Problems with Naturalism: The Fossil Record

[hume]

You've repeatedly asked whether evolution is truly falsifiable. Sticking to the topic of this subthread, I offer several ways in which the fossil record could falsify evolutionary theory as we know it:

1. Demonstrate that the fossil record is totally chaotic, with any number of advanced species found in ancient rock layers side-by-side with their so-called "ancestors." If the fossil record demonstrates that, for instance, whales appear in rocks older than the earliest appearance of amphibians, that's a problem.

2. The fossil record is fairly clear, but it contradicts logical predictions about common ancestry. If blue whales turn out to have a recent common ancestor with sharks, but gray whales do not; and going back even further we find the common ancestor connecting blue whales to gray whales ... this kind of thing would be hard to make sense of in evolutionary terms. (Granted, this might be difficult to demonstrate with fossils, but genetic analysis would do the trick).

3. Or, better yet, find fossil intermediates connecting species that evolution says are not directly linked at all: for instance, a creature with significant features of both birds and mammals (no, bats don't qualify, unless we find a toothless one with soft downy feathers that lays hard-shelled eggs; "ability to fly" is not a trait specific to birds).

This is the flip side of intermediate forms: finding "impossible" common ancestors. And it raises a point worth emphasizing: evolution doesn't predict merely that "all life is connected." Applied to the world as we find it today, it makes highly specific predictions about exactly how different living things are related. This results in thousands of substantial predictions that could be contradicted by strange fossil evidence.

4. Find fossils with morphological features contradicting the predicted correlation between the extent at which those features are found across species today and the appropriate antiquity of that feature's beginnings in the fossil record. For instance, find no cases of ancient creatures that use photosynthesis. Or, find that a highly unusual feature like the panda's thumb is present in a very similar form in extremely ancient creatures. (The latter case is less problematic than the former. In both cases what would really "kill" evolution would be a *consistent pattern* of these kinds of findings; and what would lend positive support is a consistent pattern that follows evolutionary expectations.)

5. Find few or no convincing cases of intermediate forms that at least resemble predicted common ancestors. (Exactly how many one needs to find in order to be satisfied with evolution, or evolution by natural selection, is hard to say. Again we run up against the inherent limitations of the fossilization process. At any rate, "hardly any" or "none" would have certainly strengthened the case against evolution; instead we have at minimum "quite a few.")

[Josh]

Re-reading a section in Philip Johnson's Darwin on Trial (it's been years since I first read it), I am surprised to find a quote which very much sums up both A) what I'm willing to concede regarding evolution and B) why I think naturalistic evolution is inadequate and/or seriously flawed:

"One thing I am not doing is taking sides in a Bible-science conflict. I am interested in what unbiased scientific investigation has to tell us about the history of life, and in particular about how the enormously complex organs of plants and animals came into existence. This project does not imply opposition to "evolution" in all the senses of that highly manipulable term. I agree, for example, that breeding groups that become isolated on an island often vary from mainland species as a result of inbreeding, mutation, and selection. This is change within the limits of a pre-existing type, and not necessarily the means by which the types came into existence in the first place. At a more general level, the pattern of relationships among plants and animals suggests that they may have been produced by some process of development from some common source. What is important is not whether we call this process 'evolution', but how much we really know about it.

The argument of Darwin on Trial is that we know a great deal less than has been claimed. In particular, we do not know how the immensely complex organ structures of plants and animals could have been created by mindless and purposeless natural processes, as Darwinists say they must have been. Darwinian theory attributes biological complexity to the accumulation of adaptive micromutations by natural selection, but the creative power of this hypothetical mechanism has never been demonstrated, and the fossil evidence is in consistent with the claim that biological creation occurred in that way. The philosophically important part of the Darwinian theory-- its mechanism for creating complex things that did not exist before-- is therefore not really part of empirical science at all, but rather a deduction from naturalistic philosophy..."

[hume]

Originally posted 8/1/06:

In case anyone was curious whether there's such a thing as a top-flight evolutionary scientist who is also an avowed evangelical Christian, here are a few quotes from an article by Francis Collins, who is no less than the director of the Human Genome Project:

"God is the greatest scientist."


"From my perspective as director of the Human Genome Project, the scientific and religious world views are not only compatible but also inherently complementary. Hence the profound polarization of the scientific and religious perspectives, now glaringly apparent in the fields of biology and genetics, is a source of great distress. Hard-liners in either camp paint increasingly uncompromising pictures that force sincere seekers to choose one view over the other. How all of this must break God’s heart! The elegance and complexity of the human genome is a source of profound wonder. That wonder only strengthens my faith, as it provides glimpses of aspects of humanity, which God has known all along, but which we are just now beginning to discover."


"The past century has not been a good one in terms of the polarization between the more evangelical wing of the church and the scientific community. We seem to be engaged in contentious, destructive, and wholly unnecessary debate about evolution and creation. From my perspective as a scientist working on the genome, the evidence in favor of evolution is overwhelming."


He includes a great quote from Augustine:

"In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it."


Interestingly, Collins seems to share Josh's opinion about the implausibility of evidence, to date, in support of abiogenesis:

"Four billion years ago, the conditions on this planet were completely inhospitable to life as we know it; 3.85 billion years ago, life was teeming. That is a very short period—150 million years— for the assembly of macromolecules into a self-replicating form. I think even the most bold and optimistic proposals for the origin of life fall well short of achieving any real probability for that kind of event having occurred. Is this where God entered? Is this how life got started? I am happy to accept that model, but it will not shake my faith if somebody comes up with a model that explains how the first cells formed without divine intervention ... However, I think it is noteworthy that this particular area of evolution, the earliest step, is still very much in disarray."


Finally, his description of his own view (theistic evolution, evangelical-style):

"God who is not limited in space or time, who created the universe, chose the remarkable mechanism of evolution to create plants and animals of all sorts ... God chose this means in full knowledge that it would ultimately give rise to creatures with whom he could have fellowship and relationship, whom he would imbue with the moral law and a longing to seek him, to whom he would ultimately reach out to by himself becoming flesh and walking amongst us. Furthermore, as God is not limited by natural laws, he on occasion has performed miracles which science is unable to judge, since they fall outside the natural realm ... But most important to my Christian faith is the literal and historical resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, which is the absolute cornerstone of what I believe. I find that synthesis completely satisfying. It brings together what I know about Christ from reading about him, from my prayer life, and what I know as a scientist about the natural world. Furthermore evolution is not a stumbling block in any way as long as one reads Genesis as Augustine did, and does not insist upon reading this as a science textbook."

link to article: www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf