Why do a third of biologists now question Darwinism?



While Christians have long challenged Charles Darwin's theory of non-directed evolution, few appreciate the true scope of the challenge beyond the church. Current estimates indicate that approximately one-third of professional academic biologists who do not believe in intelligent design believe that Darwin's theory is inadequate to describe the full complexity of biology.

Ben Stein documented an offensive in the academy with criticism of Darwin in his 2008 documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." While this might explain why the public rarely learns about the challenges to neo-Darwinism, the documentary focused on intelligent design. But the growing discontent in academia is with secular naturalists.

Defining evolution is key. At the basic level of they change over timeEven the biblical creationists of Young Earth agree. At its most specific level of the common descent of all life on earth from a single ancestor through an unguided mutation and natural selection, many legitimately question evolutionary theory in its current form. The word is used indiscriminately without distinction, but even when it is used technically in academic circles of biologists, there is a real skepticism about the theory.

Demanding a new theory

A controversial letter to Nature in 2014 pointed to the growing concern, albeit slow and cautious, among reflective professional biologists. Other works by atheistic authors such as "What Darwin Got Wrong" and "Mind and Cosmos" find "fatal faults" in the theory and claim that it is "almost certainly false".

Another project, The Third Way, seeks to avoid a false choice between divine intervention (which openly rejects) and the Neo-Darwinian model (which finds not supported by modern molecular theory) while presenting evidence to improve the theory of evolution beyond Neo. -Darwinism. Some even believe that billions of years have not been adequate for Darwinian theory to achieve the current complexity, as it currently exists.

This dissatisfaction is a matter of public record, even if it lacks public attention, and even though the narrative is contrary. In fact, dedicated neo-Darwinists often say "there are no serious scientists in disagreement" or "only creationists have problems". These statements are increasingly refuted.

The important note is that these are not ideologues or religious fanatics, nor propose a god or a biblical solution. Rather, they encounter problems with the explanatory value of Darwin's theory in light of the modern understanding of mutation, variation, DNA sequencing and more. These expressions of doubt do not reject naturalism or evolution per se, but the rigor of the neo-Darwinian model to explain the development of life.

In fact, they want to help Darwin, not overthrow him. That he needs help is something new for the academy.

A voice in the desert

Professor Kevin Laland, author of Nature's letter that insists on an "urgent" rethinking of evolutionary theory, has described the need for a paradigm shift. He recognizes the rejection of the scientific establishment, but he and his colleagues follow a path forward with a rigorous work in their model of Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES).

This is an update of the Modern Synthesis of the mid-twentieth century, which amended the neo-Darwinian theory with then modern information. Since then, the understanding of complexity has grown in such a way that Laland and others believe that EES or another paradigm is necessary to keep up.

Laland explained: "The EES is a minority position, but it is not a minority as small as it is often represented. It is also gaining ground. " EES is not the only naturalist supplement or revision of neo-Darwinism, but it joins other factions besieged in the academy, including The Third Way.

"As you can guess, there is a lot of politics in these debates. Traditionalists have a history of characterizing more progressive researchers as a small group of extremists, "Leland added." Support for our position comes from academic fields on the periphery of evolutionary biology, such as the biology of evolutionary development, biology. of ecological development, paleontology, botany and the human sciences, while traditionalists dominate evolutionary genetics ".

A growing minority

After publishing in Nature, Laland received more than 1,000 emails in support of the academic community. This number is huge for a critique of such an accepted theory. In the five years since the Nature letter, support has also grown.

The main critics have been sympathetic to intelligent design, whom naturalists despised. But as each group joins the scientific literature, certain criticisms and findings inevitably reinforce or redirect the research of the other.

The effects go at least one way. Following the work and the theories of Stephen Jay Gould, Michael Denton helped to shape a generation of skeptics with his 1985 book "Evolution: a theory in crisis". Denton, evolutionist and agnostic, has continued his criticism.

In the last decade, the works of Professor Michael Behe, Steven Meyer and others have given more life to the debate on the national stage. In "Darwin Devolves," Behe ​​points out the process of mutations to describe the inadequacy of an unguided materialistic process to add information. Meyer explores the Cambrian explosion and the complexity of the cell to show the biodiversity and complexity that we observe, and points out that natural processes have Never It has been observed to produce such results.

Importantly, these two men, and many others, believe in the standard billions of years of time for Earth and make their findings based on the deduction of natural evidence rather than on authority in the Scriptures or elsewhere. The growth of the intelligent design community is remarkable, but it is not as interesting as those who are secular, and yet they find that Darwinian evolution contains serious flaws.

Behe explained that, "Based on conversations with my own colleagues in Lehigh [University], dozens of other biologists and news in magazines, I guess a third or more of biologists are quite skeptical that Darwin's theory explains all of biology. "Growing literature speaks for itself.

Paul Nelson told Stein that "One by one in a scientific meeting after the third or fourth beer, my experience has been that many evolutionary biologists will say, 'Yes, this theory has a lot of problems.'" Although anecdotal, this is repeated by many in the academic world, both within intelligent design and, what is more important, outside of it.

While maintaining his field is not in crisis and insisting on the nuances, Leland points out: "I think the problem of numbers depends to a large extent on the subtle details of how the question fits. A good proportion would probably agree that the causal bases of evolution are more complex than what is commonly described in textbooks. "

Difficulties to form alliances

The nuance and framing are important, and along with the traditional pressures, makes the estimates of Neo-Darwin critics incredibly difficult to conclude. One approach is simply to look for signatures in a simple scientific statement of skepticism. Several hundred doctorates have signed. However, the badociation with intelligent design and the possible academic consequences prevents many from signing up.

The current neo-Darwinism is far from the untouchable theory that was praised.

While intelligent design has a bad reputation, titans like Francis Crick and Richard Dawkins have defended the same principles. However, many link the intelligent design with the Christian deity immediately and falsely and remain aloof.

The Third Way is highly exclusive to maintain purity and avoid criticism. Not only religious believers are excluded, but the platform is only by invitation. Isolated groups of scientists reluctant to badociate with one another, or too focused on their preferred nuance, credit the traditional Neo-Darwin claim that there is only a small marginal minority, if any.

The clear truth of the literature, the lectures, the expert perception and a little anecdote for the color, is that the current neo-Darwinism is far from the untouchable theory that is praised. Not only this, but he has serious and growing skeptics and challengers within the secular scientific community.

By adding supporters of intelligent design, which is neutral to religion, the numbers begin to expand rapidly. While there are serious studies, scientific and reviewed by experts of this group, it does not balance the ship as much as the naturalistic secular materialists. The objective is not to abandon Darwin, but to withdraw it to give way to more coherent integral theories.

Benjamin Dierker is a law student at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University. He holds a master's degree in public administration and a bachelor's degree in economics, both from the University of Texas A & M. He is a Christian and a Texan and loves to talk about both.


Source link