The Evolution Controversy: A Survey of Competing Theories

THE

EVOLUTION

CONTROVERSY

THE

EVOLUTION

CONTROVERSY

A SURVEY OF COMPETING THEORIES

THOMAS B. FOWLER

AND DANIEL KUEBLER

© 2007 by Thomas B. Fowler and Daniel Kuebler

Published by Baker Academic

a division of Baker Publishing Group

P.O. Box 6287, Grand Rapids, MI 49516-6287

www.bakeracademic.com

Printed in the United States of America

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—for example, electronic, photocopy, recording—without the prior written permission of the publisher. The only exception is brief quotations in printed reviews.

                               Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Fowler, Thomas B., 1947–

       The evolution controversy : a survey of competing theories / Thomas B. Fowler and Daniel Kuebler.

            p. cm.

       Includes bibliographical references.

       ISBN 978-0-8010-3174-8 (pbk.)

       ISBN 10: 0-8010-3174-5 (pbk.)

       1. Evolution (Biology) 2. Natural selection. 3. Evolution (Biology)—Religious aspects—Christianity. I. Kuebler, Daniel, 1971– II. Title.

QH367.F75 2007

576.82—dc22                                                                            2007011459

To Nellie, for your constant support and encouragement,

and to Joseph, Patrick, and Carolyn, for all the future holds.

D. R. K.

To Maika, for your love and devotion,

and to Isabella, may your talents and efforts

make the world a better place.

T. B. F.

CONTENTS

List of Illustrations

Preface

Part 1: Background on the Controversy

1. Introduction

2. A Brief History of Evolutionary Thought

3. A Review of the Evidence

4. The Principal Points in Dispute

Part 2: Discussion of the Major Schools of Thought

5. The Neo-Darwinian School

6. The Creationist School

7. The Intelligent Design School

8. The Meta-Darwinian School

Part 3: Policy and Outlook

9. Public Policy Implications of the Evolution Controversy

10. Summary and Assessment of the Evolution Controversy

Glossary

Bibliography

ILLUSTRATIONS

Figures

1.1. Dueling auto emblems

1.2. Relationship of schools of thought in the evolution controversy

1.3. The three tiers of evolution

1.4. Creationist lawn versus Neo-Darwinian tree models of evolution

2.1. Aristotle’s scala naturae

2.2. Supposition of different rock layers

2.3. Homologous structures

2.4. Fly mutants

2.5. Fisher’s graph of the magnitude of mutational change versus its chance of improving the organism

2.6. Fitness landscape

2.7. Homeotic fly mutants

3.1. Improper use of inference and extrapolation in scientific explanation

3.2. Cross section of human retina

3.3. Geological timescale

3.4. The organization of the brain in a rat, monkey, and human

3.5. Universal genetic code

3.6. Hox clusters

3.7. Galapagos finch species

4.1. Classification of humans as illustration of common descent from ancestors

4.2. Operation of mutation and natural selection

5.1. Logical structure of Neo-Darwinian theory

5.2. Common descent evolution under the Neo-Darwinian paradigm

5.3. Types of eyes found in mollusks

5.4. TCA cycle

5.5. Primitive horseshoe version of the TCA cycle

5.6. Devonian tetrapod Ichthyostega

5.7. Potassium channel

6.1. AiG view of the Culture Wars

6.2. Logical structure of the Creationist theory

6.3. Speed of light measurements over three centuries

6.4. Erosion on sedimentary rocks

6.5. Deposits from the Mount St. Helens eruption, 1980–1982

6.6. Representative geology of the earth prior to flood events according to the hydroplate theory

6.7. Hypothesized decay rates

6.8. Difference in diffusion rates of helium through biotite

7.1. Cartoon about Intelligent Design in the classroom

7.2. The logical structure of the Intelligent Design school

7.3. Dembski’s design filter

7.4. Balancing Rock, Digby, Nova Scotia

7.5. Bacterial flagellum

7.6. Icosahedral virus and cylindrical virus

7.7. Motor proteins

7.8. Side-by-side comparison of models of the type III secretory system on the left and the bacteria flagellum on the right

