The Anti-Darwinian Scientist
by Wendell R. Bird, J.D., Attorney
There are at least seven significant approaches to macroevolution.
The Darwinian three are (a) classical Darwinian evolution, which
has been effectively abandoned; (b) the neo-Darwinian synthesis,
which is the majority viewpoint; and (c) punctuated equilibria,
the growing minority viewpoint. The four non-Darwinian approaches
are (a) transformed cladistics, also a growing approach whose
proponents refuse to use and in some cases reject macroevolution
entirely; (b) antievolutionist approaches (other than theories
of creation); (c) non-Darwinian evolution, such as nonequilibrium
evolution and structuralism; and (d) anti-Darwinian evolution.
The existence of widespread dissent strengthens the point made
by Stonehouse of Cambridge, an evolutionist:**
Some fundamental truths about evolution have so far
eluded us all, and that uncritical acceptance of Darwinism
may be counterproductive as well as expedient. Far from ignoring
or ridiculing the groundswell of opposition to Darwinism that
is growing, for example, in the United States, we should welcome
it as an opportunity to re-examine our sacred cow more closely.
. . . 1
a. Non-Darwinian Evolution
"Non-Darwinian" approaches to macroevolution are taken
by "a generally silent group of students engaged in biological
pursuits who tend to disagree with much of the current thought."
2 Denton notes:
". . . throughout the past century there has always
existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have
never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of
Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have
expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless.
When Arthur Koestler organized the Alpbach Symposium in 1969 called
"Beyond Reductionism," for the express purpose of bringing
together biologists critical of orthodox Darwinism, he
was able to include in the list of participants many authorities
of world stature, such as Swedish neurobiologist Holgar Hyden,
zoologists Paul Weiss and W. H. Thorpe, linguist David McNeil
and child psychologist Jean Piaget. Koestler had this to say in
his opening remarks: . . . invitations were confined to personalities
in academic life with undisputed authority in their respective
fields, who nevertheless share that holy discontent.
At the Wistar Institute Symposium in 1966, which brought together
mathematicians and biologists of impeccable academic credentials,
Sir Peter Medawar acknowledged in his introductory address the
existence of a widespread feeling in his own words that: ".
. . something is missing from orthodox theory." 3
Darwinism has been so "severely criticized" from the
scientific and philosophic communities that "the scientific
status of the theory has become a subject of contention."
4
Evolutionary saltationists, such as famed geneticists De Vries
5 and Goldschmidt, 6
paleontologists Schindewolf 7
and Spath, 8 and neontologist
Clark, 9 rejected Darwinism
and proposed a "hopeful monster" approach or macromutations.
Some modern evolutionary saltationists follow suit, such as Grant
10 and Wolsky. 11
Neutral selectionists fall back on "a population genetics
view," such as Kimura, Crow, Ohta, Thoday, and Ewens. 12
Their challenge is directly against Darwinism, as Grene perceives:
Of the many lines of debate now current, however, it
seems to me, that two, or perhaps better three, constitute
such fundamental challenges [to Darwinism]: (1) neutral
mutation theory, (2) cladism, and (3) a protest from the perspective
of ontogenesis and sometimes also of morphology. . . . That mutations
are random even the most fervent selectionist admits: indeed,
it is necessary to the structure of a neo-Darwinian, non-Lamarckian
account that this be so (see Rensch's essay, for example). But
that alleles wholly unconnected with fitness should persist for
long periods and in great numbers is a thesis that selectionists
find difficult to accept. Yet despite selectionist arguments to
the contrary, the view persists (Kirmura, 1976: King and Jukes,
1969). 13
Structuralists reject Darwinian functionalist explanations in
favor of structural explanations of the various morphologies that
can be classified hierarchically. 14
Their general anti-Darwinian view is summarized by Webster and
Goodwin, biologists at University of Sussex, as follows:
The only way of achieving clarification was to abandon
the system of concepts which we call the `evolutionary paradigm'
and attempt to construct what seems to us a more satisfactory
conceptual structure. . . .
