INTELLIGENT DESIGN EVIDENCE
General Evidence: Fossils
General Evidence: Fossils
|
POSITIVE EVIDENCE FOR DESIGN:
Fossils exhibit features that appear designed, much like living organisms. The
scientific question presented is, "is the design exhibited by fossils the result of
unintelligent causes, or intelligent causes?"
The assumption of those steeped only in Darwinism, of course, is that fossils are
solely the result of unintelligent causes, specifically Darwin's "descent with
modification" in which each fossil is the unintelligently modified version of an
ancestor in a gradual chain of cause and effect occurences. The unintelligent
operations of physics and chemistry alone are believed to have produced the
specified complexity observed in fossils, and in ever-increasing specification and
complexity over time.
The true cause of fossils can only be determined by testing known causal agents
to see if they can produce the specified complexity evident in the design of fossils.
Unintelligent causes such as the random variation of mutations or the
deterministic law of natural selection have not been shown to be capable of
producing specified complexity, much less new and more specified complexity.
Specifically, natural selection (which can only select what is already created) has
no creative power. The only things that can be "selected" are things already in
existence. Therefore, in Darwinism any "creating" of new DNA information coding
for new body designs as evidenced in fossils must be produced by unintelligent
deterministic physics. Each random mutation of the genome of an existing body
plan must be directionally beneficial in producing a new, beneficial body plan. But,
as discussed above, no unintelligent natural process has been shown to produce
new, beneficial morphology, or new, beneficial information content in the genome,
or new species. Therefore, the ability of Darwinian processes to produce the
specified complexity evident in fossils is called into serious question.
Fossils exhibit features that appear designed, much like living organisms. The
scientific question presented is, "is the design exhibited by fossils the result of
unintelligent causes, or intelligent causes?"
The assumption of those steeped only in Darwinism, of course, is that fossils are
solely the result of unintelligent causes, specifically Darwin's "descent with
modification" in which each fossil is the unintelligently modified version of an
ancestor in a gradual chain of cause and effect occurences. The unintelligent
operations of physics and chemistry alone are believed to have produced the
specified complexity observed in fossils, and in ever-increasing specification and
complexity over time.
The true cause of fossils can only be determined by testing known causal agents
to see if they can produce the specified complexity evident in the design of fossils.
Unintelligent causes such as the random variation of mutations or the
deterministic law of natural selection have not been shown to be capable of
producing specified complexity, much less new and more specified complexity.
Specifically, natural selection (which can only select what is already created) has
no creative power. The only things that can be "selected" are things already in
existence. Therefore, in Darwinism any "creating" of new DNA information coding
for new body designs as evidenced in fossils must be produced by unintelligent
deterministic physics. Each random mutation of the genome of an existing body
plan must be directionally beneficial in producing a new, beneficial body plan. But,
as discussed above, no unintelligent natural process has been shown to produce
new, beneficial morphology, or new, beneficial information content in the genome,
or new species. Therefore, the ability of Darwinian processes to produce the
specified complexity evident in fossils is called into serious question.
NEGATIVE EVIDENCE FOR DARWINIAN GRADUALISM
Charles Darwin himself recognized in his book On the Origin of Species[1] that the
fossil record does not support his theory. Beginning in Chapter 6, entitled,
"Difficulties on Theory", Darwin himself noted that among the "crowd of difficulties"
with Darwinism, the foremost difficulty is that the fossil record does not support
his theory of gradual descent with modification. Darwin himself asked: "why, if
species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not
everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?"[2]
There are no unambiguous transitional forms, and few purported forms in a fossil
record that should be teeming with millions upon millions of such creatures. Such
knowledge is common among educated scientists and paleontologists, but
virtually unknown among members of the public, including students. In fact,
evolutionist Stephen J. Gould described the rarity of transitional fossils as the
"'trade secret' of paleontologists" in his book, The Panda's Thumb (see further,
below).
Note the suprising conventional wisdom that fossils are not only evidence, but
proof of "evolution". Rather than being proof for Darwinism, however, an honest
assessment of the evidence shows fossils to be stronger evidence of true design
than unguided, purposeless evolution. Consider, for example, the preeminent
Darwinist Ernst Mayr, known as "the Darwin of the 20th century."[3] In his 2001
book entitled What Evolution Is [4] Mayr discusses the evidence for evolution in
Chapter 2, in a section headed "What evidence does the evolutionist have?"