8.1. The logical structure of Meta-Darwinian theories

8.2. Speciation branching of phyletic gradualism and allopatric speciation

8.3. Different levels of natural selection

8.4. Umbilicus

8.5. Expression pattern of various Hox homeotic genes

8.6. The three developmental possibilities for developing limb buds

8.7. The morphogenetic field of the developing vertebrate eye

8.8. Spontaneous pattern generated by slime mold aggregation

8.9. An example of a hypercycle

8.10. An autocatalytic set

Tables

1.1. Distinguishing the four schools with respect to the tiers of evolution

1.2. Distinguishing the four schools with respect to evolutionary hypotheses

1.3. Public acceptance of theories about evolution

2.1. Darwin’s predictions and assumptions and their current status

3.1. Inferences based on traits of living organisms

3.2. Inferences based on radiometric dating and characteristics of the fossil record

3.3. Inferences based on variation and diversity in populations

3.4. Inferences based on physiological and developmental characteristics of organisms

3.5. Inferences based on genetic characteristics of organisms

3.6. Inferences based on characteristics of living species

4.1. Summary of the principal points in dispute in the evolution controversy

5.1. Summary of arguments for and against Neo-Darwinian theory

5.2. Neo-Darwinian school and the ten criteria of a genuine scientific theory

6.1. Comparison of standard and Creationist perspectives on historical geology

6.2. The CCC Model interpretation of the geologic column (strata)

6.3. Creationist school and the ten criteria of a genuine scientific theory

7.1. Comparison of Intelligent Design and Neo-Darwinian explanations of observed evidence related to evolution

7.2. Intelligent Design school and the ten criteria of a genuine scientific theory

8.1. The major ideas grouped under the umbrella heading of Meta-Darwinism

8.2. Summary of Meta-Darwinian theories

8.3. Meta-Darwinian school and the ten criteria of a genuine scientific theory

9.1. Summary of the public policy issues in dispute in the evolution controversy

10.1. Accomplishments, issues, and challenges for the Neo-Darwinian school

10.2. Accomplishments, issues, and challenges for the Meta-Darwinian school

10.3. Accomplishments, issues, and challenges for the Intelligent Design school

10.4. Accomplishments, issues, and challenges for the Creationist school

10.5. Proposed Tests to Distinguish the Four Schools of Evolution

PREFACE

Most people are aware that there is some type of controversy surrounding evolution. However, given the complex and expansive nature of the subject matter it can be difficult to pinpoint what the main issues are or what exactly is at stake. Compounding this problem is the fact that most of the literature on the subject is written by partisans who have a vested interest in the outcome. Not surprisingly, these authors often do not present the scientific data in an impartial fashion. They tend to bolster their own case by ignoring certain pieces of data, while simultaneously building a straw man out of their opponents’ position.

In the course of our lectures and discussions on the topic, many people have asked if there is a book that could help them make beter sense of the controversy, a book that provides an unbiased scientific overview of the leading theories about evolution. Unfortunately there was no single book we could recommend. This book is an attempt to address this deficiency.

Because the evolution controversy is so multifaceted, and the literature on it is so voluminous, no single book, including this one, can do justice to every important question. With this in mind, we have attempted to provide an objective look at (1) the relevant scientific facts regarding evolution and (2) the scientific merits of the major schools of thought regarding evolution. Other issues such as the theological and cultural aspects of the controversy are discussed only insofar as they impact the scientific arguments. Our book is intended for those who are aware of the scientific controversies swirling about the theory of evolution and who seek an objective reference that will help them critically evaluate the myriad articles and books on the subject that appear every year.

Toward this end, we address many of the questions that students, colleagues, and friends routinely ask about the subject:

• Is evolution a fact or a theory?

• Why is the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution so widely accepted by the scientific community?

• Is the Neo-Darwinian theory as well verified as other scientific theories, such as the heliocentric theory of the solar system?

• Does the evidence for Neo-Darwinism justify labeling its critics as yahoos?

• Do Creationist and other attacks on Neo-Darwinism pose a danger to the independence and integrity of science?

• Do Creationists want to discard all scientific evidence and replace science textbooks with the Bible?

• Is the idea of Intelligent Design just another cover for Creationism, a Trojan horse clumsily trying to break into the scientific community?