In this paper we question the adequacy of the evolutionary
paradigm in relation to its failure to provide any satisfactory
theory of the production and reproduction of biological
form. We do not believe that this failure is a result of the
supposed difficulty of the problem, but rather that it is a consequence
of the intrinsic inadequacy of the current system of concepts;
we contend that, without a change in the system, no progress can
be expected in this crucial area. It follows inevitably from the
absence of any coherent account of morphology or morphogenesis
that the current theory of evolutionary transformations
remains, at best, incomplete and unsatisfactory. . . .
It will be apparent that we regard the theory of evolution,
and in particular neo-Darwinism, as having extremely limited
explanatory power with respect to the problem of form
to which it was originally addressed. This limitation arises as
a consequence of the absence of any adequate theory of the means
of production of "typical forms" and is such, we would
maintain, as to render debatable the claim that neo-Darwinism
is the unifying theory in biology. (Maynard Smith, 1975).
15
Hughes and Lambert concur that, in contrast to their structuralist
view, functionalist "neo-Darwinism is like a cosmological
theory in physics without the context of physical law." 16
Nonequilibrium thermodynamics rejects Darwinism while holding
to macroevolution, as Brooks and Wiley, its leading American proponents,
indicate:
In this book we will develop the idea that evolution
is an axiomatic consequence of organismic information and cohesion
systems obeying the second law of thermodynamics in a manner analogous
to but not identical with, the consequences of the second law's
usual application in physical and chemical systems. By "axiomatic"
we mean that the results are necessary consequences or outcomes.
If evolution is an axiomatic consequence of certain biological
processes following the second law, then current theories of
the evolutionary process must necessarily be incomplete because
they are theories of proximal cause . . . . In a real sense
Darwin produces a theory of proximal cause, evolution by natural
selection. 17
Szent-Gyorgyi rejects the neo-Darwinian approach and casts aside
"the usual answer . . . that there was plenty of time to
try everything." 18
b. Anti-Darwinian Evolutionists
Many other viewpoints are anti-Darwinian although macroevolutionist.
The prominent biologist, Lovtrup, professor of zoophysiology at
University of Umea (Sweden), poses a new theory while brilliantly
repudiating Darwin, with the provocative title Darwinism: The
Refutation of a Myth:
After this step-wise elimination, only one possibility
remains: the Darwinian theory of natural selection, whether
or not coupled with Mendelism, is false. I have already
shown that the arguments advanced by the early champions were
not very compelling, and that there are now considerable numbers
of empirical facts which do not fit with the theory. Hence, to
all intents and purposes the theory has been falsified,
so why has it not been abandoned?
I think the answer to this question is that current
Evolutionists follow Darwin's example--they refuse to accept falsifying
evidence. 19
The biochemist Fox of the University of Miami, with Ho of Open
University and Saunders of King's College at London, have proposed
a new model in place of Darwinism. 20
Polyphyletists such as Schwabe say that "neo-Darwinism is
or rather should be . . . disputed," and replace it with
life having "countless origins." 21
Hsu, a prominent geologist at the Geological Institute at Zurich,
argues that Darwin misunderstood geology, and concludes, "We
have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time that we cry:
`The emperor has no clothes.'" 22
Von Eisenstein similarly discards Darwinism for other mechanisms.
23
Many anti-Darwinians find no explanation satisfactory for macroevolution,
such as Grasse, 24 Lemoine,
25 Macbeth, 26
Ambrose, 27 Russell, 28
and Martin. 29 For example,
Grasse reached the following anti-Darwinian conclusion:
Their success among certain biologists, philosophers,
and sociologists notwithstanding, the explanatory doctrines of
biological evolution do not stand up to an objective, in-depth
criticism. They prove to be either in conflict with reality or
else incapable of solving the major problems involved. 30
REFERENCES
1 B. Stonehouse,
"Introduction" to M. Pitman, Adam and Evolution
9, 12 (1984) (italics added).
