THEORY OF EVOLUTION

The "Theory of Evolution" has been taught under different labels,
including the Synthetic Theory, Darwinism, and the Modern Synthesis.
Darwin believed that environmental changes imposed survival pressures
resulting in changes beneficial to the survival of the organism. Darwin
called this process "Natural Selection," and its result: "Survival of the
Fittest". However all of these so-called theories share a fatal flaw.
Each proposal has failed to operationalize the concept of fitness.

The basic problem is that no independent criteria exists that tells us
who will survive. If we ask, "Who is the fittest?," the answer back is:
"The one that survives." If we ask, "Who will survive?," the answer back
is, "The one who's the fittest."
 

DARWIN'S TAUTOLOGY

Some have tried to avoid this circular reasoning by suggesting, "The
fittest are those with the most offspring." But when we ask, "Who has the
most offspring?," the answer back is, "Those that are the fittest."
Others have answered, the fittest are those best able to adapt. But when
asked, "Who is best able to adapt?" the answer back is, "The fittest."

This merry-go-round is known as a "tautology." It is a form of repetition
that masquerades as a cause and effect statement but which, in point of
fact, has no explanatory power. An example is, "He died because he
stopped breathing." But did he die because he stopped breathing, or did
he stop breathing because he died? In the case of evolution, it was a
little of both. Let's quickly look at what happened.
 

A BRIEF HISTORY

Twenty-four years ago (February, 1976) Tom Bethell wrote an article in
Harper's Magazine. It basically said that natural selection was circular
reasoning. Harper's Magazine is hardly a professional journal and, as
things usually go, the article would just disappeared out of view. But
Bethell hit a nerve so painful to the faithful that it could not be
ignored. What he did was proclaim the emperor had no clothes.

Eight months later one of their head spokesman, Steve Gould (a widely
published Harvard professor in evolution) acknowledged Bethell's article
in Natural History (which incidentally IS a professional journal). Gould
answered Bethell by pontificating, 'natural selection is ... good
engineering design'-- a nonsensical myth that Gould later retracted.

In 1977 Bethell submitted a rebuttal to Natural History that was
rejected. Nonetheless Bethell's critique had such impact on evolution's
devotees that Scientific American invited articles for a special
"evolution" edition published September, 1978. Its nine articles were
intended to assure the laity that all was well. But it proved to be
evolution's swan song.

In 1979 Gould joined with Lewontin (a prominent name in evolution) to
publish "Critique of the Adaptionist Programme" (Proc. Roy. Soc. London,
B205:581). Their 18 page paper was a devastating critique of
"adaptation." But as severe a blow as this was, it paled in
insignificance compared to what was to later follow.

The kiss of death to the theory of evolution came when R.H. Brady
published a 22 page article entitled, "Natural Selection and the Criteria
by which a Theory is Judged (Systematic Zoology 28:600, 1979). Using
meticulous logic, Brady showed that the theory of evolution was fatally
and irrevocably flawed (discussed later in this article).

One year later, in October, 1980 one-hundred fifty biologists met in a
conference on macroevolution in the hope of finding consensus on the
mechanism(s) behind macroevolution. Since many faithful adherents share
common macroevolutionary dogma e.g., that a shrew became a whale, it was
thought that the conference would enlarge their common ground. However,
and to the contrary, the three day conference ended in disarray amid
strong disagreements over which of three theories (Phyletic Gradualism,
Effect Hypothesis & Punctuated Equilibrium) was least problematic.

In 1981 Norm Platnick (of the American Museum of Natural History) writing
in Systematic Zoology (30:121) declared the evolutionary synthesis to be
its own obituary.

One year later, in 1982, R.H. Brady drove the coffin nails further into
Darwin's grave with brilliant 18 page paper entitled "Dogma and Doubt,"
(Biol. Jour. Linn. Soc. 17(1):79).
 

WHAT BRADY PROVED

Brady's papers show that as originally formulated by Darwin, natural
selection could have been, at least in principle, conceptually viable.
However the outcome of the research program has proven to be anything but
viable. Brady proved that the actual pursuit of Darwinism throughout the
twentieth century has reduced natural selection to a "tautology in
practice." Phrased in less exotic terms, the theory of evolution has been
chasing its tail. The CONCEPT is still viable, but the THEORY is dead.

One serious failing of evolutionary "theory" is that natural selection
has proven too indeterminate for sober testing. The reason is that it is
protected by an inexhaustible supply of non-verifiable ad hoc assumptions
that its defenders conveniently draw upon whenever it is advantageous to
do so. But for its preconceived agenda, this sorry state of affairs
presented adequate warrant to discard the theory of evolution long ago.
 

ORGANISMS ARE INDETERMINATE

But what makes the charade so ludicrous is that beyond all this, the
modern synthesis has a fatal flaw. Darwin's proposal implicitly assumed
that living organisms were "deterministic" systems. This controlling
assumption went unrecognized for decades, and its failure is the reason
that the research program was unable to operationalize the concept of
fitness. If we ask, "Why are organisms non-deterministic?," the answer
is that brain of the simplest insect is so complex, as to exceed all of
the human relationships possible on earth today.
 

THEORY VERSUS CONCEPT

Be that as it may, this only speaks to the THEORY of evolution. The
"concept" is an entirely different matter. The concept of evolution is a
working hypothesis or a plan of action that many find attractive. It is
an elegant attempt to systematize one-half million species of plant life,
twice as many species of land life, and about ten million species of
insects-- all into one grand scheme. Evolution as a concept has proven to
be inviting, and it has engaged a very large number of thinkers.
 

