evolution works he is told that the
causal factors involved are not observable, not repeatable, not
simple, and not agreeable to all scientists. And if one wants to
see this negative qualification on a grand scale he need only
look at the history of the subject. When Lamarckism and
Darwinism failed, evolution succeeded. When Vitalism and
Finalism failed, evolution still succeeded.[1] Even though Neo-
Lamarckians and Neo-Darwinians have been at loggerheads about
crucial matters, evolution supposedly stands above the confusion
and contradictions.[2] What is this change called "evolution"
which survives all the vicissitudes of its vague and
contradictory explanations? How does this alleged process, which
cannot be repeated or observed or even specified, and whose
supporting explanations of natural selection and genetic
variation crumble beneath the weight of logical-empirical
analysis, differ from no process at all?
D Enough! I do not want to hear any more of this nonsense.
What you are saying is silly! Be gone!
Socrates calmly turned and walked away, and as he cleared a path
among the guests he was heard muttering to himself, "I wonder if
Freud is here. Perhaps he can help me understand what Darwin
said."
ENDNOTES
[1] "A theory may be described as `vitalistic' if it purports
to give a systematic explanation of evolution in terms of some
unique non-natural agency" such as "the `life force', `elan
vital', entelechy, etc." (Goudge, p. 80)
"Just as vitalism is not necessarily finalistic, so finalism is
not necessarily vitalistic. For the core of finalism is the
contention that a necessary condition of evolution consists of
its orientation towards an ultimate goal." The goal may be
reached by "mechanically determined processes." (Goudge, p. 81)
[2] Neo-Lamarkism holds "...that the effects of use and
disuse [of parts of an organism], together with other
environmentally induced changes, can become fixed in the
hereditary equipment of species..." (Goudge, pp. 85,86)
Neo-Darwinism, simply stated, is Darwinism without the Lamarkian
assumption that hereditary changes are produced by the
environment, and with the assumption that heredity changes stem
from genetic variation in the organism. A complete account would
be much more complicated than this and would reveal that Neo-
Darwinians differ significantly in their evolutionary views
according to the theory of mechanism for genetic variation and
natural selection which they hold.
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
This dialogue descended from an unpublished paper of 57 pages
written long ago, titled "The Language, Truth and Logic of
Evolutionary Theory." That paper in turn derived some of its
nourishment from the following works.
Bonner, J.T. 1961. Perspectives. _American Scientist_ 49:240-
244.
Davidheiser, B. 1969. _Evolution and Christian Faith_. The
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Nutley, New Jersey.
Dewey, J. 1951. The influence of Darwinism on philosophy. In
_Classic American Philosophers_, edited by Max H. Fisch.
Appleton-Century-Crofts Inc., New York, pp. 336-344.
Dobzhansky, T. 1958. Evolution at work. _Science_ 127:1091-
1098.
Flew, A. 1955. Theology and falsification. In _New Essays in
Philosophical Theology_, edited by A. Flew and A. Macintyre. SCM
Press, London, pp. 96-99.
Goldschmidt, R.B. 1952. Evolution, as viewed by one geneticist.
_American Scientist_ 40:84-98.
Goudge, T.A. 1961. _The Ascent of Life_. University of Toronto
Press, Toronto.
Maatman, R.W. 1970. _The Bible, Natural Science and Evolution_.
Reformed Fellowship, Inc., Grand Rapids.
Moore, J.N. and R.J. Cuffey. Paleontologic evidence and organic
evolution. _Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation_
24:160-176.
Simpson, G.G. 1949. _The Meaning of Evolution_. Yale
University Press, New Haven.
Wittgenstein, L. 1972. Lectures and conversations on
aesthetics, psychology and religious belief, edited by C.
Barrett, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Disclaimer and Acknowledgement
Over the past dozen years or so we have seen published a spate of
books which challenge Neo-Darwinism. Authors who come to mind
are P.E. Johnson, D. Davis and D.H. Kenyon. Spirited defenses of
Neo-Darwinism have been mounted by many authors, two of the most
prominent of them being S.J. Gould and M. Ruse. Neither in
writing this dialogue nor in revising it have I borrowed from
these more recent authors, its main thesis having been written
well before the relevant works of these authors appeared.
I must, however, thank Jon Buell for reading the unrevised
dialogue and making several helpful suggestions for its
improvement.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1996 by the CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY (CRS), Inc.
-----------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION LIMITATIONS:
This data file is the sole property of the Creation Research
Society and may not be altered or edited in any way. It may be
reproduced only in its entirety for circulation as "freeware."
All reproductions of this data file must contain the copyright
notice listed at the beginning of this file [i.e., "Copyright
1996 by the CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY (CRS), Inc."].
This data file may not be used without the permission of the
Creation Research Society for resale or the enhancement of
any other product sold. This includes all of its content with
the exception of a few brief quotations not to exceed more than
500 words in total. If you desire to reproduce fewer than 500
words of this data file for resale or the enhancement of any
other product for resale, please give the following source
credit: Copyright 1996 by the Creation Research Society, P.O.
Box 376, Chino Valley, AZ 86323.
-----------------------------------------------------------
file: /pub/resources/text/crs/crq: 33_2a.txt
.