Exposing the impotence of the Neo-Darwinian theory

Intelligent Design
by Dick Peterson
Posted 1/02/15, 09:10 am

Scientists who reject the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution are getting bolder about publicly proclaiming their skepticism of the explanation for the origins of life once universally accepted in the scientific community.

During a mid-November conference in Sao Paolo, Brazil, 350 mostly young research scientists and scholars from Brazil, the United States, Canada, Egypt, Uruguay, Argentina, and Peru gathered to discuss intelligent design (ID). The conference dealt “directly with ID evidence and proof, and how the present scientific paradigms fail to explain the origin and evolution of the universe and life on Earth,” said Enezio E. de Almeida Filho, director of the Sociedade Brasileira do Design Inteligente (Brazilian Center of Intelligent Design) in Campinas, Sao Paolo.

Attendance far surpassed the anticipated 150 and included scholars in astronomy, biology, chemistry, science, history, physics, and law. The professional interest in ID research made it clear the ID community runs wider and deeper than any of its members realized from reading published research papers or attending lectures. 

Neo-Darwinian evolution, or what evolutionary biologists refer to as the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (MES), is fraught with fundamental problems exposed by research in hard sciences like biochemistry, chemistry, and physics. Recent discoveries have revealed a weakness in random mutation and natural selection to do the heavy lifting necessary to be the driving mechanism of life.

“As a matter of fact, Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is a dead scientific theory since 1980,” Filho said. Several cell structures discovered since then cast doubt on the previously held notion that the DNA-to-RNA-to-protein process alone determines the basic features of living cells. Such doubt led to what has become known as the Altenberg 16 conference in 2008, when 16 evolutionary biologists and science philosophers met in Altenberg, Austria, and called for an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) to modify and eventually replace MES.

The Altenbeg 16 meeting gave voice to the growing realization of the inadequacy of MES to explain evolution. Proponents of creation theory and ID theory point to conclusions from the meeting as evidence that MES, still taught in classrooms and accepted by most practicing biologists, is a framework beginning to topple. EES will be announced as a new general theory of evolution in 2020, but if the scientific literature on the subject is any indication, it won’t include the origin of genetic information. Filho predicts that without complex specified information, EES will be stillborn as a scientific theory.

In the past year, an expanding group of researchers and authors seeking a forum to voice their beliefs that other mechanisms would better explain evolutionary processes are joining a website called The Third Way. Established scholars in the sciences, philosophy, history, and related humanities who are invited to publish work on the site seek an alternative explanation, other than creation or Neo-Darwinism, for evolution processes.    

Among the most important developments in evolutionary biology is the undeniable role information plays in the intricate mechanisms of living cells. Mathematician, philosopher, and theologian William Dembski argues that matter is not real in and of itself, but things become real insofar as they exchange information with each other. In contrast to a materialist view that everything is built out of matter, Dembski proposes that information is the fundamental stuff of the world and the outworking of an intelligence. 

“As a Christian, I hold that things are real because they relate to God,” he said.

Don’t expect the greater scientific community to embrace Dembski’s belief anytime soon, if ever. But a growing body of scientific research could soon expose the impotence of the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. 

Dick Peterson

Dick lives in Summerville, S.C., is a former newspaper reporter and editor, and is now a freelance writer and caregiver for his wife with multiple sclerosis.

Read more from this writer


  • DaleCutler's picture
    Posted: Fri, 04/15/2016 06:11 pm

      Why does everyone always say that Creation was perfect before the Fall? Scripture clearly says that it was only "very good". (That doesn't mean flawed, but it does allow for something better.)   

