A Tale of Two Theories
By Thomas E. Woodward
“It was the best of times; it was the worst of times.”
When British novelist Charles Dickens penned those now-famous words in 1859 as the first sentence of A Tale of Two Cities, he had no idea he was making literary history. These famous words capture the paradox of France on the eve of the French Revolution. The aristocracy flaunted their hyper-luxurious living (the best of times) in the face of those who slid ever deeper into desperate poverty (the worst of times).
I see the “best of times – worst of times” as the perfect description of another powerful paradox which faces us this year. At the very moment of the ultimate celebration of the theory of evolution – the Charles Darwin Bicentennial Year of 2009 – Darwin’s aging theory seems to be unraveling with increasing speed in the face of hostile scientific evidence. In short, Darwinian evolution is now tottering on the brink of a dramatic, humiliating collapse. In terms of the earthquakes that mark the crazy history of modern science, this would be the “big one.”
For exuberant fans of Charles Darwin, 2009 is the “best of times” since their hero turns 200. By an odd quirk of history, Darwin shares the exact same birth date with Abraham Lincoln: February 12, 1809. Darwin promoters are making much of this connection between these two titans of history.
One American, Robert Stephens, has gloated that Darwin is the greater of the two arguing, “Lincoln emancipated the slaves, while Darwin emancipated the mind.” He added that Darwin freed science from the grip of its old superstition of a Creator who was responsible for life and humanity. For example, former Oxford professor Richard Dawkins confessed that evolutionary theory freed him from the anxiety that nature might contain the telltale pointers to God. Said Dawkins, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”
For such enthusiasts, the Darwin-party doesn’t die away in February. Rather, the “best of times” rolls on at full blast until November 24, when his famous book On the Origin of Species, which launched the modern theory of evolution, reaches a major milestone: its 150th anniversary.
The Year 2009 is shaping up as the ultimate Darwin-gala; universities, museums and TV networks around the world have scheduled hundreds of celebrations. Darwin’s genius will be highlighted, along with the “triumph” of his all-encompassing theory of evolution. Evolutionists, who love to repeat that their favored theory is “overwhelmingly proven by scientific facts” are also eager to seize the opportunity to bash and trash their most feared threat: the competitor theory of intelligent design (ID).
Darwinists have used dozens of books, and hundreds of articles and media appearances to retell and, often to badly distort, the story of their clash with intelligent design. This debate is shaping up increasingly as a momentous clash between Goliath (neo-Darwinism) and the upstart David (ID theory).
This raises the question: How healthy is Darwin’s theory as it celebrates its sesquicentennial? Darwin’s theory is built on the power of natural selection – the survival of the fittest – but is it fit to survive? Is ID theory making inroads?
One part of the theory seems solid. Darwinian processes (natural selection acting on genetic variations and mutations) seem to work at the level of microevolution. By that, we mean that God built into nature a weeding-out process, which leads to the fine-tuning or minor tweaking of bodies and systems of animals and plants. This part of evolutionary theory isn’t controversial; even the strongest biblical literalists would see some validity here. The real issue is macroevolution: the development of all living things from simple one-celled ancestors; driven by purely unintelligent processes in nature.
The Worst of Times
It is right at this point, that we see increasingly ominous signs as to whether Darwinian theory will survive much longer. Let me cite five quick reasons.
First, even leading scientists who are not affiliated with ID theory are admitting that Darwin’s theory may explain the “survival of the fittest” but not the “arrival of the fittest.” A group that I describe as the OOF scientists in Darwin Strikes Back (OOF comes from the MIT Press book they published, Origination of Organismal Form) are making even greater waves now. Sixteen of these rebel scientists, known as the Altenberg 16, came together to look for a new theory that adequately explains from where new body form comes from. These are evolutionists in the broad sense, but they have made no secret that Darwin’s mechanism has struck out after 150 years of testing.
Second, Darwinists are showing a bizarre dogmatism nowadays, and have rejected the very vigorous commitment to free speech which Darwin advocated in the Origin. In his introduction he said, "I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question, and this cannot possibly be done here." Here is a delicious modern irony: On the year of the Bicentennial, Darwin’s disciples have become ferociously anti-Darwinian. They oppose the open presentation of “facts …leading to conclusions opposite” to Darwin’s conclusions.
Third, Darwin’s favourite picture of “common ancestry” – the single tree of life which unites all life into one grand family tree – is coming under heavy assault from scholars within the Darwinian tent. Some have admitted that the tree must be “quietly laid to rest” as new strange complexities appear from the study of DNA patterns.
Fourth, scientists who plumb the depths of cellular complexity are shaking their heads increasingly at the reality they’re finding. This new world of nano-technology defies any plausible “step-by-tiny-step” scenario of evolution. A new book by biochemist Fazale Rana, The Cell’s Design, makes these discoveries accessible to the lay reader. Rana concludes, “When I contemplate these amazing systems inside the cell, I can’t help but wonder if Darwin would have advanced his theory of evolution if he knew then what we know now about biochemistry.”
Fifth, over a dozen laboratory research projects are under way around the U.S. and several foreign countries; amazing results which validate design theory are already pouring in. I told the story of the experiments by Dr. Ralph Seelke, tweaking the DNA of billions of E. coli bacteria in his lab at the University of Wisconsin. I told of Dr. Seelke’s work in Darwin Strikes Back and shared his discovery of how wimpy evolutionary processes are proving to be, once they are put to the test.
The Time of Opportunity
For Darwin’s theory and his legacy, the Year 2009 is truly a tale of not one theory but of two competing theories. For Darwin, this is the best of times (in terms of exuberant celebration) and it is the worst of times (in the steady unravelling of his macroevolutionary theory). How shall Christians respond? I suggest individuals and churches carve out time in their 2009 schedule to study this issue diligently and to present (from a biblical perspective) the fascinating story of Charles Darwin and his theory. Strive to balance both his good points and his theory’s massive problems. (See our special webpage at www.trinitycollege.edu for this balanced tally.) Use this occasion to present the case for intelligent design through Illustra Media’s two fantastic DVDs: Unlocking the Mystery of Life and The Privileged Planet.
Here is a window of opportunity too big and rich to pass up. Share the “tale of two theories” and buy up this opportunity to share the good news of a Creator who made us for a marvellous, infinite purpose – to know Him in an intimate relationship; truly the best of times that go on forever.
Thomas E. Woodward is a Research Professor and Chair of Bible/Theology Division at Trinity College of Florida. He is the Executive Director of the C.S. Lewis Society and has authored two award-wining books, Doubts about Darwin and Darwin Strikes Back.
This article appeared in the March 2009 issue of Connections, Trinity College's magazine.