2 E. Olson, "Morphology,
Paleontology, and Evolution," in Vol. 1 Evolution After
Darwin 523 (S. Tax ed. 1960).
3 M. Denton, Evolution:
A Theory in Crisis 327 (1985) (italics added).
4 Riddiford & Penny, "The
scientific status of modern evolutionary theory," in Evolutionary
Theory: Paths into the Future, 1-2 (J. Pollard ed. 1984).
5 Bulhof, "The Netherlands,"
in The Comparative Reception of Darwinism 306 (T. Glick
ed. 1974).
6 R. Goldschmidt, The Material Basis
of Evolution (1940).
7 O. Schindewolf, Grundfragen
der Paleontologie (1950).
8 L. Spath, The Evolution
of the Cephalopoda, 8 Biol. Rev. 418 (1933).
9 A Clark, The New Evolution:
Zoogenesis (1930).
10 V. Grant, Organismic
Evolution (1977)
11 M. Wolsky & A. Wolsky.
The Mechanism of Evolution: A New Look at Old Ideas (1976).
12 Wasserman, "Testability
of the Role of Natural Selection within Theories of Population
Genetics and Evolution," 29 British J. Philosophy of Science
223, 234 (1978).
13 M. Grene, "Introduction"
to Dimensions of Darwinism 1, (M.Grene ed. 1983)
14 "Workshop on Structuralism
in Biology." 80Rivista de Biologia 1980.
15 Webster & Goodwin,
"The Origin of Species: A structuralist approach," 5
J. Social & Theoretical Biology 15, 15-16, 44 (1982)
(italics added).
16 Hughes & Lambert, "Functionalism,
Structuralism, and Ways of Seeing." III J. Theoretical
Biology 787, 796 (1984).
17 D. Brooks & E. Wiley,
Evolution as Entropy ix (1986) (U. of Chicago Press).
18 Szent-Gyorgyi, "The
Evolutionary Paradox and Biological Stability," in Molecular
Evolution: Prebiological and Biological III (D. Rohlfing &
A. Oparin eds. 1972).
19 S. Lovtrup, Darwinism:
The Refutation of a Myth 352 (1987) (Italics added).
20 Ho, Saunders & Fox,
A New Paradigm for Evolution, New Scientist, Feb. 27, 1986,
at 41.
21 Schwabe, "On the Validity
of Molecular Evolution," in Trends in Biochemical Sciences
280, 282 (1986)
22 K. Hsu, "Darwin's
Three Mistakes," 14 Geology 532, 534 (1986).
23 I von Eisenstein, "Ist
die Evolutions theory wissenschaftlich begrundet?" Inhaltsverzeichniscthaft
3, Band 15 at 241 & 404 (1975).
24 P. Grasse, The Evolution
of Living Organisms (trans. 1977).
25 Encyclopedie Francaise
06-6 (P. Lemoine ed. 1937).
26 N. Macbeth, Darwin Retired
134 (1971).
27 E. Ambrose, The Nature
and Origin of the Biologic World 131 (1982).
28 E. Russell, The Diversity
of Animals 69-71 (1962).
29 C. Martin, A Non-Geneticist
Looks at Evolution, 41 Am. Scientist 100, 100, 105 (1953).
30 P. Grasse, Evolution
of Living Organisms 202 (trans. 1977).
* Taken from a new book to be published shortly by Philosophical
Library (New York 10025) in two volumes (.95 per volume,
if ordered before December 15, .95 otherwise). The author,
an Atlanta attorney and Yale Law School graduate, argued the
recent creation law case before the U.S. Supreme Court.
** All scientists mentioned in this article are evolutionists.
This article was originally published November, 1987. "The Anti-Darwinian Scientist", Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/277/ (accessed October 13, 2008).
Want to use this article? View our Ethical Use Policy. To receive more articles from ICR, signup for a free subscription to our online and print publications.