Design v. Macro-evolution: Identifying the real distinctions
Wednesday, April 4th, 2007By: Lindsey E. Hoban
Earlier this year, Drexel College of Law sponsored “Conversations with the Profession” featuring plaintiff attorneys, Eric Rothschild and Steve Harvey from the Dover Intelligent Design case of 2005. The attorneys had argued in court that intelligent design should not be taught in public schools because it is not science and the judge agreed. Ironically, I left their presentation more confident in intelligent design than when I walked in, mostly because their arguments did not address key scientific distinctions including:
Intelligent Design v. Macro-Evolution
This is very important distinction that most people do not catch. Characterizing the discussion as “intelligent design v. evolution” is inaccurate. Both sides believe in evolution—it’s just a matter of degree. Those who believe intelligent design also believe in dinosaurs, fossils, the big bang, and even natural selection. The debate is much smaller than most people realize. Both sides agree with “microevolution”; “macroevolution” is where they differ.
Microevolution involves environmental adaptation and changes in a particular kind of organism over time. Microevolution includes the varying size and shape of Darwin’s finches in the Galapagos Islands because of climate variation, bacteria that develop a resistance to antibiotics, and plant cross-breeding.
On the other hand, macroevolution connects unrelated organisms, arguing that raw lifeless matter developed into eyes, hearts, brains, livers, lungs, ears, sexual reproduction systems, photosynthesis, and human consciousness through billions of purely random mutations. For sexual beings, macroevolution requires that at least two species evolve simultaneously in the same part of the earth to reproduce. When it comes to the first appearance of inorganic matter itself, macroevolutionists are at a complete loss.
Difference between natural and forensic science
The argument that intelligent design is not testable science blurs another important distinction. Microevolution is observable and testable. Macroevolution is not. Microevolution is “natural science”. Macroevolution is “forensic science” because it studies history.
Take the Big Bang for example. If we were to evaluate whether the Big Bang is science, what repeatable experiment could we run? When it comes to macroevolution, we have no way to test whether it happened because macroevolution would have begun in such remote past that any organisms showing initial mutations have been forever lost.
Looking at the fossil record for answers is a great place to start. However, the fossil record arguably offers more evidence countering macroevolution. In all our years of archeology, we have yet to find any “transition” fossils. All the species we have uncovered are already fully formed. Therefore, not only can’t we experimentally test the Big Bang and the first organisms of life, we’re missing all of the intermediate puzzle pieces too. With all the essential elements missing, we are only left with observable and testable microevolution. We are back to square one.
The Science Itself
To say that “intelligent design is not peer-reviewed” is partially correct and partially incorrect. The buzzword “intelligent design” is not found in scientific journals but all of the underlying science is. Technical papers on intelligent design are written all the time. While the catch-phrase is not present, other words take its place. Take for example four articles published in the February 18, 1998 journal Cell called “The Cell As A Collection Of Protein Machines: Preparing The Next Generation Of Molecular Biologists”, “Polymerases And The Replisome - Machines Within Machines”, “Mechanical Devices Of The Spliceozome: Motors, Clocks, Springs, And Things”, and “Molecular Movement Inside The Translational Engine”. Those peer-reviewed articles are just a few examples of how scientists reference intelligent design without using the exact phrase.
As a scientific analysis, intelligent design continues to increase in popularity as scientists learn more everyday of the complexity of biological systems, chemistry, and physics. In fact, 600 scientists worldwide have joined Seattle’s Discovery Institute’s skepticism in the macroevolution belief that all life’s current complexities resulted from a multi-billion year series of completely random mutations. The growing list includes scientists from the US National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Hungarian and Czech National Academies, as well as such prestigious universities as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, and UCLA.
Indeed, there is considerable evidence to support intelligent design.
Conclusion
Finally, consistency between intelligent design and religion does not make the position inherently religious. Conversely, consistency with religion does not make analysis unscientific. Regardless of personal like or dislike for the end result, we cannot ignore the scientific evidence pointing in the intelligent design direction.
*Author’s Note: Special thanks to engineer Mark Lamontia and biology professor Dr. Doug Oliver for their assistance in preparing this article.
Mark Lamontia is a Senior Engineering Fellow at a major specialty materials company. With 28 years in mechanical engineering design and development, Mark has 82 publications in the peer-reviewed and conference literature and three patents. He contributes to many NASA and aerospace contracts, and is a frequent speaker at international conferences. Mark earned a Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering from Ohio State University. Since 1995, he has lectured on the Intelligent Design/Darwinism controversy. He has spoken most recently at West Virginia University, Towson University, Penn State University, the University of Delaware,
Drexel University, and the University of Pennsylvania on the origin of the information content required for life.
Dr. Doug Oliver is a professor of biology at Liberty University. He received a B.S. and M.S. from the University of Toronto and a Ph.D. from the University of Georgia.
