Why a third of biologists question Darwinism

While Christians have long disputed Charles Darwin's theory of unmanaged evolution, few understand the true scale of the challenge beyond the church. According to current estimates, about a third of professional academic biologists who do not believe in intelligent design believe that Darwin's theory is not sufficient to describe the full complexity of biology.

Ben Stein documented a crackdown within the academy on Darwin's critics in his 2008 documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." While this may explain why the audience never hears about neo-Darwinism's protests, the documentary is focused on intelligent design. But the growing discontent in the academic world comes from secular naturalists.

Define evolution is the key. At the basic level of change over timeeven the biblical creationists of the young earth agree. At the most specific level of the common descent of all life on earth from a single ancestor via an unsupervised mutation and a natural selectionmany people legitimately challenge the theory of evolution. The word is often used indifferently without distinction, but even when it is used technically in circles of university biologists, there is a real skepticism about the theory.

Ask for a new theory

A controversial letter to Nature in 2014 signaled growing concern, albeit slow and cautious, by knowledgeable professional biologists. Other atheist writers such as "What Darwin Got Wrong" and "Mind and Cosmos" find "fatal flaws" in the theory and claim that it is "almost certainly wrong".

Another project, The Third Way, seeks to avoid a false choice between a divine intervention (which it flatly rejects) and the neo-Darwinian model (which it finds unsupported by modern molecular theory) while presenting evidence to improve the theory of evolution beyond Neo. -Darwinism. Some even think that billions of years have not been enough for Darwinian theory to accomplish today's complexity, as the theory currently exists.

This dissatisfaction is public knowledge, even if it does not attract the attention of the public and despite the fact that the story goes on the contrary. Indeed, neo-Darwinist followers often say "no serious scientist disagrees" or "only creationists have problems". These claims are increasingly refuted.

The important note is that they are neither ideologues nor religious fanatics nor offer a god or a biblical solution. On the contrary, they find problems with the explanatory value of Darwin's theory in the light of modern understanding of mutation, variation, DNA sequencing, and so on. These expressions of doubt do not reject naturalism or evolution in itself, but the rigor of the neo-Darwinian model to explain the development of life.

In fact, they want to help Darwin, not demolish it. What he needs help is a news for the academy.

A voice in the desert

Professor Kevin Laland, author of the Nature letter insisting on rethinking "urgently" theory of evolution, has described the need for a paradigm shift. He acknowledges the reluctance of scientists, but he and his colleagues are leading the way with rigorous work on their Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (ESR) model.

It is an update of the modern synthesis of the mid-twentieth century, which modified the neo-Darwinian theory with modern information. Since then, the understanding of complexity has become such that Laland and others believe that the EES or another paradigm is needed.

Laland explained: "The EES is a minority position, but not a minority as small as it is often described. She is also gaining ground. "The SEA is not the only supplement or revision of naturalist neo-Darwinism, but joins with several other struggling factions of the academy, including The Third Way.

"As you can imagine, these debates have a lot of politics. Traditionalists have the habit of calling more progressive researchers a small group of extremists, "Leland added. Explaining why it is difficult to gain ground, he added, "our position comes from academic areas on the periphery of evolutionary biology, such as the biology of evolutionary development, the biology of ecological development, paleontology, botany and human sciences, whereas traditionalists dominate evolutionary genetics. "

A growing minority

After publishing in Nature, Laland has received more than 1,000 e-mails from academia. This number is huge for a critique of a long accepted theory. In the five years since Nature, support has grown.

The main critics are proponents of intelligent design, despised by naturalists. However, as each group adds to the scientific literature, some criticism and some results inevitably reinforce or reorient the research of the other.

The effects are at least one way. As a result of the work and theories of Stephen Jay Gould, Michael Denton helped train a generation of skeptics with his 1985 book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis". An evolutionist and agnostic, Denton continued his criticisms.

Over the last ten years, the work of Professor Michael Behe, Steven Meyer and others has given more weight to the debate on the national scene. In "Darwin Devolves," Behe ​​highlights the process of mutations to describe the inadequacy of an unguided materialistic process to add information. Meyer explores the Cambrian explosion and the complexity of the cell to show the biodiversity and complexity we observe and notes that natural processes have never observed to produce such results.

It is important to note that these two men, and many others, believe in the Earth's standard calendar of billions of years and base their conclusions on the deduction of natural evidence rather than relying on in the scriptures or elsewhere. The growth of the community of intelligent designers is remarkable, but not as interesting as that of those who are outside of it, secular and who nevertheless find that Darwinian evolution contains serious flaws.

Behe explained, "Based on conversations with my own Lehigh colleagues [University], dozens of other biologists and newspaper reports, I imagine that one-third or more biologists are skeptical enough about Darwin's theory that explains the whole biology. The growing literature speaks for itself.

Paul Nelson told Stein that "at a scientific meeting after the third or fourth beer, at scientific meetings, many evolution biologists will say" Yeah, this theory has a lot of problems. " While anecdotal, this is echoing in academia, both in intelligent design and, more importantly, externally.

While maintaining his estate is not in crisis and insists on nuances, Leland notes, "I think the numbers issue is heavily dependent on the subtle details of how you formulate the question. A good proportion would probably agree that the causal bases of evolution are more complex than those generally described in textbooks. "

Difficulty forming alliances

The nuance and framing are important and, with the traditional pressures, make the estimates of the neo-Darwin critics incredibly difficult to conclude. One approach is simply to look for signatures on a simple scientific statement of skepticism. Several hundred doctors have signed. However, the association with intelligent design and possible academic consequences prevents many from signing.

Current neo-Darwinism is far from being the untouchable theory of which it is praised.

While smart design is frowned upon, titans like Francis Crick and Richard Dawkins have embraced the same principles. Yet many immediately and falsely relate intelligent design to the Christian deity and stay away.

The Third Way is highly exclusive to maintain purity and avoid criticism. Not only religious believers are excluded, but the platform is by invitation only. Groups of isolated scientists, reluctant to associate with each other, or too attached to the nuance they prefer, add to the traditionalist assertion of the Neo-Darwin that only a tiny minority, if it exists.

The obvious truth drawn from literature, lectures, expert perceptions and a bit of anecdote about colors is that current neo-Darwinism is far from the theory untouchable that it is rented. Not only that, but there are serious and growing skeptics and challengers within the secular scientific community.

When we add the supporters of intelligent design, which is religiously neutral, the numbers start to increase rapidly. Although there are serious, scientific and peer reviewed studies of this group, this does not rock the boat as much as lay naturalists. The goal is not to abandon Darwin, but to withdraw it to make way for more consistent complete theories.