What is Darwinian of the gaps? Darwinists have declared Darwinian evolution as a well-tested theory. Indeed it has been so well tested that it should be considered as fact and not just a theory. Recently even Peter Ward the coauthor of Rare Earth has come out and reinforces this idea that evolution is a theory in the same way that gravity is a theory. (more on this at a later posting) The general public and the majority of scientists believes this is the case, so it must be true, right?
For those who have followed my blog and my cyber-postings would know what I mean by Darwinian evolution. 1. Darwinian evolution is Atheistic. I base this on the definition by Ken Miller “The existence of a supreme being simply is not a scientific question. A supreme being stands outside of nature. Science is a naturalistic process and can only answer questions about what is inside nature. Beyond that it’s a matter of personal belief.”‚ I haven’t found any Darwinists that would disagree with this definition yet. 2. Darwinian evolution is a random and unguided process capable of abiogenesis and all the diversity of life through descent with modification from LUCA (last universal common ancestor)
The purpose of this post is to focus on the second part of Darwinian evolution. What gives the Darwinists this confidence that Darwinian evolution is a fact? What evidences do Darwinists bring to the table? After 150 years of research and 3 revolutions later, Darwinists have indeed amassed copious research and evolutionary mechanisms to support their theory.
That is the standard perception conveyed by the elite Darwinian Priesthood (scientists that espouse evolution is a fact). Contrary to Peter Ward’s claim, that evolution is a very difficult and demanding subject. To understand the second premise of evolution is extremely simple. What is the evidence for life from lifelessness? What is the evidence for the diversity of life stemming from one or few common ancestor? It all boils down to the Modern Synthesis. This is the idea that genetic variations brought about by random genetic drift and gene flow, which changes the gene frequency of a population. These gradual changes accumulate to form new species as in macroevolution.
While this is a neat and tidy little story, this is a Darwinian of the gaps story. Darwinists are filling the gap of evidence with faith. Faith in their naturalistic process. Darwinists are proud of their faith. Darwinists bombastically ridicule anyone who dares to point out that they have no direct evidence in nature or in the lab that show any such macroevolutionary transformation. The Darwinists declares their critics as ignorant and anti-science because they want to replace God as an explanation for their gap in knowledge.
First of all, ID is not suggesting we put God in place of any gap in their knowledge. Second, ID is filling their gap with the knowledge that random and unbounded genetic variation does not produce the specific genetic information required for the diversity of life. What the Darwinists have done is painted an elaborate fairytale of evolution. As long as you don’t ask about the specific details of this fairytale then you are fine. If you start questioning the tale, “How can a cricket speak to a wooden boy?”‚ . What is the mechanism that would allow the cricket to vocalize speech? Once you start asking detail questions of the fairytale, the story breaks down. Such is the case with Darwinian evolution.
When you start asking what and how many random genetic changes are required to transform one alleged ancestral species to another? What is the differential survival cost of these random mutations? What is the random mutation rate for these alleged species given the fact that every species mutation rate is different? How much time is required for macroevolution through random mutations? Are there any biological, environmental or physical factors that would affect these random mutations? If so, what were they during this transformation period? Were these factors static during this macroevolutionary period? The Darwinian fairytale for the explanation of the diversity of life on earth is far from being a theory let alone a fact.
Just as Pasteur denied spontaneous generation, ID denies Darwinian evolution. Not only has ID pointed out that Darwinian evolution has no explanation for how biological systems function to produce macroevolution. ID is providing scientific data that shows there is no gradual random cumulative evolution. There is no evidence of a minute gradual incremental morphological change leading to a macroevolutionary result.
ID is providing scientific data that shows discrete morphological forms, as the records in the Cambrian explosion. The scientific data from molecular machines like the bacterial flagellum, blood clotting cascades and regulatory genes. Scientific data for biological convergence has contradicted the Darwinian cornerstone mechanism of random mutation that evolution should not repeat itself.