Anti-Darwinism and Intelligent Design Theory


I am skeptical of the Neodarwinian theory of macroevolution and support intelligent design theory for purely scientific reasons. I do not think that unguided evolution (incl. so-called theistic evolution) is incompatible with good theology, but that it is incompatible with good science and possibly also incompatible with proper metaphysics. I consider intelligent design theory as a valid scientific research paradigm that has decisively refuted Neodarwinism, which was the only conceivable option for a naturalistic and mechanistic explanation of biological origins. As intelligent agency is the only known source for specified information, purposeful intelligent agency is the best explanation for biological novelty, complexity, and diversity. Based on independent scientific and philosophical arguments in favor of classical theism and historical arguments for the truth of Christianity, I am personally convinced that the intelligent designer is the God of the Bible (and/or created spiritual beings, esp. in cases of evil design). Even though embodied intelligences like space aliens would be compatible with intelligent design theory, such naturalistic designers would only shift the problem and create an infinite regress.

 

Even though, intelligent design theory is in principle compatible with universal common descent and guided evolution, I personally have come to reject common ancestry as naturalistic mode of macroevolution in favor of a sophisticated version of progressive (Old Earth) special creation in terms of non-random adaptive macromutations in the "womb" of parental organisms (analogous to Schindewolf's and Goldschmidt's "hopeful monsters", recently endorsed by Rieppel 2017, as well as other representatives of saltationism, mutationism and orthogenesis) combined with the instantiation of a new form that preexisted as template in the mind of the designer ("special transformism" sensu Chaberek 2017). Nevertheless, I do affirm that every organism (apart from the first living cell) was produced / born from a biological parent organism and thus did not pop into being ex nihilo. I also affirm microevolutionary speciation within biological kinds through Neodarwinian processes. However, these never generate new specified complex information, but mostly represent devolution or variation or reshuffling of pre-existing information (e.g., homozygosity from heterozygosity, deactivation or detioration of genes, polyploidy, gene duplication, horizontal gene transfer, hybridogenesis). The two above mentioned affirmations may qualify as affirmation of universal common descent in the eyes of most evolutionary biologists, but the difference is that I only affirm common ancestry in terms of an unbroken lineage of individual maternal and paternal relationships (individual common ancestry), but reject the origin of new biological kinds from other biological kinds via transformation lineages of ancestral species (supraindividual common ancestry). The fact that because of the delicate and intricate interdependence of different genes and their products during ontogenesis, any transition necessarily has to include a coordinated major reprogramming of different genes as well as of epigenetic factors in the zygote cell, shows that the apparent distinction between guided evolution and special creation is rather blurry and in either case involves heavy physical intervention (coordinated and synchronized in multiple individuals within a population). When the distinctive genetic makeup is not inherited from the parents but introduced by design from an external intelligent agent, the process is rather akin to special creation than common ancestry.

 

I see neither any scientific nor compelling other reasons to dispute the conventional dating of the age of the universe and Earth, or the conventional explanations for the origin of the geological column and the fossil record. I also consider so-called Flood Geology as a totally failed endeavor, and explicitly reject concordist interpretations of Genesis.

 

As a scientist, who should follow the evidence wherever it leads, I came to doubt the naturalistic Neodarwinian paradigm of unguided evolution via a purely mechanistic process of chance (random mutation, sexual recombination, genetic drift) and necessity (natural and sexual selection), even when supplemented with more modern concepts like symbiogenesis, multilevel (group) selection, epigenetic inheritance, evolvability, natural genetic engineering, phenotypic plasticity, and niche construction, as suggested by the proponents of an extended evolutionary synthesis ("Third Way of Evolution", "Evolution 2.0").  None of these phenomena can explain the origin of complex biological novelty, and some (e.g., natural genetic engineering, phenotypic plasticity, and evolvability)   require intelligent design themselves. Therefore, I signed the "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" list.

 

Even before my "conversion" to intelligent design theory, I became convinced that only a goal-directed (teleological) process, either with laws of biological form (structuralism) or with non-random adaptive macro-mutations, can explain the evidence. This assumption is also compatible with and supported by the discontinuous fossil record, which strongly suggests saltational origins. Therefore, I totally  agree with the views in Stephen C. Meyer's book "Darwin's Doubt".

 

My rejection of unguided evolution was not motivated by religion, but by some very convincing and still unrefuted scientific arguments from intelligent design proponents, based on information theory (William Dembski, Stephen C. Meyer), population genetics (Richard Sternberg), molecular machines (Michael Behe), and new proteins  (Douglas Axe). These arguments emphasize the discontinuities of the fossil record, the prohibitive waiting time for coordinated mutations, the problem of new specified complex information in the genetic code and irreducible complexity of molecular machines, the isolated islands of functionality (folding proteins) in the vast search space of possible aminoacid sequences, which all strongly limit the feasibility of Neodarwinian unguided processes.

