The vital importance of this conference was framed in the science journal Nature in a point-counterpoint style article, “Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?” The authors note that “researchers are divided over what processes should be considered fundamental.” A division over basic processes at the core of any theory suggests that the theory could be incomplete, misleading to both research and conclusions, or wrong.
One researcher advocating for what is essentially a major revision in evolutionary theory, though modestly labeled as the extended evolutionary synthesis (EES), is Kevin Laland of the University of St. Andrews. He said:
The data supporting our position gets stronger every day. Yet the mere mention of the EES often evokes an emotional, even hostile, reaction among evolutionary biologists. Too often, vital discussions descend into acrimony, with accusations of muddle or misrepresentation.
The acrimony, per Laland, is generated since “this is no storm in an academic tearoom, it is a struggle for the very soul of the discipline.” In John Hands’ first-hand report on the conference, “Is it time to drop Darwinism?” he described the modern synthesis as:
This paradigm—a combination of Darwinism, population genetics, and what Francis Crick called the central dogma of evolutionary biology—is known as NeoDarwinism, or the Modern Synthesis. Popularised by Richard Dawkins in his bestselling 1976 book The Selfish Gene, it is a statistical model validated not by observation or experiment, but by simplistic games models borrowed from 1940s economics.
It was not only online articles that chronicled these deep divisions. The article “Schism and Synthesis at the Royal Society” in the leading science journal Trends in Ecology & Evolution by one conference organizer explains why “the discussion witnessed little meeting of minds.” Framing the acrimony as a bitter dispute between “incumbent” advocates of the evolutionary status quo versus revolutionary “rivals,” the outspoken evolutionist Perry Marshall noted:
Incumbents were anxious that the conference might pronounce that evolutionary theory is due for a complete overhaul. Rivals worried that the [Royal] Society might smear new lipstick on the same old pig, continuing to plead “natural selection” as the be-all end-all of everything. The tension in the room was palpable, sharpened by the history of this topic being fraught with politics, bitter feuds and bad blood.
The Debate: What Causes Adaptive Innovations?
Christians must know that in terms of basic research, the numerous mechanisms of adaptation the “rivals” were insisting be discussed at the Royal Society meeting powerfully confirm ICR’s design-based creationist theory that emphasizes active, problem-solving organisms capable of self-adjusting to fill dynamic environments.
Perry Marshall spells out: “But in the Neo-Darwinian view, for any cell to evolve purposefully is unthinkable. So of course ‘natural selection’ always ends up being the answer” and that throughout the meeting incumbents were “towing the standard Neo-Darwinian line, which insists that in the end, all comes down to ‘selection, selection, selection.’” One science reporter at the conference stated:
The event would have benefited from someone in the wings with a hook restraining speakers who insisted on relying on the mantra of natural selection to fill in the blanks of their science. Repeated references to the term became almost comical. Sir Patrick Bateson finally came to the rescue, cautioning against overuse of the “metaphor,” saying further that “natural selection is not an agent.”
Selectionism is fatally flawed for two important reasons.
First, the actual findings of how adaptation happens are inconsistent
The second reason is that selection is an inherently mystical concept—which the discovery of internal mechanisms in organisms is making easier to see. As far as we know, the environment is unconscious and, thus, the analogy comparing it to a conscious human breeder has always been illegitimate. When selectionists invoke natural selection, they magically project onto nature intelligence and volition that they envision as exercising agency. Selectionists habitually summon selection to “act on,” “favor,” “work on,” “punish,” etc. an organism. The repeated use of this language at the Royal Society is why Sir Patrick Bateson had to admonish attendees that “natural selection is not an agent.”
Evolutionists are so deeply divided over their beliefs about the basic cause of evolution that a number of them feel that new findings have battered current theory beyond repair and call for it to be replaced. Three attendees summarize the sentiment of many evolutionists:
The Modern Synthesis, while undoubtedly productive for a time, is a misconception of reality that has reached the limits of its explanatory power. The problems are fundamental. No amount of cosmetic surgery is going correct them.
In another exchange, Fellow of the Royal Society Patrick Bateson of Cambridge replied to a questioner in no uncertain terms: “Natural Selection is not an agent.” (Translation: Blind Watchmaker must be stripped down to the engine blocks and rebuilt from the ground up.)
While some speakers defended the current paradigm, others called for an extension of the NeoDarwinian evolutionary synthesis to accommodate these alternatives. However, such mechanisms contradict NeoDarwinism. You can’t extend something that is broken. After 70 years it is time to move on, and use ideas supported by evidence to develop a new paradigm for evolutionary biology.
A recent essay by Dr. Paul Nelson, who also attended the Royal Society meeting and is an articulate advocate for research by the Intelligent Design (ID) community, summed up perfectly the need to move on from only attacking or tweaking evolutionary theory toward replacing it altogether. Nelson realizes “the abject futility of trying to construct a theory of biological design within a philosophical framework, naturalism, fundamentally committed to another goal. Reform it altogether, said Hamlet to the players.”
A Transient Opportunity Before Evolutionists Regroup
Evolutionary theory is in a “struggle for the very soul of the discipline” due to the discovery of pervasive internal mechanisms facilitating self-adjustments that is contradictory to current theory. Evolutionists are fully aware that division weakens their position against creationists and the high theological ramifications at stake. So, it is only a matter of time before they rally, rebuild, and counterattack with a new and improved version of their anti-designer theory. So, what should we do?
The precise reason for the division centers on the avalanche of new information that’s contrary to evolutionary theory. This same information solidly supports a theory of biological design. Creationists should be pressing this truth at every opportunity. In November 2020, I discussed a golden, time-sensitive opportunity that was based on a flood of research over the last 25 years:
Creation scientists have an extremely rare, transient opportunity to get out in front and frame all of these new findings before the evolutionists do. A theory of biological design would enable us to set both the interpretive and research agendas.
The theory that ICR is working on expects active, problem-solving
creatures designed to track changing conditions to “fill the earth, [Genesis 1:22]”
showcasing the wisdom of their Creator—the Lord Jesus Christ." CEH
