Darwin versus Intelligent Design

If I were to convince Darwin that he was wrong about his own theory of natural selection and evolution I would first refer to his work, “Origen of Species.” One of the problems that Darwin has addressed in his text is a lack of evidence in the geological record, specifically a lack of transitory fossils. If macroevolution occurred according to Darwin, thousands if not millions of small genetic mutations would have had to occur for the organisms today to exist. The problem, thus, is that none of those transitory fossils, as numerous as they need to exist is lacking substantially. Another problem that Darwin recognizes in his own theory is the explanation of extreme perfection and complication of different animals. He writes, “It seems absurd at first sight that a complex organ such as the eye could have been formed by natural selection (68). He tries to rationalize the complexity of the eye but none of his arguments can be reconcile with his theory of natural selection. If natural selection favors the strongest then once the eye under its first indication of uselessness, since it cannot spontaneously be created would not pass onto the following generations.

Another issue that Darwin recognizes himself is that he cannot explain the organs that appear to have little importance. Darwin says, “Their importance does not seem sufficient to cause the preservation of successively varying individuals (72).” This example in addition to others shows the unstable scaffold that Darwin’s theory rest upon. There is a strong sense of ambiguity in his writing but he continues and mentions another three “grave” problems to his theory. The first one is, “geology does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain,” a problem for Darwin’s theory because it is contingent upon the small gradation of changes that occurred in animals over the period of at-least hundreds of thousands of years (102). The second “grave” problem that Darwin address is that he cannot explain the sudden appearance of “whole groups of allied species (114).” This is fatal to Darwin’s theory because generally all species and organisms came from the same descent, the same parents. As a result of a sudden appearance of animals on the geological record it indicates that his theory of descent is severely mistaken. The final issue that Darwin sees in his own theory is that he cannot explain the “fact that numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rock (117).” Again, and similarly to the rebuttal arguments I have provided above, if organisms and different animals formed over a long period of time, then they should not appear in their complex forms in the lowest known fossiliferous rock.

I would highlight on these issues that Darwin draws attention to, and also argue that there is a strong sense of ambiguity in his writing. There is something in his writing that says, “I do not know.” Darwin’s weakest point in his theory is arguably his inability to explain irreducibly complex systems. For example the eye is an irreducibly complex system. That is to say that if any part of the eye were missing it would not function as an eye. For an irreducibly complex system it had to have had all the functions that are necessary, and be simultaneously working to make it function. Moreover, an irreducibly complex system has two characteristics that show intelligent design. The first is complexity. The best way to explain this would be like the chances of a scrabble board falling and producing the alphabetic pattern from “a” to “z.” Multiple organs show incredible complexity, let alone the complexity of DNA itself. DNA indicates that the chances of it spontaneously forming are astronomically small. The second characteristic of intelligent design is specificity. DNA is a good example. DNA is not only complex but it also codes for specific amino acids that produce very specific proteins to repair cells. The words on this page convey meaning that is purposeful and show design behind them. No one would seriously argue that this paper was the result of a million accidental letters shuffled together to create an impossible marriage of meaning and purpose to other people. This is the same with the human body. I think if Darwin was more honest with himself, he at-least should make more modest claims or concede that the human body is both complex and shows specificity which is the result of intelligent design.