• Is science restricted to naturalistic (as opposed to supernatural) explanations by virtue of its nature as a process, or is it a matter of how we choose to define science?

• What would it mean for science if all naturalistic explanations of evolution broke down?

• To what extent is the accepted theory of evolution necessary for the teaching of science, for the day-to-day conduct of it, and for research?

• What, if anything, should be taught in the classroom about Creationism and other competing theories?

We will try to answer these questions impartially, but as befits an objective examination, we will not take a position on which is the best or true theory; readers will have to make that judgment for themselves. It is our hope that this book will equip readers with the background necessary to read and analyze books, articles, and other materials on evolution and to draw their own informed conclusions. In order to accomplish this, the book is structured around the following topics:

• The historical development of the theory of evolution, up to the present time

• The observable facts that need to be explained

• The principal points in dispute

• The kind of reasoning employed in discussing the subject, and common errors

• The major schools of thought and their positions

• The evidence and principal arguments for and against each school

• The public policy implications of the evolution controversy

In addition, there is an extensive bibliography listing books, articles, videos, web sites, and organizations of all persuasions.

What Do We Mean by Objectivity?

Most authors on the subject of evolution claim—or at least believe— that their works are objective, whereas those of their opponents are hopelessly biased. We too are claiming objectivity, and indeed are going much further and asserting that this book is more objective than any other that we know of on the subject. To buttress our claim, we offer our definition of objectivity in the context of the evolution controversy:

• None of the schools of thought regarding evolution will be assumed, a priori, to have a corner on the truth.

• All arguments will be considered on an equal basis, regardless of religious or philosophical persuasion of the authors.

• Arguments will be evaluated strictly on their scientific merits and must stand on their own.

• There is no presumption that one of the schools of thought must emerge as the winner. All may be found defective. In such a case, intelligent men and women should suspend judgment on the evolution question until further evidence (and possibly a new theory) becomes available.

• There is no presumption that science can explain all observed phenomena associated with evolution and the history of flora and fauna. This must be the conclusion, rather than the premise, of any argument or discussion. However, it is permitted as a working hypothesis, one that may or may not be verified.

• We have received no funding in any form to write this book. Furthermore, we are not answerable to any of the schools of thought, nor are we vulnerable to any pressure from them as regards employment, grants, tenure, or any other venue.

While it is impossible to come to the evolution debate without some preconceived notions or philosophical bias, we have made every effort not to let such notions or bias color the way we present or discuss the data in the book. Rather than try to lead the reader to some preordained conclusion, we seek to provide the reader with the resources to find the truth of the matter.

A Few Final Notes and Then . . . Bon Voyage!

To carry out our program, which is to fully explore the subject and put all important issues on the table, we ask some questions that certain schools would prefer to leave unasked. We explore issues from which others shy away, and we prod the reader to think about the subject in ways that some schools may find uncomfortable. We believe readers will be grateful for this frankness and honesty.

Much of the discussion, including much of the criticism and many of the examples, concerns the dominant school of thought, Neo-Darwinism. This is inevitable given that school’s position; it does not mean that Neo-Darwinism has more problems than other schools, or that its problems are more serious—or serious at all, for that matter. It is the quality of arguments, not their quantity, that will decide the issue. Indeed, as we will stress throughout the book, the fact that four schools of thought are covered does not mean that they are somehow equally valid as science, or that the reader can simply choose any one he or she likes because no objective assessment can be made of them. One purpose of the book is to help the reader discern which schools have made a viable scientific case for their position.

This book has been structured so that it can be read from cover to cover, but it is not necessary to use it this way; most chapters can stand alone. Readers interested in only a particular aspect of evolution, such as the theory of Intelligent Design, can read just those chapters relevant to their interests and refer to the others as necessary for background. Please note, however, that any book such as this, which examines much interrelated material, cannot follow a linear path; some repetition is inevitable, and in some cases the discussion may assume some background the reader does not as yet possess. In these cases, we recommend consulting the index, the glossary, or, if necessary, some of the references given.

