Personal Position

Lest I be subsequently accused of harboring some hidden agenda, I wish to set forth my position on several points up front.  I am not a professional scientist, and therefore have no professional stake in the outcome of the debate over evolution.  Given then that this is not the field of my life’s work, my interest in the debate is principally motivated by a fascination with the biological world around us, as well as an interest in the quality of the educational programs to which my children are exposed and the broader implication of those educational programs to society as a whole.

Upon reflection, it is probably also fair to say that I am particularly interested in this debate due to dissatisfaction with the status quo.  My interest in astronomy and physics is at least as great as my interest in biology, yet I have not yet been compelled to spend time and resources creating a site regarding the discovery of the latest pulsar or detailing the intricacies of the angle between incident light and refracting light in rainbows.  (Thankfully others have, and I enjoy frequenting those sites.)

Perhaps this flows from my perception, accurate or inaccurate, that education in astronomy and physics, while not perfect, is at least carried out in a relatively impartial manner and is comparatively uncontroversial.  Perhaps it is a realization of the broader implications of the evolution debate that moves me to take some action.  Perhaps it is a combination of all of the above, coupled with a desire to make some small contribution to a better world.

For the record, I do not believe that the earth was created out of nothing a few thousand years ago.  Nor do I have any particular reason to doubt that the earth itself was formed through natural laws and natural processes, like any other body we observe in the magnificent heavens; I am not certain we have sufficient evidence to make a determination on this point, but it presents no challenge to my position.

I do not believe that all life was created and unleashed on the earth in a period of 144 hours, or 6 earth days, and I have no philosophical tie to any particular time period since the earth’s formation.  If competent geologists tell me that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, or 8 billion years old, or 2 billion years old, I will of course wish to see the evidence, but beyond that, so be it.  It is not something that is significant to an assessment of the merits of evolutionary theory.  (The difference between 2 billion years and 8 billion years would be relevant in analyzing probability scenarios, but is, in my view, a minor factor in the overall evolution debate.)

We should be willing to follow the evidence wherever it takes us.  For example, there is no value in clinging to a young Earth scenario if it is not true; there is no value in holding to a 144-hour creation if it is not true.  Thus, when there is good evidence to suggest that a belief may be incorrect, that belief must be re-examined.

This is not to say, however, that one should never exercise faith in formulating one’s beliefs.  Indeed, faith often requires us to accept something as true, in spite of an apparent discontinuity with the physical evidence that we see around us.  In such a case, we choose to accept the statement as true, and remind ourselves that the physical evidence is incomplete, or misleading, or otherwise not what it seems.  Nevertheless, we must then acknowledge that our position is based on faith, or in other words, is based on a different kind of evidence: spiritual or metaphysical evidence personally received, rather than physical evidence that can be broadly examined by the whole world.

And thus, as with the previous examples, there is also no value in clinging to a gradual evolution scenario if it is not true; there is no value in holding to the ability of organic life to spontaneously arise from inorganic matter if it is not true; there is no value in steadfastly affirming the unlimited power of evolution to impart information content and complexity to organisms if it is not true.  Our beliefs, whatever they may be, should be examined in the light of the best evidence available.

My limited study of the subject convinces me that biological creatures do vary (what Darwin called “varieties”), and that certain adaptations result.  In addition, I do not take issue with the general idea of population change over time.  Indeed, we see such adaptations with certain viruses, insect populations becoming resistant to pesticides, or even the increase or decrease in the average beak size in a population of finches.

My review of the subject also convinces me, however, that the Darwinian hypothesis of incremental change coupled with natural selection is incapable of producing the complexity and variety of life we see around us.  In addition, the Gouldean hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium, while more consistent with the fossil record, may actually exacerbate the difficulties.  At present, the neo-Darwinian synthesis also appears incapable of explaining anything truly useful about the origin of life.

In my view, the principal difficulties with evolution, and by that I mean the spontaneous origination of life from inorganic material and the modification and speciation of that life over time, are as follows, in decreasing order of difficulty: (1) consciousness; (2) aesthetics; (3) information content; and (4) complexity.  A number of other difficulties also exist, but in my judgement these are the principal, and probably insurmountable, difficulties.  These are precisely the areas where the current battle lines over evolution are being drawn.  Due to the inherent obstacles in developing a rigorous scientific program regarding the former two, current scientific challenges to evolution tend to be focused on the latter two areas: information content and complexity.  Hopefully, with time, research in these two areas will be successful in opening up a broader debate regarding evolutionary theory that will encompass other areas as well.

In the future I hope to be able to address these areas in more detail on this site, as well as examine some of the premises and underpinnings of the rhetorical and logical approach taken in Darwin’s The Origin of Species and in current evolutionary thought.

Thank you for joining me for the debate.

Eric Anderson

July 22, 2003