  • DaleCutler's picture
    Posted: Fri, 04/15/2016 06:11 pm

     Regarding animal death before the Fall, excerpts from comments at Examining the 'new critics' of Genesis:"In reality, animal death before the Fall is not a theological problem. Adam and Eve were not immortal by nature. Eternal life was only available to them through the supernatural 'tree of life' in the Garden of Eden. And, if they were not immortal, then it must follow that the animals were not immortal either. However, unlike Adam and Eve, [not all of the animals had] access to the 'tree of life.' [Definitely not those outside of the Garden, and those inside of the Garden if the fruit was inaccessible to them and Adam and Eve had to feed them.] Hence, because animals [that had no access to the fruit of the tree of life] had no way to achieve immortality, they would have had no possible way to avoid death.":"And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.""And the Lord God commanded the man, 'You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.'""After he had expelled the man, the LORD God placed winged angels at the eastern end of the garden of Eden, along with a fiery, turning sword, to prevent access to the tree of life.""The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it." And after they were expelled from the Garden, the tree of life died, and the rest of the Garden fell into decay, too. 

  • Buddy's picture
    Posted: Fri, 04/15/2016 06:11 pm

    I do not like the predator prey process. It's like the ultimate video game whose creator has questionable motives and influence on others is to do the same.
    In the first of the following two scriptures herbs are the food for all. In the second scripture it comes from predator prey to what looks like herbs again. What about the area beyond the holy mountain?

    26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Gen 1:26-31 (KJV)

    6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. 7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. 8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. 9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea. Isaiah 11:6-9 (KJV)

  • Dean from Ohio
    Posted: Fri, 04/15/2016 06:11 pm

    Thanks, little bee; I think it was only because I got up at 2:45 am this morning to catch an early flight and had a few minutes to kill.Also, thanks, Lee for your comments. Darwinism is bad science that makes more bad science, and sucks the energy out of good science, from fossils to "junk DNA" to primordial soup to evolutionary psychology to...well, I don't want to stay up late adding to the list, although it is tempting.If ID is true, and we may infer it as the best explanation on scientific examination of past events so that we treat it as true, then how should we proceed with good science, and sound thinking that uses good science along the way, but stretches beyond what is currently observable in a laboratory? One of the questions that fascinates me is where the design of predators came from. Take the Great White Shark for example--the perfect hunting and killing machine. It deploys multiple complementary sensor systems that include integrated analysis and location of prey based on smell, electric field detection and mapping with incredible sensitivity, sharply focused pressure wave detection through a large-aperture sensor grid laid out on the fish's lateral line, and vision with armored eye covers that deploy automatically. In addition, there is a highly efficient propulsion system, a stealth skin that quiets the shark's approach more effectively than any stealth aircraft we have yet produced, camouflage in color and shade...it goes on and on. See http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/white_shark/adaptations.htm for more details. Note that I don't accept these are adaptations; I am a systems engineer who integrates sensors and the idea that these evolved through random mutations and natural selection is ludicrous.But the point is, if these features were designed, who designed them? God made all things good, but a shark ambushing a fish happily going on its way, using a devastating attack and leaving the prey to die and later to be consumed, that's not good as I understand it. I believe the Bible--all of it--so I recognize that the food chains were not part of God's original plan, but the fall of man and woman into sin enslaved the creation to this violence, which goes all the way up and down the created order. But someone had to design these features; they did not and could not happen on their own. Did God design them in advance and bury the information in genes and epi-genes (information-bearing structures separate from genes), knowing that they would be activated later? Did Satan have a part in re-designing features of the shark so that it became a predator without peer? I guess not, because nowhere in Scripture do I see Satan creating; he just perverts. But Satan is a super-intelligent being who has left some audacious fingerprints (cf. Gen 6).Put another way, is the design of the hunter-killer traits of the shark a moral perversion, which God would not do by definition, or a temporary state designed into the shark by God himself in his providence, which God might well do to serve his purposes until he redeems his creation from all such violence?  In the book of Job, God says that he designed the Leviathan, a marine super-predator, so the second of these options--God's own design as part of his providence which he will not fully explain to us this side of eternity--is my conclusion at this point. I wrote above that God may have designed such things as these traits as latent features, "knowing they would be activated later." I do realize that the word "knowing" is a very limited way to describe God's providence, but good description or no, we are eventually washed up on the shore of theodicy, which is the  classical problem of evil in a world under the rule of an omnipotent, omniscient, good and loving God. Here, though, God apparently has a direct hand in subjecting the creation to futility through intricate design of super predators, so it is theodicy on steroids.Science cannot answer these questions of theodicy, and it should not attempt to. But it can help along the way by helping us understand the creation and interpret what we see, as an expert witness in the court. As an expert witness, however, it must not advance its own agenda by actively obscuring the search for truth with false trails like Darwinism.The good news is that this is reversible. When the lion does eat straw like the ox, will it be because the predator design features are deactivated and the original design features are reactivated? I wonder what the Great White Shark will look like then.