Given the voluminous material on evolution, a concerted effort over many years has been necessary to distill the essentials of the controversy and present them in a fair and balanced way. This process involved many choices; inevitably some will object that we omitted an important issue, or that we covered issues that are not so critical, or that we have presented one issue or another with some bias or prejudice. We will certainly be mindful of such criticism and make such revisions as seem appropriate in future editions. What we are certain of now is that we would not have been able to do this job nearly as well had it not been for the many individuals who helped us fine-tune the book both from a stylistic and from a scientific standpoint, and ferret out instances of bias. We would like to thank Mark Tanouye, Dean Kenyon, John Coleman, Jonathon Sanford, Eric Smith, Denise Masi, Carolyn Rathburn, Howard Bernett, Robert Young, Mark McShurley, and Al Costreba for their efforts in this regard. Not all of them agree with every point we make in this book, but their comments and critical reading have been invaluable. It is through their efforts that the book has reached its present state; any errors that remain are solely the responsibility of the authors. We would also like to thank Emily Buck and Stephanie Langham for their help in providing a number of illustrations for the book.

We close with one final cautionary note: the roiling and highly charged atmosphere surrounding evolution means that nearly every argument or claim has a counterargument or counterclaim, which in turn have their own counterarguments and counterclaims, and so on. We have attempted to sort things out here, but none of the parties to the dispute is likely to be entirely pleased with the result. Bear in mind that the subject of the book is the evolution controversy, not any particular school of thought about it. The book is not written for people who have already made up their minds about the facts and have no desire to review the debate in an unbiased fashion. We hope, however, that the broad range of information presented will be of value even to them.

At the end of the book, you may well come to agree with one of the schools of thought, or you may decide that not enough is known to justify a definitive answer, or perhaps you may find that you need to do more research. Provided that you believe you have been given the information necessary to make this decision, or have been shown the path to such information, we will be content that we have done our job. Information, not indoctrination, is what is needed, and that is what this book hopes to provides.

Thomas B. Fowler

Daniel Kuebler

PART 1

BACKGROUND

ON THE

CONTROVERSY

1

INTRODUCTION

Drawing the Battle Lines

Charles Darwin’s theory of organic evolution, which emerged from his long meditation on living organisms and the history of life, undoubtedly has the strangest and most amazing history of any major scientific theory. From his remarkable insights into the subject, published in his 1859 classic, The Origin of Species, evolution has developed into the dangerously combustible subject that it is today. Hailed as one of science’s greatest and most far-reaching achievements by some, condemned as a fraud by others, it is more controversial today than in Darwin’s own time. Never before has a legitimate scientific theory become surrounded by so many extra-scientific trappings, triggered such visceral reactions, caused so much ink to be spilled, or led so many otherwise rational people—including scientists—to abandon their reasoning powers wholesale and lose sight of the ultimate objective, which is the pursuit of truth. Why is this happening? What is at stake? What makes the theory of evolution so unique? The answer is not far to seek.

The majestic sweep of evolution, together with its enormous explanatory and integrative potential, makes it one of the pivotal intellectual issues of our time. Darwin’s theory—assuming it to be correct—illuminates such an enormous range of phenomena that its impact extends far beyond a narrow specialty of biology. It has the potential to influence many, if not most, of the ways in which we organize our experience and ground our beliefs. In the sciences, it affects all of biology because it is one of the keys to our understanding of the relationships among organisms; it also draws upon and to some extent influences chemistry, geology, physics, and even engineering, all of which are used to explicate aspects of evolutionary history. In the humanities, it is often used as a paradigm for understanding historical, social, and political change. Perhaps more important, however, it affects the way we view ourselves in the universe, our belief (or nonbelief) in the supernatural, and our relationships with the rest of the natural world.

Evolution, or more precisely as we shall see, the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, makes certain claims in these areas that appear to be in direct conflict with the views held by some of the world’s major religions. The impact of Darwin’s theory on religion therefore can be devastating:

Darwin’s dangerous idea cuts much deeper into the fabric of our most fundamental beliefs than many of its sophisticated apologists have yet admitted, even to themselves. . . . The kindly God who lovingly fashioned each and every one of us (all creatures great and small) and sprinkled the sky with shining stars for our delight—that God is, like Santa Claus, a myth of childhood, not anything a sane, undeluded adult could literally believe in. That God must be either turned into a symbol for something less concrete, or abandoned altogether.1

The potential for conflict is therefore very real, and in the eyes of some, there must be a fight to the death. As usually posed by the media, the question is one of evolution versus religion, with biblical fundamentalists arrayed on one side and scientists on the other—a reprise of the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925.2 Hence the widespread interest in evolution and the heated controversies surrounding it.