 

Concerning the origin of life and the first replicator I consider all naturalistic explanations as wanting and inadequate, and strongly support the conclusions in favor of design presented by Stephen C. Meyer in his excellent book "Signature in the Cell". When intelligent design is required to get life even started, then I see no reason to exclude intelligent design as possible cause for the origin of biological novelties in the subsequent history of life.

Is Intelligent Design Creationism?

No, intelligent design theory is not creationism in a cheap tuxedo, but purely an empirical scientific method to detect the traces of intelligent agency in nature. I concur with the atheist philosophers Thomas Nagel and Bradley Monton that Intelligent Design is not religion but a valid scientific approach.

 
Intelligent design theory does neither identify the designer (it is equally compatible with naturalistic designers like the matrix or space aliens, who are even acceptable for skeptics like Richard Dawkins), nor does it imply any commitment to special creation rather than common descent. Thus, intelligent design by itself makes no claim to supernatural explanations for empirical data, even though it is open to theistic interpretations. The derogative term "ID creationism" is therefore wholly inappropriate.
 
On the other hand, creationism (esp. Biblical young earth creationism) is based on the presupposed authority and inerrancy of revealed scripture and postulates the direct special creation of all natural kinds of organisms by supernatural divine intervention. Creationism is a faith-based religious position, contrary to the scientific theory and methodology of intelligent design. The latter has no connection to Biblical creationism at all, but of course is compatible with theism. Furthermore, it can indirectly support a supernaturalist world view by refuting the only conceivable naturalistic explanation for biological origins and by positively supporting intelligent design through an inference to the best explanation.
 
I despise the dogmatic and sometimes even fanatical stance of some ignorant evolutionists like P.Z. Myers (Pharyngula blog), Laurence Moran (Sandwalk blog), Jeffrey Shallit (Recursivity blog), Jerry Coyne (Why Evolution is True blog), Jason Rosenhouse (Evolution Blog), Donald Prothero, Nick Matzke and his cronies at Panda's Thumb, freelance writer John Farrell, the master of gutter language Bill Needle (Marmotism blog), the anonymous cowards behind The Sensuous Curmudgeon and Encyclopedia of American Loons blogs, and other infamous web activists against Intelligent Design and religion. Such anti-ID zealots and "evangelical" New Atheists have become an embarrassment and disgrace for the scientific community with their ill-bred behavior, e.g. regularly insulting scientists, who endorse Intelligent Design as "IDiots", or the ID think tank Discovery Institute as "Dishonesty Institute" or "Disco'Tute", or William Dembski as "Bill Dumbski". I feel personally offended by this, as I know all of the guys from Discovery Institute and the Intelligent Design community as very open-minded and tolerant, highly cultured and competent, sincere, and incredibly warm-hearted people, whom I am proud to rank among my dearest friends and colleagues.

What about Theistic Evolution?

The term theistic evolution is not clearly defined, and often rather represents an euphemism for Neodarwinism, implying a kind of deistic evolution, in which God creates the diversity of life by establishing an unguided process. I consider this as scientifically and metaphysically problematic.

 
The BioLogos Foundation also promotes a version of theistic evolution, which they call evolutionary creationism, and explicitly distances itself from the intelligent design movement. However, their list of beliefs is mostly compatible with intelligent design. The affirmation of common descent cannot be a distinguishing feature, as several eminent intelligent design proponents either explicitly affirm common descent (e.g., Michael Behe, Richard Sternberg, Michael Denton), or remain agnostic about it (e.g., William Lane Craig), or at least affirm that there is substantial evidence for common descent (e.g., Walter Bradley, Vincent Torley, myself, and even a few YECs like Todd Wood and Kurt Wise). I am therefore somewhat at a loss, what is the actual point of theistic evolution sensu BioLogos, and their official statements do not really help either. I rather looks like theistic evolution is Neodarwinism in a cheap tuxedo with a gratuitous God, who has no detectable influence on nature. In this case theistic evolution would just be a redundant and superfluous concept that was only forged in the misguided delusion that a surrender to materialistic science might make religion more respected or at least tolerated by modern secular culture.

DISCLAIMER:

I strictly separated all my activities in favor of intelligent design theory from my professional work when I still worked as a museum scientist at SMNS.

 

My critique of Neodarwinism and endorsement of intelligent design theory is exclusively my private point of view and is neither shared by my former colleagues at SMNS nor by the co-authors of my paleontological publications, who to my best knowledge generally subscribe to the mainstream evolutionary paradigm of Neodarwinism (aka Modern Synthesis)!

 

After resigning from my job at SMNS in December 2016 I am still actively working as a paleontologist and publish my research in peer-reviewed scientific journals. My ID-related work is published in appropriate journals and books that are open to design conclusions.