Structuralism: A New Way to Avoid Creation | The Institute for Creation Research

Structuralism: A New Way to Avoid Creation

Why do whale flippers, bat wings, crocodile claws, and human hands all have five digits? Why not three, four, six, or seven? Whoever attempts to explain biological origins needs to explain why this common pattern appears in very different animals and develops along completely different pathways. Biomedical chemist Michael Denton recently outlined why Darwinism fails to account for these facts and proposed an alternative.1 Does his new explanation fare any better?

The intelligent-design journal, Bio-Complexity, featured this latest work from Denton, who is probably most famous for his influential, evidence-based book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.1,2 His recent effort aims to replace molecules-to-man evolution with a different origins idea—but it's not creation.

Denton advocates "structuralism," which proposes that properties inherent in matter determine an organism's features. He described the opposing functionalist view, where outside factors are thought to shape organisms' features, as Darwinian and did not mince words in his incisive rebuttal:

In short, the grand fact of what appears to be a veritable universe of non-adaptive order [e.g., same digit counts in unrelated creatures] is the nemesis, the Achilles heel, of the whole functionalist tradition. Accept the reality of formal, non-functional patterns as one of the primary facts of biology, and Darwinism becomes a special theory explaining or attempting to explain adaptation, but nothing more.1

Therefore, according to Dr. Denton, biologists would do well to return to the structuralist view held by "pre-Darwin scientists."

Structuralism claims that "physics plays a significant role in the generation of organic form."1 Similar to the way that properties of elements determine crystal forms, classic structuralism holds that properties of matter—or the laws of nature themselves—determine certain biological attributes.

Denton asserted, for example, that oily structures forming cell membranes "arise mainly from the self-organization of the membranes themselves." Similarly, he wrote, "the form of cells arises mainly from the self-organization of their constituents rather than by instruction from a detailed blueprint in the genome as functionalism/mechanism demands."1

Yet, though it stands in definite opposition to Darwinism, structuralism does not better explain life's patterns.

To begin, although lipids (i.e., fats, oils, waxes, etc.) bunch together because oil and water don't mix, this property alone has never produced a real cell membrane. Cell membranes are exquisitely crafted. The right amounts and kinds of lipids also require several membrane-specific proteins and glycoproteins that are functioning dynamically within specific arrangements.3 Elaborate cell membranes do not arise from simple oil in lab experiments, but they do always arise from pre-existing cell membranes.

So, after functionalism is ruled out, Denton's "self-organization" is not the only option left to explain cell membranes. In fact, if the information required to build new membranes comes from old membranes, then it does not come from Denton's physical laws at all. Creation should be on the table.

The same logic holds for whole cells. Even if the coded information required to build a new generation of cells may not be stored in DNA, then it is stored somewhere in the cell—information placed there by God, not by physics. Structuralism falls short.

Finally, nowhere in his paper did Denton deal with the information requirement for life. His crystal analogy fails in this regard, too. Crystals form orderly arrangements, but biological arrangements go far beyond mere order to information-rich organization where the order conforms to non-repeating, coded information instead of a simple, repetitive, crystalline algorithm.

In short, both functionalism and structuralism fail to explain biology. Each paradigm calls upon nature to do what it simply cannot do: write precise biological software and arrange biological hardware accordingly. And both paradigms exclude God.

Still, the "puzzle" remains—different creatures share the same number of digits that grow through very different developmental pathways. Whereas these observations defy both functionalism and structuralism, they could well be considered signatures of creation.

References

  1. Denton, M. 2013. The Types: A Persistent Structuralist Challenge to Darwinian Pan-Selectionism. Bio-Complexity. 2013 (3): 1-18.
  2. Denton, M. 1986. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler.
  3. Tomkins, J. P. 2012. The Design and Complexity of the Cell. Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research, 23-24.

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

Article posted on September 18, 2013

The Latest
NEWS
Microscopic Ingenuity: Stentor and the Case for Intelligent Design
What if the smallest creatures held the biggest clues to life’s design? A 2025 study in Nature Physics investigates the remarkable behaviors of...

CREATION PODCAST
Dr. Jeff Tomkins | A Scientist's Journey to Creationism | The...
ICR’s science staff have spent more than 50 years researching scientific evidence that refutes evolutionary philosophy...

NEWS
Early Fish Evolution?
The discovery of a new species of a plant or animal would probably not spark much excitement to the non-scientist. But in this case, the conditions...

NEWS
Make Plans to Attend Our Estate Planning Workshop at the Discovery...
Did you know that up to 75% of Americans over 18 have no retirement or estate plans? Don’t wait to prepare for the future. Join us on Saturday, October...

NEWS
Fossil Confusion in Ethiopia: Are Evolutionary Trees Built on...
A new study published in Nature describes the discovery of 13 fossilized teeth from the Ledi-Geraru site in Ethiopia. They have been dated to between...

NEWS
The Only Mesozoic Dragonfly in Canada—Is a Dragonfly
In 2023, an undergraduate student from McGill University discovered a new dragonfly species in Alberta, Canada. In fact, “This is the first ever...

CREATION PODCAST
Dr. Jake Hebert | Journey to ICR | The Creation Podcast: Episode...
ICR’s science staff have spent more than 50 years researching scientific evidence that refutes evolutionary philosophy...

NEWS
Oldest Evidence of Butterflies
Insects such as the ubiquitous butterfly belong to the huge phylum Arthropoda (creatures having paired, jointed appendages and a chitinous exoskeleton)....

NEWS
Another Big Mistake in Evolution
The strange and wonderful coelacanth1 has long been a challenge to evolutionists. The coelacanth has long been hailed as an ancestor...

ACTS & FACTS
ICR 2025 Resource Catalog
At the Institute for Creation Research, our mission is not only to conduct research demonstrating how science confirms Scripture but also to share this...