Predictably, he first discusses the fossil evidence. Specifically, on page 14 of the
paperback Basic Books edition, he states:
Mayr goes on to make clear that the fossil record does not support Darwinian
gradualism (as noted above, a fact Darwin himself recognized, but believed future
fossil finds would fill in the gaps). Then Mayr asks a revealingly honest question:
never has and likely never will. Evolutionists such as Stephen Jay Gould were
forced to propose theories such as "punctuated equilibrium" to "save the
phenomena," i.e., explain the evidence in a coherent fashion." Stephen J. Gould
refers to the rarity of transitional fossils as the "'trade secret' of paleontologists".
Gould states:
Footnotes:
1. Online at http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?
itemID=F391&viewtype=text&pageseq=1
2. See online at http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?
itemID=F391&viewtype=text&pageseq=1
3. Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is, (New York: Basic Books, 2001), back cover.
4. Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is, (New York: Basic Books, 2001).
5. Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is, (New York: Basic Books, 2001), p. 14.(emphasis added).
6. Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is, (New York: Basic Books, 2001), p. 14.
7. Sephen J. Gould, The Panda's Thumb, (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1980), p.
181.
Charles Darwin himself recognized in his book On the Origin of Species[1] that the
fossil record does not support his theory. Beginning in Chapter 6, entitled,
"Difficulties on Theory", Darwin himself noted that among the "crowd of difficulties"
with Darwinism, the foremost difficulty is that the fossil record does not support
his theory of gradual descent with modification. Darwin himself asked: "why, if
species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not
everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?"[2]
There are no unambiguous transitional forms, and few purported forms in a fossil
record that should be teeming with millions upon millions of such creatures. Such
knowledge is common among educated scientists and paleontologists, but
virtually unknown among members of the public, including students. In fact,
evolutionist Stephen J. Gould described the rarity of transitional fossils as the
"'trade secret' of paleontologists" in his book, The Panda's Thumb (see further,
below).
Note the suprising conventional wisdom that fossils are not only evidence, but
proof of "evolution". Rather than being proof for Darwinism, however, an honest
assessment of the evidence shows fossils to be stronger evidence of true design
than unguided, purposeless evolution. Consider, for example, the preeminent
Darwinist Ernst Mayr, known as "the Darwin of the 20th century."[3] In his 2001
book entitled What Evolution Is [4] Mayr discusses the evidence for evolution in
Chapter 2, in a section headed "What evidence does the evolutionist have?"
Predictably, he first discusses the fossil evidence. Specifically, on page 14 of the
paperback Basic Books edition, he states:
- Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a
gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this
is not what the paleontologist finds. [5]
Mayr goes on to make clear that the fossil record does not support Darwinian
gradualism (as noted above, a fact Darwin himself recognized, but believed future
fossil finds would fill in the gaps). Then Mayr asks a revealingly honest question:
- This raises a puzzling question: Why does the fossil record fail to reflect
the gradual change one would expect from evoution? [6]
never has and likely never will. Evolutionists such as Stephen Jay Gould were
forced to propose theories such as "punctuated equilibrium" to "save the
phenomena," i.e., explain the evidence in a coherent fashion." Stephen J. Gould
refers to the rarity of transitional fossils as the "'trade secret' of paleontologists".
Gould states:
- "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the
trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our
textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is
inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin
was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a
denial of this literal record: ". . . He who rejects these views on the nature of
the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory." [7]
Footnotes:
1. Online at http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?
itemID=F391&viewtype=text&pageseq=1
2. See online at http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?
itemID=F391&viewtype=text&pageseq=1
3. Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is, (New York: Basic Books, 2001), back cover.
4. Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is, (New York: Basic Books, 2001).
5. Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is, (New York: Basic Books, 2001), p. 14.(emphasis added).
6. Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is, (New York: Basic Books, 2001), p. 14.
7. Sephen J. Gould, The Panda's Thumb, (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1980), p.
181.
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |