|
|
|
We share common ground, sort of… The Internet is a wonderful thing. What is more fun than prowling around the Net late at night (technically, very early in the morning), reading through message forums and e-mail discussion groups? Quite a bit, actually, particularly if you have cable television, but I digress. Several months ago I was perusing one of the many message boards I visit regularly. One of the topics was the falsifiability of Darwinism. Apparently, J. B. S. Haldane some time ago had remarked that a Precambrian rabbit fossil form would falsify Darwinism. As the various participants of the board debated, one point made by a theorist, who I have great respect for, stuck with me. The argument goes something like this: Why would a Precambrian rabbit falsify Darwinism? Because we would have no idea how it could have existed in the Precambrian time. However, we don't know how the Cambrian phyla came into being, either, so why do the Cambrian forms not fulfill the role of the rabbit and subsequently falsify Darwinism? The answer, in my humble opinion, is because Darwinism is unfalsifiable. Think about it. No matter what evidence is presented, no matter how convincing our arguments are, can we really convince die-hard Darwinists that they're wrong? It's just like a religion. Now, I'm not saying religious devotion isn't a good thing. Refusing to conform to the current popular trend reflects a deep-seated commitment to one's principles and beliefs. At the same time, however, an ideological doctrine such as this should not be taught as fact in public schools. There will probably always be a naturalistic explanation for something. Just because evolutionists believe fervently that they're right does not, in the words of Captain Jean-Luc Picard, “make it so.” The stumbling block for Darwinists has been, and continues to be, the mechanism. It's not that their attempts have been completely unsuccessful, either. For example, genetic recombination and random mutations are accepted as demonstrable instruments for microevolution. However, it has been far more difficult to show how macroevolutionary change comes about. Traditionally, the view has been that mutations somehow accumulated over long periods of time are the mechanism for macroevolution, but even evolutionists have realized this is unlikely. It remains to be demonstrated how new morphological structures arise naturally. Perhaps research into developmental genetics will provide this mechanism, but attempts thus far have been unsuccessful. But what if? What if evolutionists could reveal how large-scale changes arise? After they recovered from their hangovers, they would wake up to see their critics still up and hopping. After all, we wouldn't know if this particular mechanism was responsible for all the change required by an evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record, and would have no idea if it continues to be the mechanism in our time. To demonstrate this, we would need a time machine to somehow track development over millions of years in a laboratory. Not only is Darwinism unfalsifiable, it is also unprovable. On the other hand we have Intelligent Design (ID) theory. Basically, ID states that an intelligent designer is detectable in nature. There is no doubt in my mind that this putative designer is God for most, if not all, of the ID community, myself included. Although ID theory is a developing idea, it has grown considerably over the years. However, the same characteristics discussed above about Darwinism also apply to ID. How could one ever possibly disprove the existence of an intelligent designer? This question is, for all practical purposes, the same as asking someone to prove there is no God. It can't be done, just like Darwinism cannot be falsified. This trait is not a point against either of these ideologies; rather, it levels the playing field. ID is unfalsifiable. I think it would be fairly simple to construct a case for the existence of an intelligent designer. One could point to developmental biology to evidence, to the fossil record itself, or even just gaze out the window. No matter how well crafted that argument might be, it would not prove a designer's existence. After all, a naturalistic explanation can be provided for just about anything. All one needs to look at for proof of that are the responses to Behe's irreducible complexity arguments. Thus, just like Darwinism, ID is unprovable. I suppose that kind of leaves us out in the middle of the desert with no water. Where do we go from here? If we can't prove nor disprove either ID or evolution (i.e., common ancestry), what do we do? I think the answer is beautiful. Teach both, and let the people decide. Comments? Contact Tristan Abbey at tabbey@idurc.org. Copyright 2002 idurc.org. All rights reserved. International copyright secured. Click here to return to the Papers Archive
|
