|
|
|
Intermediate Stages: A Problem for Evolutionary Gradualism Darwinism is one of the most prominent influences in different societies across the world today. And is presupposed to be true by many. It influences the way many think, behave, etc. Yet the evidence against natural selection and random mutation is overwhelming. One of the many arguments against orthodox Darwinism is the problem of certain intermediate stages within species. To successively get from 1 to 100, you must first get from one to two. In Behe's paper, Intelligent Design as an Alternative Explanation for the Existence of Bimolecular Machines, he demonstrates (simply) his famous irreducible complexity through a cilium, mousetrap, etc. He says:
Behe wishes, or so I think, to keep irreducible complexity on the molecular level. Remember that Behe isn't implying every living thing is irreducibly complex; that would be absurd. But if there were just one existing system that is IC, it would disprove Darwin's gradualist ideology. Refractors and Reflectors
As you can see, the eye of the lobster is amazingly complex. The reflecting eye had supposedly descended from a refracting eye, which bends light instead of reflecting it. Moreover, the facets on refractors are hexagonal, opposed to an almost perfect square based on reflection. This means that vertebrae with refracting eyes must obtain poor visual capabilities, right? Unfortunately for Darwinism, refracting eyes have a very good visual system. This is when it becomes interesting. Can you imagine an intermediate refracting eye on its way to reflection? It just wouldn't work, because the mirrors have to be just right to reflect light onto the retina. Furthermore, the whole system of reflection is uniquely different from that of refraction. This poses a problem for evolutionary gradualism, because each step must be advantageous, otherwise the eye would be discarded by natural selection. Michael Denton addresses this problem in his book, Natures Destiny:
So here's the question: how did the reflecting eye evolve? To tell the truth, no body knows. And there has yet to be made a convincing argument of how a reflecting eye may have evolved gradually. One, who examined Darwin's theory, and discovered evidence of highly complex systems, would probably wonder why someone could ever believe these systems could arise through chance mutation. Why do millions of people accept a theory when there is more existing evidence opposing it than supporting it? Mostly, I think, because they have a pre-commitment to materialism. God's out of the picture and evolution through natural selection is the best explanation an atheist has, therefore, to a materialist, Darwinism must be true; no matter how farfetched it may be. If you would like to know how lobsters got their eyes, or how bats got their wings, who could blame you for accepting just-so stories by famous neo-Darwinians today? Or, you could dismiss the naturalistic worldview, and logically infer, on the weight of evidence, that life didn't evolve gradually, it was designed. Another problem in attempt to support the existence of intermediate stages within species is merely that there are no transitional fossils in the fossil record. Well, it would be unfair to claim that there are no transitional fossils. Rather, no numerous evidences of transitions from one species to another exist. The few that are claimed to be transitional are highly speculative, and the argument in favor of transitional forms is undoubtedly weak. In his book, after examining the problems of the fossil record, Phillip Johnson says:
Simple, evolution is a fact. To illustrate Mr. Johnson's view, let's look at a short conversation between a Darwinist and Susie, who just happens to be the daughter of Mr. Darwinist. Mr. Darwinist: Well, Susie, what did you learn today? Susie: That man's ancestors were apes, and through natural selection and random mutation, humans descended from them. Mr. Darwinist: Well said, well said indeed! Now, before we eat dinner, any specific questions? Susie: Yes. Would you mind showing me some transitional fossils? Mr. Darwinist: I'd be happy to. This is Archaeopteryx; didn't I already show this to you? Susie: You did, but it still looks like a true bird to me. Got anything new? Mr. Darwinist: Not really, there are a few others, but I don't have them with me. The evidence for transitional fossils is somewhat weak right now. But that doesn't mean that they're not out there! We just haven't dug enough. Susie: Didn't Darwin say that over a hundred years ago? By now you've understood the point. A pre-commitment to materialism is what keeps Darwin's theory alive. Even though the evidence is against it, and it shouldn't be taught as fact in public schools today; to a materialist, evolution must be true. Sources Behe, Michael J. 2002. “Intelligent Design as an Alternative Explanation for Biomolecular Machines”. Department of Biological Sciences LeHigh University. Johnson, Phillip E. 1991. Darwin On Trial. p.62. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway. Sarfati, Jonathan. 2001 “Lobster eyes—brilliant geometric design Lobster eyes, X-ray telescopes, and microchips”. Creation. Comments? Contact Jon Runyan at growingingrace22@juno.com. Copyright 2002 idurc.org. All rights reserved. International copyright secured. |
