For nearly 150 years, various critics and authorities have been predicting the death-knell of "Darwinism." It is a crumbling ideological edifice, they say, and it will soon collapse. Just as predictions about Armageddon have turned out to be invariably wrong, so too has the wailing and whining of many of Darwin's critics, but there was a time when evolution by natural selection was being eclipsed.
As I have said before, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection served to stir debate rather than resolve how evolution occurred once and for all. It was widely appreciated as a coherent attempt to identify an evolutionary mechanism, but appreciation was not necessarily equal agreement. Many researchers thought they could do better, and some thought they had discovered other mechanisms that had to be considered.
The idea that evolution made jumps was a popular alternate explanation, and this was not for scientific reasons alone. For some it meshed better with religious concepts, particularly if evolution was driven by internal forces rather than by the capricious hand of natural selection. The 1907 apologetics handbook The Bible Under Trial appealed to just this variety of evolution to protect scripture from science.
The area in which evolution by saltation was of most interest involved, not surprisingly, humans. The views of Darwin and Haeckel required a "brute creation" for man, the author asserted, but no savage transitional stage would be needed if humans were produced approximating their present form. This view appeared to be more consistent with the Bible, at least according to this particular author, and was therefore preferred;
It is obvious that if this new theory of
"SALTATORY" OR "MUTATIONAL" EVOLUTION
is accepted it does away at a stroke with nearly all the difficulties connected with the origin of man. It involves a revolution in the way of conceiving the evolutionary process at once as regards the time required, the nature of the forces employed, and the need of supposing minute gradations between the lower and higher forms. In man's case there is no longer need for supposing a slow and gradual ascent from ape to true man ; the " leap," when the proper time comes, may be taken with all the suddenness needed to introduce the new being, with his distinctive attributes, upon the scene. Neither is there any need for picturing man, on his first appearance, as a semi-animal, the subject of brute impulse and unregulated passion ; his nature may have been internally harmonious, with possibilities of sinless development, which only his own free act annulled. Room is given on this view for
A DOCTRINE OF SIN --
both individual and racial -- such as Scripture affirms and requires as the basis of its doctrine of redemption, and as experience so abundantly ratines.
How such saltations occurred (and from what creature produced the first human) apparently was of little concern. That such large-scale changes were said to have occurred was enough. Even so, evolution by natural selection was enough of a threat for the author to include additional criticisms involving the fossil record. It remains the same today. Creationists (of whatever variety) are far less prone to carrying out investigations to support their claims than yammering about the "gaps in evolution." Such cowardice probably pays better, anyway.
[Image: "Joe and Sallie at home. A chimpanzee couple from Edwards' Zoological Exhibition." From The Rise of Man, 2nd ed (1917)]
[Like what you see here? Then vote for me in the 3rd Annual Blogging Scholarship contest!]
- Log in to post comments
The mental contortions that people are willing to put themselves through in order to prostrate themselves before the mighty alter of a non-existent being is simply beyond me.
Still, I think we, as evolutionary biologists, do not do enough to point out when theists claim that evolution is dead in the water that they were making those same claims 100 years ago.
Evolution is a dead theory.
There are 100 million fossils which show that animals which lived hundreds of million years ago are exactly the same as their current counterparts. This is clear evidence "against evolution."
Also, natural selection does not have the capacity to change the genetic code on the DNA. The rabbits may run faster, and survive but they do not turn out to be other "more advanced" and "advantageous" creature because their DNA code is not effected. They die in the end along with their faster running legs. Lamarckism is already an outdated theory.
Therefore, creation is a fact, evolution could not have happened. Besides, no graduation can explain the irreducible complexity in for instance body organs. Think of the blood, if all blood cells had presumably evolved without the hemoglobin molecule inside, what use? If the stomach did not have the protective tissue to prevent destroying itself due to hydrocholoric acid, what use? If all organs were there but you could not breathe with your lungs and the oxygen was not transferred to each one of your cells, what use?
Please think once again before you decide. Evolution - really did not happen, cannot have happened - there is no evidence, no mechanism. But all findings and science indeed show that there is an anthropic principle behind the universe with incredibly fine tuned quarks in the atom, nuclear power in the nucleus of the atom, 3 billion lettered vast library with immense information in the DNA.
Who encoded the DNA?
Who made the quarks in the atom?
Who set the oxygen in the atmosphere just in the right ratio so that we are not burnt to death?
Who mixed water - soil and minerals to bring out thousands of vegetation and fruit with wonderful tastes and scents right from the dark earth?
God is the Creator of every detail that we see in this universe, and we will see the intelligence and wisdom behind each and every created thing if we look with an open eye (heart).
Steven Barlow, who gave Yahweh his magical powers? How does he recharge them? They obvious drain him, as he must rest after overtaxing himself. Was he given his powers by whatever being created him? Seriously, the "goddidit" explanation doesn't actually explain anything, and this is known by everyone with an IQ above room temperature.
Your 5th grade understanding of biology and theology isn't going to impress many people here on ScienceBlogs. I suggest taking a remedial biology course to catch up. You are clearly ignorant about a great deal of the current science and have your head filled with all kinds of creationist propaganda. You are woefully misinformed and aren't in any position to go around trying to instruct others on this issue. Please attend to your own educational shortcomings first.
Steven: Have you ever taken a science class in your life? Almost every sentence you wrote is wrong or shows a poor grasp of the theory of evolution.