Scientific controversies often become venomous and spill over into the general culture when they concern fundamental beliefs of society, or at least beliefs deemed essential at the time. This happened with Galileo and the controversy over the geocentric universe in the early seventeenth century. More recently, it happened when cherished views of the deterministic nature of scientific laws (and nature itself) were challenged by quantum mechanics in the first decades of the twentieth century. But evolution is undoubtedly the longest running and most bitterly fought of these controversies, and the one with the highest stakes. The reader may even have observed the emblem war: fish and Darwin auto emblems, by which drivers exhibit their predilection—something unheard of in any other scientific controversy (see fig. 1.1).

Figure 1.1. Dueling auto emblems, symbols of the culture war swirling around the subject of evolution.

In the midst of this debate, we would like to look past the noisy and nasty arguments that dominate popular literature on the subject and penetrate to the core of the matter. Let us begin our search with a brief historical overview.

Capsule History of the Evolution Controversy

The notion of fixed and immutable species, coupled with the belief in a recent creation of the earth and the heavens, dominated Western thought from Roman times until the middle of the eighteenth century. By that time, evidence had accumulated that suggested an old earth. Fossils began to be recognized as species of animals no longer living, and gradually the notion emerged that these extinct animals were related in some way to modern, living animals. In about 1830 natural selection, as a conservative principle, was recognized by Edward Blyth, Charles Lyell, and others. This principle—in essence, the survival of the fittest—was used as an example of divine providence ensuring the conservation (survival) of species. Charles Darwin took that idea and by conjoining it with ever-present random variations exhibited by organisms, endowed it with a new function, the promotion of innovation. In doing so he created a theory intended to explain the growing body of facts about the history of life on earth. His famous book, The Origin of Species, was published in 1859 and triggered a raging controversy. Under Darwin’s theory, small changes (mutations) are constantly arising in living things, and natural selection chooses the better ones, those that improve the species’ ability to prosper in certain environments. Gradually these small improvements accumulate to yield a whole new species, and eventually new genera, orders, and phyla. Darwin made several predictions based on his theory, indicating what sort of discoveries should be made in the future about the history of life on earth, especially regarding the fossil record. Some of these predictions were not fully borne out, causing doubts to arise in scientific circles about the theory in the years after Darwin’s death.

The principles of genetics discovered by Gregor Mendel in the last years of the nineteenth century, and rediscovered by others in the early twentieth century, became critical to the prominence attained by Darwin’s notion of evolution. In the 1930s and 1940s, this new information was used to refurbish and solidify Darwin’s original theory, leading to the new synthesis, or Neo-Darwinism, as it is usually termed. This new form of Darwin’s theory quickly gained the allegiance of most scientists and intellectuals, and it has maintained that allegiance into the twenty-first century.

However, by the 1960s dissatisfaction with the theory was growing among a number of groups. Some religious groups were alarmed at the theological and moral implications that had become associated with the theory and its contradictions with the accounts of natural history as recorded in the Bible. This led to the modern Creationist movement, which immediately began to attack the scientific case for evolution. Gradually it developed alternative explanatory paradigms, nearly all of which are built upon a young earth hypothesis. Drawing upon its religious base, the Creationist movement currently claims many adherents.

In addition to Creationist challenges, many mainstream biologists became concerned with what they perceived as serious discrepancies between Neo-Darwinian theory and the fossil record. Others were disturbed by what they understood to be extraordinarily implausible events required by the theory. Still others became convinced that the proposed mechanisms of the theory could not bear the explanatory burden placed upon them. Another group became disgruntled with what they regarded as violations of established scientific methodology and norms for proof, claiming that the theory was riddled with tautologies, ad hoc arguments, and just-so stories.3 These groups, here collectively termed the Meta-Darwinian school, though small in number, came into prominence from the 1970s onward. They seek to go beyond the Neo-Darwinian theory by supplementing it with other natural explanations, while rejecting Creationism and all supernatural explanations.

