Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Physicist David Snoke’ review of Denton

arroba Email

University of Pittsburgh physicist David Snoke reviews Michael Denton’s Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis (2016) for the Christian Scientific Society here:

The Discovery Institute has a long history of sponsoring and collaborating with a large number of highly intelligent, fascinating scientists who stand outside traditional Christian belief as well as outside the mainstream of evolutionary science. In keeping with this tradition, they have recently published Evolution: A Theory Still in Crisis, by Michael Denton, a followup to his famous book thirty years ago, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, which influenced a whole generation of scientists to question the standard paradigm of evolution. In this book, Denton is not mainly just updating his previous arguments with data from the past three decades in the rapidly advancing fields of evolutionary and developmental biology (“evo-devo”) and genetic paleontology. His main purpose in the book is to present a comprehensive, positive case for his own view of how the diversity of life came about. His view is not the same as the intelligent design view promoted by the Discovery Institute, but many of his points could be equally seen as supportive of intelligent design.

In short, his view is that there are pan-phylogenic Types, or Forms, which exist in nature, to which life spontaneously conforms. This view sounds a lot like neo-Platonism, which, following Plato, posits a spiritual world of Ideals which then instantiate themselves in nature. But Denton explicitly avoids spiritual implications and insists on this view as a purely physical and materialist theory. His hero is Richard Owen, an early pre-Darwinian evolutionist, who posited the same view.

We are all so programmed by the current evolutionary debate to see Darwinian evolution as the only viable materialist theory that it is hard to understand at first what Denton is proposing, if not intervention from a spirit world, and it is hard to grasp that there were evolutionists who preceded Darwin, with strong arguments against Darwin’s ideas. To understand Denton’s view (and Owen’s) it is crucial to realize that it is first and foremost an empirical theory. Science has a long tradition of empirical theories which simply state the facts in unifying language without proposing any mechanism at all to explain them. Thus, for example, Newton famously proposed that gravity force could act at a distance, without proposing any explanation why. We are all so used to Newton’s laws now that we forget how empirically driven it was. The same empirical approach was used to build the Periodic Table of chemistry, long before quantum mechanics explained why it has the form it does. In the same way, Denton, following Owen, draws us to look at a glaring and obvious fact of nature: that living organisms do not exist in a continuum of small differences with gradual transitions between them; rather, they exist in highly distinct types and forms, with specific identities and unique features for each type. Thus, for example, mammals all have four limbs, five digits per limb, two eyes, mammary glands in pairs, etc. These patterns persist over hundreds of millions of years despite all manner of selective pressure in different directions. More.

Curiously, and contrary to the talking points of pop culture, the religion is all on the Darwin side (where it belongs). After all, it was Richard Dawkins who claimed that Darwin made him an intellectually fulfilled atheist, and it has probably done the same thing for many smartass science journalists, dispensing them from any need for curiosity about how the world works. The rest of the world is moving on.

Note: How strange that journalists should be in the rearguard? Yes, but see what is happening to legacy media. Coffee table stuff.

See also: Michael Denton: The laws of nature are uniquely fine-tuned

Follow UD News at Twitter!

"How could such radical saltation of new forms come about? For those adhering to intelligent design, the saltation events could be miraculous interventions. Is 100,000 too many? Why so? What is the maximum number of interventions we may impose on God?" Cited from http://www.christianscientific.org/review-of-dentons-evolution-a-theory-still-in-crisis/ What interventions does the writer David Snoke mean? For those who believe in the Genesis Sabbath Commandment, there was one grand initial intervention. The big bang of miracles which left a matured cosmos in six days. It seems, cosmic miracles affect data big time. The rest of the interventions by the Judaeo-Christian God started on a more historical footing from Sinia, where God intervened daily, through a guiding pillar of cloud by day and a guiding pillar of fire at night, followed by weekly bread and flesh. God intervened himself as Jesus, God in part and God in whole. God is still in interviewing in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches daily, Eucharistically. And, in various ways in the Protestant movement. In the Catholic Church over the past 100 hundred years or so, there have been hundreds of mystical phenomena where God is reported to be intervening: Fatima included. Some severe warnings included. Why should some evolutionary God wait for microscopic chance, copying errors? Would they not be as a result of his own evolutionary mistakes? It is the spirit that gives life, not molecules, which cannot pass the go of 'dirt,' in order to collect a life. However, if we mean evolve, or the regeneration of fallen humans into once again the divinity that was part of Adam and Eve, such was achieved at the resurrection when Jesus instantly evolves a new human form, created still in the original image of God, but multidimensional; of spirit and the physical. Including physical time and eternal time. Snoke writes: "But Denton makes the case that, like other creatures, humans have had a stable single Form since they first existed, with all the basic gifts of language and culture in all geographical locations from the very beginning." Agreed. Therefore, why should a fit life form, need to change to be still a fit life form in another life form, etc., etc. Relatively, nothing has been achieved. The fittest life form is that which is built to last, within certain limits. The fittest God, must create once and for all, for life forms to register stasis of kinds, which the fossils evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates, and Darwin knew full well, and why the fudge of Punctured Equilibrium, the magic dragon of common descent evolutionary myth, was conjured up to plug a great hole in Darwin's theory The Judaeo-Christian God intervenes as many times as is necessary. Before we strain any more down scientific instruments, with an unobstructed eye, we should not forget to look at the obvious pattern from such scripture. mw
Everybody should read the whole review. A great line is
descent with saltation
to describe what is really in the fossil record. Any time someone suggests that UCD is obvious, this could be the response to more accurately describe what we know. jerry

Leave a Reply