Another example of a system that could not have evolved via Darwinian pathways is discussed at ISCID.
It is hard to imagine how such a character could have evolved by a Darwinian mechanism. Darwinism requires an environment wherein an organism gradually evolves. For organism to evolve they require some sort of selective constraint. Darwinian theory explains traits according to the best adapted in a particular environment, but a highly radioactive environment has simpley never been present on earth. This must certainly mystified Darwinists.
Luckily science is not constrained by one’s lack in imagination and has found some interesting clues as to plausible scenarios.
8 Comments
Adam Marczyk · 11 July 2004
Excellent article. This just goes to show, yet again, how evolution is far more clever and subtle than the creationists who make hand-waving appeals to incredulity and assume that their personal ignorance defines the limit of what nature can do. It further goes to show, I think, how creationism is a sterile methodology, a scientific dead-end, while evolutionary biology is alive and vibrant: while creationists seemingly have nothing better to do than sit around thinking of problems, real scientists are hard at work every day solving them. Evolution is science because it works: it really does explain things, in a consistent, comprehensive and testable fashion. It yields knowledge we did not previously possess. Creationism, whether the young-earth variety or the ID variety (though those two seem to be blending into each other lately), does not.
Pim van Meurs · 11 July 2004
What the article tries to show is that ID proponents often have too narrow a view of evolutionary pathways. If the function itself is not under direct control of natural selection then it cannot have arisen via Darwinian pathways. What at first may appear to be simple processes (variation and selection) can have a lot of interesting possibilities, making the outcome far more interesting than when viewed from a simplistic interpretation.
Mike Klymkowsky · 11 July 2004
A great response that illustrates the dangers of using "an inability to imagine' as the basis of a scientific argument. One can be forgiven in thinking that the "researchers" at ISCID never actually looked at the available literature (much less used their own imagination).
ID creationists have lost faith in the scientific method (for whatever reason); sadly they attempt to replace it with an ideology that is demonstrably less fruitful in terms of promoting understanding or human well being.
Steve · 11 July 2004
Pim van Meurs · 11 July 2004
I'd say that in some ironic way Creationists are reinventing the scientific method under the name ID. Since ID is nothing more than finding falsifications, it is very similar to the scientific method. Of course some ID proponents seem to go too far in confusing evidence against as evidence in favor of ID.
Steve · 12 July 2004
ID certainly appeals to ignorants.
Les Lane · 12 July 2004
Creationists (including ID types) don't lack imagination. They simply "backend load" it. Science "fontend loads" the imagination (finding all the possiblities). Creationists begin with a conclusion and imagine all the ways to defend it.
Frank J · 13 July 2004