In the 1990s, building on much of the same evidence that led to the Meta-Darwinian school, a group of scientists proposed that the extraordinary complexity of organisms and their component physiological systems cannot be explained by naturalistic means at all. Thus arose the Intelligent Design school, which, unlike the Creationist school, did not insist upon a young earth.

At the present time, then, there are four prominent schools of thought: the Neo-Darwinian school, which clearly dominates in terms of scientific and academic adherents; the Creationist school, which enjoys much popular though little academic support; the Meta-Darwinian school, which is well represented in the academic and scientific community and rapidly growing; and the Intelligent Design school, which is also growing in numbers although its influence in academia is still quite small. The schools and their relationships are depicted in figure 1.2.4

Figure 1.2. Relationship of schools of thought in the evolution controversy.

What Is Evolution? What Is Natural Selection?

If we are going to discuss the evolution controversy, we should at the very least know what we are talking about. So let us begin with a definition of evolution. As we shall soon discover, this is not just a simple lexicographical exercise. Rather, it is an investigation that goes to the very heart of the controversy, because evolution has more than one meaning. To start, we turn to the undisputed source for historical lexicographical information, the Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed.). The first meaning, attested as early as 1647, is that of unrolling, the spreading out before the mental vision (of a series of objects); the appearance in orderly succession of a long train of events. This is what one could call the basic or wide meaning of evolution; it corresponds to what is least controversial about evolution, the simple notion of change over time.

Harking back to Darwin (1859), a second definition of interest to us focuses on what causes this change. It states that evolution is the origination of species of animals and plants by a naturalistic process of development from earlier forms, and not by a process of special creation. This is what one could call the narrow sense of evolution—in essence, the Neo-Darwinian theory, as presently understood. That theory, which is the dominant theory of evolution today, is founded upon two principles: the common descent of all organisms from a single ancestor, and natural selection coupled with random mutations as the mechanism of innovation that drove the common descent. The thrust of evolution, as understood by the Neo-Darwinian theory, stems from the presumed ability of natural selection to harness and direct random events, so that increasing levels of order can emerge. What is perhaps most significant about this mechanism (and the whole notion of evolution behind this definition) is that it generates order without need of human or divine guidance. Moreover, as envisioned by the Neo-Darwinian school, evolution is also considered to be a fundamental organizing principle of science. This means that it has a dual role: it is both a theory to explain the history of life on earth and a conceptual framework for integrating the results of other disciplines.

As we shall see, evolution is sometimes used with different meanings not only in the same work but also in the same discussion or argument. Later in the chapter we shall distinguish three meanings, or tiers, of evolution, which unfortunately give the word evolution a slippery character. This can easily be exploited by unscrupulous proponents of a school to persuade people to accept a conclusion based on logically invalid arguments. We shall review instances of such arguments and discuss related problems later in this chapter. For now, note that all schools accept that some evolution in the first or wide sense has occurred; they differ in regard to the narrow sense.

While it is important to define what is meant by the term evolution, it is equally important to explicitly state what is meant by the expression natural selection. In the Darwinian definition of evolution described above, natural selection is synonymous with innovation, the building of new organisms. This has not always been the case and indeed is misleading. As early as the 1830s, the concept of natural selection was used by Edward Blyth to explain how a population maintained itself under changing environmental conditions. Blyth, a Creationist writing for the British Magazine of Natural History, observed that The [animal] best organized must always obtain the greatest quantity [of food]; and must, therefore, become physically the strongest and thus be enabled, by routing its opponents, to transmit its superior qualities to a greater number of offspring.5 While this may seem remarkably similar to Darwin’s view, for Blyth natural selection was an inherently conservative force, indicative of the wisdom of the Creator in conserving and sustaining species, whereas Darwin and his successors concentrated on its innovative potential, in conjunction with what we now term random mutations. Rather than seeing natural selection as a mechanism merely to maintain the fitness of a species, Darwin and later researchers concentrated on how natural selection could in theory promote innovation and lead to new life-forms. It was natural selection’s presumed ability to deliver long-term improvement, rather than short-term stability, that captivated their interest.

