Background:
In
a message to the Apologia Discussion List dated 27 Feb., 2001, Christian apologist Robinson Mitchell, in his never-ending attack against man's rationality, writes that "There are many good arguments against evolution." He listed the following four points and seems to have the impression that they are arguments:Now, it should be seen quite readily that none of these points are at least phrased in the form of argument, so it is not clear exactly what arguments against evolution Mitchell may have in mind. Instead of arguments against evolution, Mitchell has culled a list of what appears to be failings of the evolutionary view. The first point seems to be based on a misunderstanding, perhaps one peddled by religion-biased polemicists; the second one charges evolution with failing to do something it is not intended to do; the third one points out that evolution has not yet adequately explained something; and the fourth charges that an old model should be abandoned (and probably has been!).
I will examine each of these in some detail to see if they are substantial enough to bring evolutionary biology closer to the demise which theistic apologists desire.
Point-by-Point Examination:
Let us examine Robinson Mitchell's "arguments against evolution" in detail one by one:
First of all, it should be noted that this criticism is not presented in the form of an argument. However, it would not be hard to correct this. For instance, Mitchell could have written the following:
Premise: Any view which embraces a metaphysic of chance is invalid.
Premise: Evolution embraces a metaphysic of chance.
Conclusion: Therefore, evolution is invalid.
Indeed, depending on what one means by 'chance', I myself might accept this argument as sound.
But the question now becomes twofold:
Indeed, evolution as I understand it does not depend on 'chance' as I understand the term, which supposedly means "without cause." In fact, evolution depends on causality, which is identity applied to action. Entities act according to their nature. There is no problem here on a proper, rational philosophical approach to the matters in question.
Now, it may be the case that by 'chance' Mitchell means "causality without conscious direction," as if to say that volition is the only kind of legitimate causality in nature. But of course this assumption would simply expose his theistic bias and ignorance of Rational Philosophy. Volition is a type of causality, but it is not the only type of causality. To assume that the only kind of causal force in nature is one which is consciously directed, is to commit oneself to the fallacy known as frozen abstraction. "This fallacy occurs when one attempts to substitute a particular concrete or concept for the wider abstract class to which it belongs." (
The desire to think that all legitimate causality must be consciously directed in nature is motivated by the desire to think that a god exists. On this view, everything from avalanches to the penetration of detergents in a load of laundry in the washing machine is supposedly explained by appealing to some conscious force directing every event. Even if I believed that there was a god, I would not burden it with such menial labors! But clearly, such a view reduces the primacy of consciousness view of reality, which is rejected by Objectivism. (See
The Issue of Metaphysical Primacy.)
This is another non-argument, and even as a criticism, it falls flat on its face. Evolution is not a theory proposed to "explain the origin of life" to begin with. It is simply an explanation of the natural selection process and the current zoological distribution of life forms as we find them in nature. That evolution does not "explain the origin of life" (assuming that life has an origin; this needs to be argued for), is not a failing of evolution, since it is not intended to address this question. Mitchell confuses evolution with theories relating to abiogenesis. Also, it is not necessarily the case that evolution "dismisses" the means by which abiogenesis happened, if indeed it happened. If abiogenesis happened, it happened by means of natural causality, and evolution does not "dismiss" this in any way. In fact, as philosopher of science Harry Binswanger writes:
evolution is really the application of causality to life. It says one: the survival of an organism depends on its actions… That's the conditional nature of life on which the Objectivist ethics is built… And two: the actions of an organism depend on its nature - that's the law of causality. Therefore its survival depends on its nature. Thus every variation in the nature of an organism has a survival significance… it promotes survival, or it hurts survival… Nothing is neutral to life; everything is pro-life or anti-life. The pro-life variations survive better on average than the anti-life variations - that's natural selection. (
Selected Topics in the Philosophy of Science)See also:
Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations
Five Major Misconceptions About Evolution
I don't know that "evolution cannot explain the addition of new information into the genome," and even if this is true, there might be good reasons why it does not. It may not even be an issue which falls directly under the focus of evolutionary biology, but rather genetic science. Sure, there may be some overlap here, since all biological sciences integrate. And even if one could argue that this matter falls under evolutionary biology, it may simply be the case that we do not have enough information in this matter to explain it, if indeed no explanation has yet been forthcoming. I don't see how this is a failure of evolution. That evolution as such cannot explain something, only tells us about the current progress in this field of research; it does not necessarily suggest that the whole theory is wrong. Indeed, creationists cannot explain how god created the earth - they simply assert that he did, but they do not take this lack of explanation as a sign pointing to its invalidity.
As scientists, evolutionary biologists do not claim omniscience or infallibility, as theists claim for their side. Scientists are much more realistic and reality-focused. They recognize that they are starting out without knowledge on certain topics and have set out to discover the knowledge which they pursue. Since scientists do not claim to have all the answers, their theories should not be measured on the assumption that they should have all the answers. Sometimes it seems that religious criticism of science, obviously motivated by the threatening implications that new discoveries in nature have in regard to religious belief, treats science as an all-or-nothing affair: either scientists have all knowledge, or none at all. If they can't explain everything, then none of their explanations are worthy of our acceptance. I am not saying that this is how all theists who criticize science necessarily think, only that they sometimes come across this way.
It should also be borne in mind that, if evolutionary biology did adequately address and satisfy the points of criticism which Mitchell brings up against evolution, it is likely that he would find some issue which evolution did not adequately address and satisfy in order to attack it. But there will likely always be some issue, however minute or trivial, which evolutionary biology has not come around to deal with fully. Science is like all other areas of human endeavor: it too grows and even sometimes evolves, just like technology, philosophy, judicial law, and, yes, even theology! Since man is neither omniscient nor infallible, those who claim these standards for their side will always use this fact against man in some way. Unrealistic people cannot resist the temptation to use unrealistic standards in their attack against realistic thinkers.
This is quite a charge, but no citations are given. And indeed, it seems to suggest that "the classical Darwinian model" of evolution is the only model to enjoy currency among evolutionary scientists. But if it is the case that evolutionary scientists recognize some failing with the early Darwinian model, and they are still evolutionary scientists, it is reasonable to infer from these that there are other models under consideration which avoid the supposed failings of the Darwinian model. Again, given the points above about science being a field of knowledge which is ever-developing, I don't see how this can be a durable criticism of evolution as such. Indeed, it seems to be another desperate grasp to find some vulnerability in it in order to attack it. Why would one want to attack science? Clearly, if one is committed to an emotional investment, such as a primitive belief system (e.g., religion), it should be obvious what motivates such desperation.
Conclusion
An analysis of Mitchell's "arguments against evolution" proves to us that a) they are not arguments, and b) as points of criticism they are either based on a conceptual misunderstanding (such as the claim that evolution is based on "chance"), or on some unrealistic expectation (e.g., "evolutionary scientists should have all the answers if we are to accept any of them"). Far from being worthy criticism against evolution as such, they do indicate the kind of temperament which scientists should be weary of. Often theistic apologists like to come across as if their "arguments" were serious and damning, but upon some inspection we find that they are toothless and betray an array of misunderstanding.