4. The DNA record tells us that major steps in genome evolution have involved rapid genome-wide changes.5. We know of molecular processes that allow us to think scientifically about complex evolutionary events – particularly about the rapid evolution of genomic circuits
and multi-component adaptations.
As author of Evolution: A view from the 21st century, he has also said at Fermilab (2010) that arch-Darwinist Richard Dawkins “lives in a world of fantasy,” stressing as above that “evolutionary theory needs mechanisms for very rapid, coordinated change.”
In other words, we know Darwinism doesn’t work and gets in the way of a solution. (Some would also add that it has accumulated a huge baggage train, including Darwin’s broomsticks and Darwin’s circus.) Shades of Altenberg 16. A friend of UD writes to say that he
is a thoughtful man who has becomes increasingly critical of neo-Darwinism, and is willing to work with ID guys. For instance, Rick Sternberg and Shapiro have collaborated on a pair of papers* looking at functional roles for non-coding DNA.
Non-coding DNA is “junk DNA.” If DNA has functional roles, it isn’t junk. But the existence of large quantities of junk DNA is an article of faith for Darwinists such as Michael Shermer and Jerry Coyne. It proves their theory.
The friend goes on to say that Shapiro positions his ideas in the context of “ID and evolution,” offering a third way.
While he insists that science “always looks for the natural explanation,” he sympathizes with ID critiques of neo-Darwinism in the linked lecture. At about 21:00, for instance, Shapiro endorses the ID point that neo-Darwinism fails to explain the origin of complex systems. “I think the critique is right,” he says, “although I don’t agree with the solution.” He then explains his commitment to methodological naturalism, and says that science looks for naturalistic solutions.
But considering that himself entertains the possibility that bacteria have cognitive powers, whatever he means by that will take us very far from Darwinism. Don Johnson, author of Probability’s Nature and the Nature of Probability calls his view non-supernatural ID.
Anyway, he’s getting very good reviews, and many see his prominence as a hopeful sign. Here’s an even-handed review of his book, citing it as a “third way:”
It’s hard to imagine that traditional neo-Darwinism can survive the onslaught much longer. James A. Shapiro might someday be regarded as one of the great researchers of our time. May his tribe increase.
* Here’s one (2004).