It is important to keep this distinction in mind: no one disputes that natural selection occurs; it is what it can do that is in dispute. Everyone agrees that it has the ability to protect a population against adversity and maintain its stability in the face of changing environmental conditions, as Blyth described. This takes place in two dimensions: to weed out the deleterious mutations that constantly occur and to adjust the distribution of phenotypes so that organisms match as well as possible the population’s current environment.6 Both of these are necessary to preserve the fitness level of a population; without that, all populations of organisms would rather quickly die out. Even if there were never a single beneficial mutation—not one—natural selection would still be essential for life. What is in dispute is whether natural selection (together with random mutation) is capable of generating improvements in fitness, or even whole new species or higher taxa. This is what Darwin argued, and it is still the main issue at the heart of the evolution debate. To reiterate: the existence of natural selection as a preservation process is not in dispute; only the question of its ability (together with random mutation) to innovate and create new species and higher taxa is disputed.

The Three Tiers of Evolution

One of the essential keys to identifying the fallacious reasoning used by partisans of the evolution debate (on all sides) is a relatively simple but profound distinction among what we have termed the three tiers, or levels, of evolution. This distinction also helps us to better understand the schools of thought and differentiate them, and to unravel some of the knottier problems of the evolution controversy. The three tiers that we wish to distinguish are historical evolution, common descent evolution, and strong Darwinian evolution. Failure to recognize the tiers and their roles has led to completely fallacious claims about the theory of evolution, and is probably the single most important factor contributing to confusion about the subject. Many authors who are otherwise well versed in the subject stumble over this point, with disastrous consequences for their arguments. Let us examine these tiers in more detail:

1. Historical Evolution: Belief that the timescale of earth’s history—that is, the chronology of events worked out by geologists, physicists, paleontologists, and astronomers—is approximately correct, and that organisms appeared at the times usually assigned to them, with some living on and others such as the dinosaurs becoming extinct. No implication is made that one species gave rise to any other, only that there was a historical sequence. There is a considerable body of independent evidence from various disciplines supporting the notion of historical evolution.

2. Common Descent: Partial explanation of historical evolution (tier 1) by the hypothesis that shared characteristics among organisms indicates that they have descended from a single, original ancestor (or possibly multiple ancestors). Belief in this level of evolution is not a commitment to natural selection (or any other process) as the exclusive causal mechanism in the development of all life-forms, or the belief that any purely naturalistic process can account for such development. The evidence for this level of belief is completely different from the evidence for tier 1. It consists primarily of identifying similarities in structure, biochemical functions, and genetic coding of organisms.

3. Strong Darwinian Evolution: Complete explanation of common descent by the hypothesis that natural forces alone are responsible for the emergence of all organisms. For the Neo-Darwinian school, it is natural selection acting upon random mutations that supplies the force; for Meta-Darwinian evolutionists, additional natural mechanisms are presumed to be involved.

The levels are shown schematically in figure 1.3. Now, armed with the important distinction between the three tiers of evolution, we are prepared to examine the four major schools of thought regarding evolution.

Figure 1.3. Schematic indicating the three tiers of evolution. Note that each level builds upon the previous one. For example, historical evolution must be demonstrated before one can even talk about common descent. Likewise, the verification of common descent is a precursor to a discussion of strong Darwinian evolution.

The Major Schools of Thought Regarding Evolution

Categorization of the vast literature on and the varied thought about evolution is perforce a difficult task. No set of boundaries will satisfy everyone involved in the evolution controversy. Nonetheless the division into four schools, presented in this book, is based on real differences and supplies a convenient jumping-off point for subsequent discussions. The boundaries of these four schools are not hard and fast, and may overlap in certain respects. In fact, individual scientists may fit into more than one school. What follows is a brief synopsis of the four schools.

1. The Neo-Darwinian School. At the dawn of the twenty-first century, the dominant school of thought is unquestionably Neo-Darwinism. Virtually all major scientific institutions and government funding agencies, and nearly all college and university faculty members, and most practicing scientists have allegiance to this school. This is a formidable array of scientific talent, by any standard. The school defends what is termed the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, with its central tenets of common descent and natural selection, as discussed above. It believes that these tenets, proposed by Darwin but modified and codified in the new synthesis, are adequate to explain, in a naturalistic fashion, all the flora and fauna we see in the world, as well as how they arose from predecessors.