  • Lee Bowman
    Posted: Fri, 04/15/2016 06:11 pm

    Evolutionary theory is often compared to much simpler theories, like a physical property such as gravitation, and then stated that the ToE is as much a fact as gravitational theory, a grossly unwarranted analogy.  The ToE is a composite of forensic investigations, based on homologous fossils (paleontology along with carbon dating methods), geology (continental shift studies), genetic homologies (ERV's and DNA coding similarities), and short term environmental adaptations (acquired bacterial resistance).  Comparing that (and more) to a easily testable physical property is absurd.  The short term adaptations are then used as evidence of long term lineage progressions, which encompass evolved cellular structures, the formation of complex organs, organelles, and systemics, sexual selection and embryogenesis, followed by extensive body plan revisions.In short, the progression of biologic lineages can be charted to some extent, but causative factors remain tentative and non-empirically replicable, and thus, non-empirically verified.  Design inferences are therefore a logical hypothesis to explore.  AAAS, NAS, NIH, and NCSE have ruled out ID on the basis of a supernatural assumption, which again, is pure speculation.  If incedences of design intervention have occurred along the way, science has the tools to lay out tentative methods of proposed modalities,  (PCR, electrophoresis, and gene splicing, a current technology), and thus, ID is a valid investigative hypothesis.A key point to consider:  Since Cosmic formation is not biologically related, it need not be considered when assessing ID.  And for that matter, Cosmic creation or formation may not be related to biologic formations which came much later.  To tie the two together is a religious assumption, which science has no basis to consider from the current data.Dean wrote:  "Why not just go where the evidence leads?"  Precisely, but that entails examining ALL evidence, not just the Darwinian premise of totally natural causation.  Natural selection follows from design, as well as random mutations.  IOW, what works well survices to reporduce.  "It will be a moral and spiritual encounter before the end, and that puts many people off."  Only by inference, since design of bioforms per se is not necessarily based on a God, followed by 'oversight.'  Perhaps, but not to be inferred from the empirical and statistical data that science is allowed to consider.Little bee wrote:  "This is helpful... but even if the scientific community embraced ID, the next question that would be disputed is whether the 'designer' was the God of the Bible or someone/something else."  But those questions would not fall within scientific perusal, unless evidence of a supernatural god ensued.  At present, evidence of biologic design is based on the evidence of statistical improbabilities, IOW, non-evolvable structures that (1) have not been shown to have co-op functions (exaptation), and thus, (2) would have had to have non-functional intermediates (no NS propensities, and in most cases, disruptive to extant functions).From the article:  "Don't expect the greater scientific community to embrace Dembski's belief anytime soon, if ever. But a growing body of scientific research could soon expose the impotence of the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution."As is not the growing case for ID.  Darwin's 'natural causation' premise as being 'all-inclusive' resides currently in a state of falsification.

  • little bee
    Posted: Fri, 04/15/2016 06:11 pm

    This is helpful... but even if the scientific community embraced ID, the next question that would be disputed is whether the 'designer' was the God of the Bible or someone/something else. As wonderful as it is to know that false theories might finally be seen for what they truly are, I doubt whether it will do much to deter a mankind bent on choosing sin and death over life, and ignoring or thumbing their nose at their Creator.Dean - you beat me to it!  I didn't see your post before making mine. :)

  • Dean from Ohio
    Posted: Fri, 04/15/2016 06:11 pm

    The "Third Way" is guaranteed to miss the mark just like Darwinism by its a priori exclusion of creation/ID. Why not just go where the evidence leads? Of course, it will be a moral and spiritual encounter before the end, and that puts many people off. It's not that they don't know where it will end; it's that most do, and don't want to go there.