|
|
CHAPMAN
... Yes, but are you aware that in
December 2005, 470 scientists
signed the Discovery Institute's
"Dissent From Darwin" list, and
now, only 5 years later, that
number has doubled to nearly
1,000?
In fact, "More and more
scientists question the Darwinian
claim that all of life's
complexity is the result of
natural selection working on
random mutations."
And you're
still trying to tell me there
isn't convincing evidence that an
intelligent designer is behind
life?
|
|
|
|
|
QUIGLEY
That's precisely what I'm saying.
You can't simply say, "I have
a problem with some aspects of
Darwinian evolution, so by
default, since we can't explain
these so-called discrepancies, it must
be an intelligent designer at
work--
some being that has a plan for us.”
That speculation has no proof, no facts.
It's a personification of how
we, as
human beings, would imagine and
like to
think life was made because we
can't imagine
it any way else. And that line
of reasoning
confines our view of the
unknown to
something very worldly and narrow.
|
|
|
|
|
QUIGLEY
First off, intelligent design
theories fail to mention that this
Cambrian Explosion "happened in a
range of about thirty million years,
and some stages took five to ten
million years."
Though the
diversity of life that arose is
highly varied and did happen in a relatively short time frame, we have to
remember that at that time the earth was very young and turbulent.
Conditions were changing, and it was only
200 million years before this time
period that oxygen became
plentiful.
Also, there are
specific circumstances that create
fossilized rocks, and animals with
bodies not conducive to
fossilization are not apart of
prehistoric data. Research
also shows that prior to the
Cambrian period, there was a
"gradual evolution of a 'genetic
tool kit' of genes that govern
developmental processes.” Though
there was an explosion of
species,
soon after, many of these species
disappeared without a trace,
leaving the ones that were best
adapted to "dominate the
biosphere."
Since then,
evolutionary change has been
limited, and it has just been a
matter of adjusting a few body
parts here and there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CHAPMAN
Well isn't it true that most of
the support of Darwin's
evolutionary theory rests on
evidence of microevolution, such
as Darwin's
finches, where beak
size varies through varying
conditions? How does this in any
way explain variations that
created all species? At its
essence, these examples "do not
explain where birds came from in
the first place."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QUIGLEY
Without having to go into numerous examples of the clear links that have been
established between evolving dinosaurs and birds, I would like
to remind you sir of the great
Archaeopteryx discovery.
|
|
|
|
|
(“The
Greatest Fossil Ever Found”)
|
|
|
|
CHAPMAN
And what relevance does the
Archaeopteryx fossil have besides a clever extrapolation to distract the
listeners?
QUIGLEY
Are you pleading ignorance,
sir, or are you purposefully avoiding the facts? The Archaeopteryx has been
described as “the greatest fossil ever found!” That title was bestowed on one of
the Archaeopteryx discoveries for its timely arrival on the scientific
scene. At this time, Darwin’s
theories were revolutionizing the scientific community, and though most
of Darwin’s
conclusions were falling neatly into place, there was still the question
of transitional species. You are insisting that there hasn’t been
proof of any intermediate species, such as a human-ape that many insist
would exist if we really descended from monkey-like creatures. This
puzzled scientists, until a prime specimen of the Archaeopteryx was made
in 1877. Though it was the third example found of this particular winged
dinosaur, this fossil was unique in its excellent preservation of the
dinosaur’s feathers. It has been concluded that this is an example
of the so-called missing link Intelligent Design theorists have been
asking for. Since then, it has long been accepted that birds are direct
descendents of the now extinct dinosaurs.
Chapman
Ascribing this as “the
greatest fossil ever found” is a fool’s mistake. This does not qualify as an
intermediate form. The wings
are fully developed and completely covered with feathers. If it were an intermediate, you
would expect smaller wings and underdeveloped feathers. One could assume that this
is actually just a bird that was discovered, and though it is more
reptilian in characteristics, we can identify various species of birds
today that share similar features.
This is no definite support for evolution, and could simply be a
larger bird that does not exist today.
QUIGLEY
Do you forget that the
previous two Archaeopteryx fossils were unequivocally identified as
dinosaurs? Not only does the
Archaeopteryx have characteristics overwhelmingly synonymous with
dinosaurs, its skeletal structure differs greatly from today’s
modern day bird, even though it does show clear signs of a bird-like
development. As for an
intermediate form, you insist that it must be the perfect blend between a
dinosaur and bird, and argue since the feathers and wings are fully
developed, it is obviously just a bird. That is an unfortunate
line of reasoning. It is
perhaps better to look for intermediate features rather than intermediate
creatures, since features can be preserved over time, while others fade
away. Furthermore, the
evolution of features does not occur at the same rate or at the same
time, so you would not expect to see a perfect blend between the two
species.
CHAPMAN
Even if you can make these loose
connections, this does not explain
the irreducible complexity of
cells, whose "general functions
may be known but whose inner
workings escape understanding."
If
you were to remove any part of a
component of a cell, it would not
work, making it a design similar
to the mechanics of a
mousetrap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QUIGLEY
I will not deny the marvelous
inner
workings of our cells and
bodies. The
complexities are indeed
magnificent, and
at this time we are only able to
loosely
explain and hypothesize what in
fact
drives them. That doesn’t mean, however,
that we must automatically
attribute
their workings to a higher
power. That’s what science
and society had done for
centuries. They would count any phenomena
that they couldn’t explain as a work of God’s, and look how
the
knowledge we know now
contradicts
theology-based misconceptions
of our yester years. I am not
saying that there isn’t a God— I am saying in order for
Intelligent Design to be
considered
science, there must be facts
to support
it and not vague speculation
or a
forfeit of understanding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CHAPMAN
You, sir, are evading the
question. If we are to treat
evolution as more than just a loose accumulation of facts fashioned into
a flimsy theory, you must be able to defend every challenge that is
presented. How can all the
intricate parts of any system randomly assemble through minute changes?
In the words of Michael Behe, “What good
is a flagellum” without a tail?”
This creature in all of its workings is too complex to have simply
evolved into a harmonious synchronization of all of its parts! It could
not have been developed through continuous, slight changes; it just
doesn’t add up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QUIGLEY
Wait, could you briefly
explain why this illustrates the impossibility of macroevolution? It seems logical that evolution
would have made processes more and more complex with the addition of new
information and characteristics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CHAPMAN
Michael Behe
puts it best: “An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced
directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues
to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a
precursor system because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system
that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QUIGLEY
From what I understand, you
"cannot imagine how each part could have evolved in concert with the
others."
You cite the removal of one part, but then insist you cannot see how
slight modifications can create these complex systems. For the system to be disrupted,
you require a very large change.
So the first part of your argument doesn’t correlate with
your justification. This
"is a major 'disconnect' between the parts of Behe's
argument." Your example also implies that any
precursors to these processes must be non-working in themselves. You cite Behe’s
example of an irreducible mousetrap, saying that if you were to remove a
part from the mousetrap it would no longer be functional. However, John McDonald showed that
a mousetrap can be reduced successively to fewer parts until only the
springs remain. It still works, but surely not as
well! From this simple, rudimentary mousetrap, we can successively make
modifications that make the mousetrap more complex and more functional,
slight modifications of course, but modifications probable if we are
equating this to a natural evolution of functions.
|
|
|