The school explicitly rejects supernatural explanations and relegates other natural mechanisms to minor importance, at best. Because of the dominance in the academic world of the school’s adherents, their fairly uniform set of beliefs, and their attitude toward other schools, they could be called orthodox evolutionists, but we shall use the name that is in common use, Neo-Darwinians. In actuality, they divide into two camps: what we may term the ordinary Darwinists, and the so-called ultra-Darwinists. The latter are distinguished by their somewhat more radical belief that genes rather than organisms are the fundamental units of selection. According to this belief, it is the genes that act to preserve and disseminate themselves, and organisms are merely reduced to the sum of their genes.7 For most of the discussion of this book, however, that distinction is not important.

2. The Creationist School. The scientific Creationists,8 usually simply referred to as Creationists, naturally believe that some sort of special creation is necessary to account for the history of life on our planet. According to their understanding, available evidence points to such special creation and refutes the Neo-Darwinian theory. Creationists believe that the observed similarities and commonalities in organisms are absolutely necessary for creatures to function and thus are a reflection of divine providence rather than the product of evolutionary processes. They make no secret of the fact that their religious beliefs bound the range of permissible scientific hypotheses, and indeed inform them to a considerable extent, contrary to the usual procedures of science. They justify this by arguing that both the Bible and science give truths, and these truths cannot contradict. Creationists may be conveniently divided into two camps. First and largest is that of the young earth Creationists (YECs), those who believe that the earth is of rather recent vintage and who advocate a number of theories to account for its features, such as a flood geology. They reject the conclusions of geologists, paleontologists, and others about the age of the earth and its implications, and maintain that all observed features can be better explained by means of their hypotheses, which postulate high-energy processes acting over much shorter intervals. They do not dispute that some evolution in the broad sense has occurred over a relatively short time interval (about 10,000 years); indeed, they require it to account for repopulation of the earth after Noah’s flood. They even hypothesize that new forms of life have arisen from the original created types or kinds.9

What the young earth theory excludes is evolution in the third or Neo-Darwinian sense, which requires vast time spans to operate and generates new biological information. This leads to the so-called Creationist lawn model as opposed to the Neo-Darwinian tree model of evolution (see fig. 1.4). But since anyone with a backyard telescope can observe galaxies that are tens of millions of light years away, the young earth theory must confront a formidable chronological challenge at the outset.

A second Creationist camp, known as ordinary Creationists, accepts the common dating scheme for the earth and the universe but rejects other doctrines essential to standard evolution theory, specifically, common descent from a single ancestor and the adequacy of natural selection to account for all biological innovations. This camp is not proposing an entirely new scientific theory to explain observed biological, geological, and astronomical facts, and so will not be discussed in detail in the present book.

3. The Intelligent Design School. The third school already has a name of which it is proud and by which it is known, so we shall use it: Intelligent Design. This school rejects (on scientific grounds) the adequacy of natural selection alone to account for the complexity found in nature. However, nearly all members of the school believe in some form of historical evolution and many even accept common descent evolution. Most also accept the scientific work done to date in geology, biochemistry, paleontology, genetics, and evolutionary biology, but their interpretation is much different from the Neo-Darwinists’. What defines this school is its belief that one can identify, through scientific research, proof of Intelligent Design in the natural world. Moreover, they believe that an Intelligent Designer is required for certain steps in evolution to occur, although exactly which ones are unclear at this point. Their thought centers on the extreme complexity and highly optimized nature of biochemical mechanisms, processes, and structures, and the impossibility (in their view) of such complexity arising from any type of natural process, whether guided by natural selection or not. One of the descriptive terms they use is irreducible complexity (IC). Members of the Intelligent Design school believe that they can, on the basis of probabilities, distinguish objects or processes that have arisen by chance from those that have been designed, in much the same way that archaeologists detect design in centuries-old artifacts. However, as we shall see, attaching probabilities to the likelihood that a biological organism or structure arose by chance is tricky business, and this remains one of the main obstacles the Intelligent Design school faces in gaining acceptance as a legitimate scientific theory. On account of its belief