There were fewer than a dozen in all, all leading scientists, serious skeptics of the conventional wisdom that Darwinism was a proven fact. All highly credentialed, they were US citizens and foreigners, who shared a dissatisfaction with the accepted belief that Darwin’s theory of evolutionism fully explained the origins of life and was established scientific fact. Yet that is what they had all been taught, and what they knew was still being taught, even in advanced biology curricula. Michael Behe, world-renowned biologist at Lehigh University, expressed his dismay (anger) that he completed a PhD program without ever having been exposed to the strong arguments against conventional Darwin’s theory that were presented in a book by Michael Denton. , “Darwin in Crisis”. Dr. Dean Kenyon, Professor Emeritus of Evolutionary Biology at San Francisco State University was there, as were Drs. Paul Nelson, Stephen Meyer, William Demsky, Jonathon Wells, Jed McCosko, and Scott Minich: biologists, chemists, philosophers.
They discussed the ramifications of modern laboratory equipment, such as 50,000-fold magnification electron micrography of live cells, technology unknown until recently, and advanced knowledge in many related fields that posed substantial challenges to the century and a half. old Darwinism – all ignored by the popular media, courts, universities and the public. Through their studies and personal experimentation, all of these scientists had come to question the conventional belief system of Darwinism, and they certainly did not agree that it was proven science. In an unlimited atmosphere of free expression, they exchanged ideas and concepts, theoretically exploring the mystery of life, including all rational scientific options.
Many would later describe the meeting as a turning point in their technical lives.
Charles Darwin
They began with Charles Darwin, who in 1831, during a five-year voyage of exploration, spent a month on the isolated Galapagos Islands, encountering unique animals, plants, and birds unlike those seen elsewhere. Among the latter he discovered thirteen species of finches, with different shapes and sizes of beaks, which, twenty-five years later, in his groundbreaking book “On the Origin of Species,” became the centerpiece of his theory. His theme was that time and random mutations had occasionally provided a natural advantage in obtaining seed foods at various locations with different plants, which, over time, resulted in the optimization of various beak shapes relative to a private premises. Food fountain. That was the significant conclusion of their observations: slight variations in beak shape over generations, initiated by random chance mutations, but providing a beneficial advantage in the competitive struggle for existence through functional improvement, would gradually result in a form of peak optimized for a specific food source There was no need for “smart” guidance from a higher being: Darwin then extrapolated his thesis beyond optimization of finch beak shape: to major variations in all basic animal life forms, drastic physical changes in appearance and function that improved the chances of success in competition for survival. Darwin’s terminology: “natural selection through survival of the fittest”.
As scholars and scientists reviewed Darwin’s words, “…you cannot make a sudden leap, but must advance with short, sure, but slow steps,” they noted what he, too, had said (and what his followers had never said). seem to recognize), “However, if it could be shown that some complex organism existed that could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive light modifications, my theory would collapse completely.” (Emphasis added.)
Bacterial Flagellum Motor,
Great interest was aroused by the well-known items of current science, a thimbleful of cultured organic fluid containing billions of single-celled bacteria, each replete with complex circuitry and microscopic molecular “machines.” The common bacterium, powered by its rapidly spinning whip-tailed flagellum, was analyzed in detail. “Like an outboard motor,” Dr. Behe commented. Harvard’s Dr. H. Berg had called it “the most efficient engine in the universe.” Dr. Scott Minich, with two decades of studying the phenomenon, described it: “…spins at 100,000 rpm, stops at a quarter turn, and then spins in the opposite direction, while constantly receiving and processing inputs from the environment to avoid obstacles”. He explained that close examination of the microscopic mechanism revealed components and functions analogous to the optimized mechanical complexity of a standard outboard motor and propeller system.
As an approximation to his scientific evaluation of the whiptail, the concept of “irreducible complexity” was discussed. Using the common mousetrap as an analogy, it was very clear to everyone: five components: a bait; a capture (or kill) mechanism; a retention device; a trigger device; and a platform to which all the elements are attached in the proper relationship. Of great importance to scientists were three specific Darwinian factors, which should be applicable to living entities:
- until all elements of a system are present and working, the system will not work;
- until the system works, elements that do not work are not a benefit but an obstacle to the survival of the entity; and
- according to Darwin’s own theory of natural selection, such non-beneficial appendages would be shed in subsequent generations.
The complex marvel of function, as displayed under the microscope, was broken down into the numerous analogous elements of a common motor propulsion system: forty parts, equivalent to sections of the rotor, drive shaft, stators, brakes, flexible joints, etc. (plus an additional feedback sensor). Every part of such mechanical systems, with competitive modern technology, is specifically engineered and engineered for maximum overall operating efficiency, in stark contrast to Darwin’s theory of random mutations, small accidental steps, (somehow) continuous generational improvement over time. through advantageous overall performance. . The visual evidence of the whipping tail was obvious and completely incompatible with Darwin’s theory. To their rational minds, the theory of small changes by chance, somehow haphazardly combining to achieve a marvel of operational complexity and efficiency, was totally unacceptable by any scientific standard. It was not just a challenge to Darwin’s theory of evolutionism, it was his destruction!
Inference to the best explanation,
They were scientists in search of understanding. While Darwin’s theory was brilliant and clearly applicable at the subclass level (for finch beak shapes, or bear or human skin colorations, optimizing the amount of vitamin D uptake for different local sun exposures, whether detrimental or beneficial), for the basic and initial origin of the living entities, however, the analogy with the outboard motor was inescapable. The end result, logically, could only be achieved by the “intelligence” of the end goal, driving specific and detailed elements of “design engineering”.
The methodology of Science is specific regarding the acceptance of the “inference to the best explanation”. With Darwin’s theory clearly inadequate and absent from other feasible theories, the alternative concept, first introduced by Behe in his book “Darwin’s Black Box”, was firmly selected by the group of scientists as the best. possible explanation for the origin of life forms. “Smart design”!