THE POWER OF NATURAL SELECTION?

 

Does natural selection provide evidence of its creative power to create new species? Not according to award-winning Finnish biotechnologist, Matti Leisola. In “Heretic: One Scientist’s Journey from Darwin to Design,” he observes that:

·       All the textbook examples of natural selection give no evidence of a far-reaching creative power. Consider the classic example of color changes.

As an example, Leisola cites the changes in moth coloration but argues that these minor changes that support natural selection are all evolutionary dead-ends, as the case of finch beaks demonstrate. During times of drought, the finches with longer beaks are better able to exploit the limited available food. However, once the drought lifts, the finches with shorter beaks once again prevail, suggesting that micro-evolution fails to provide a model for macro-evolution.

Therefore, Leisola argues that the evidence shows that natural selection can account for a temporary niche advantages but not for the overall fitness of a species. Breeding has demonstrated these limitations, namely the breeding of dogs:

·       Their breeding has sacrificed overall fitness in pursuit of a niche advantage. Wolves are vastly more fit to survive in the wild than are greyhounds.

What is the verdict of probability? Is it likely that probability can account for the powers of natural selection? Not according to Leisola:

·       Laboratory experiments, computer modeling, and probability mathematics all confirm that this uniform experience likely is universally the case—information is the product of mind. Based on this combination of experience, experimentation, and mathematical analysis, we can infer that the best explanation for biological information is intelligent design.

Why then does Darwin’s theory of natural selection continue to prevail in Western society? Leisola concludes:

·       I’m convinced it’s an outgrowth of the materialistic paradigm. Those who adhere to the paradigm will not consider the possibility of intelligent design, and they understand that blind evolution is the lone alternative for explaining life’s diversity. Most of them are also convinced that blind evolution requires some version of Darwin’s random variation/ natural selection mechanism if it is to succeed. Boiled down to its essence, the logic is simple if starved of evidence: Intelligent design must not be true, so the chance/ selection mechanism must be adequate.

Does the fossil record provide support for the gradual change predicted by the mechanism of natural selection? Matti Leisola claims that the ubiquitous lack of transitional forms alone casts considerable doubt upon this theory. In support, he cites Douglas Erwin and James Valentine:

·       “One important concern has been whether the microevolutionary patterns commonly studied in modern organisms by evolutionary biologists are sufficient to understand and explain the events of the Cambrian or whether evolutionary theory needs to be expanded to include a more diverse set of macroevolutionary processes. We strongly hold to the latter position. The patterns of disparity observed during the Cambrian pose two unresolved questions. First, what evolutionary process produced the gaps between the morphologies of major clades? Second, why have the morphological boundaries of these body plans remained relatively stable over the past half a billion years?” (“The Cambrian Explosion: The Construction of Animal Biodiversity” (Greenwood Village, CO: Roberts and Company Publishers, 2013), 416)

This is a conclusion to which even many evolutionists have come. Leisola is convinced that Darwin’s theory continues to prevail because of repression and intimidation:

·       The atmosphere in our universities is now completely different from that of the open discussions that were common in the ’70s and ’80s. Today naturalism controls the universities so completely that debates about the problems of evolution are rarely tolerated. A good example was the National Science Days in 2009 in Helsinki University. The theme was evolution and the days commemorated Darwin’s anniversary. No critical comments about the theory were allowed.

Why the intolerance among those “committed” to seek out the truth? Leisola concluded as many others are beginning to conclude:

·       Darwin’s theory won out primarily because it fills a need: Scientism, with its allegiance to philosophical materialism, needs mindless evolution to be true, so the proponents of scientism continue to prop up mindless evolution no matter how many contrary fossils slam against it.