WHY IS EVOLUTION ACCEPTED?

a) It's Elegant
---------------
The appeal of a working hypothesis that promises to systematize all of
life is one of four reasons why the concept of evolution is accepted.

b) It's Unimposing
------------------
Another is that the alternative is unacceptable. To deny evolution is to
embrace Creation and, with it, the belief that our world functions with
intention. This would mean that an Intelligence designed all that we see
and are. The alternative is unacceptable because it implies an Authority
higher than man-- an Authority Whom we perceive as imposing moral
constraints that contradict our passions and our desires.

However in principle this Intelligence need NOT be God. For example,
Nobel laureate Francis Crick concluded that life on earth could NOT have
arisen by accident (Life Itself, Simon & Shuster, 1981). He then
conferred credit for its advent to some (hypothetical) extraterrestrial
civilization "somewhere out there". He called it, "directed panspermia,"
but failed to explain where they came from.

It is noteworthy that one can accept creation without introducing
religion. In this view, the creation's design arises from someone or
something other than God. Religion attends Creation only when the
Designer requires obedience and demands worship. This latter requirement
is the alternative that virtually all materialists find unacceptable.

c) It's Big Business
--------------------
A third reason evolution is accepted is that it's big business. Tens of
thousands of research grants and contracts are awarded each year that are
directly or indirectly identified with evolution. Stated differently, it
puts bread on the table. Evolution is driven by a financial engine.

d) It's Prolific
----------------
The fourth reason that so many embrace evolution is that it provides a
basis for asking questions. This latter point is important, and best
illustrated through an historical example.
 

HISTORICAL LESSON

About 500 BC, Anaximander said that the earth was at the center of their
world. This idea came from Greece, and not the Bible. Plato picked up on
it around 400 BC, and his students Eudoxus and Aristotle created
elaborate celestial systems to prove that it was true (27 and 55 spheres,
respectively). About 140 BC a tyrant in Athens named Hipparchus
controlled the world's astronomical instruments. If he said the earth was
at the center of their world, then the earth was its center!

Later, astronomical understanding became systematized under Ptolemy in
Alexandria, Egypt around 146 AD and for the next 1400 years, astronomy
proceeded under the working hypothesis that the earth was at the center
of their world. Over this time acceptance of the belief grew to such an
extent that it became regarded as fact. Each discovery brought new
knowledge providing assurance that the earth was indeed at the center of
their world.

In 1543 Copernicus announced that the earth was not the center, and
Galileo's telescope later confirmed it. This contradicted the working
assumption that astronomers had accepted for over 1600 years. It also
went against the tradition of a worldly church that had been influenced
by Greek ideas. But since Bibles were in short supply, written in Latin,
unintelligible to the illiterate and off-limits except to priests, most
people wrongly thought that this newly found knowledge contradicted the
Bible when, in truth, it had falsified early Greek ideas.
 

HISTORICAL RERUN

A parallel situation exists today. Biologists have a working assumption
called evolution. It provides a basis for asking questions. We are
learning things. Acceptance of this belief has grown to such an extent
that it has become regarded as fact. Each discovery brings new knowledge
providing assurance that evolution is true-- just as past astronomical
discoveries brought new knowledge confirming that the earth was at the
center of the world.

The point is that macroevolution is believed not because evidence exists
that shows one kind of life derived from another, but because it provides
a basis for asking questions through which we are learning things. Thus,
and as in the past, the presumption is that the basis for asking the
questions must be true because it is leading us to new discoveries.
 

EARTH'S EARLIEST LIFE

Let's extend the concept of evolution back in time, and to the earliest
known life form on earth-- one celled plants known as cyano-bacteria.
Since we can find no life form earlier than this, the question we ask is:
"How did this first life form arise?"

The concept of evolution answers this question by viewing cyano-bacteria
as the result of a progression of evolutionary biological changes that
stem back to the time of Creation itself. This concept holds that the
earliest life form i.e., the one cell plant, emerged as a consequence of
structural changes that began with a "first living object."
 

EVOLUTION AS A CONCEPT

It is noteworthy that, at least IN PRINCIPLE, both materialists and
theists can agree on the mechanisms implicit in the concept of evolution.
This is true for materialists because they assert that all life forms
arose from the properties of physical matter. The theist believes that
God created physical matter, but can also say that God did so by
designing the very special properties possessed by physical matter,
knowing that they would result in life.

This latter point is not agreed to by all theists. The distinctions that
separate theists' beliefs are discussed in Part 8, and embrace a broader
investigation into the question: Is Man of God or Ape?

Nonetheless, and in its broadest application, the concept of evolution
embraces three ideas:

1. Biochemical Evolution ...
The first living object arose from non-living matter

2. Biolineal Evolution ...
Each of earth's life forms descended from its predecessor

3. Biological Evolution ...
The physical properties of matter spawned all of earth's life
 

The next five papers examines these ideas in the light of modern science.
The titles of these papers are:

What Is Biochemical Evolution?

Is Biochemical Evolution Possible?

Why Thermophysics Impacts DNA

How Thermophysics Impacts Fossils

Biolineal & Biological Evolution

As will be seen, Biochemical evolution is disallowed by established
scientific knowledge, and Biological evolution is an act of faith that
lies outside the realm of science.

Biolineal evolution is, in principle possible and may, in point of fact
be true. But if so, two other things are also true: (a) We have virtually
no evidence (fossils or otherwise) to support it, and (b) It requires a
systematic production of complexity which, apart from Intelligence, is
disallowed by modern thermophysics.