Darwin is Dead; long live Darwin.

Death of the Darwinian Dinosaur
James W. Gustafson, PhD

It finally became clear to me that Darwin is essentially dead. Rather, Darwinianism is dead—or at most on life support. It has become an intellectual fossil to be displayed among paradigms and theories that once were powerful but have lost their explanatory power.

Let me explain.

For years I have presented to my philosophy students the options available to explain the universe and our place in it. One of the big questions debated has been between chance and design. Is the universe a teleological system or ateleological. That’s is, has an intelligence created the universe for some purpose? Or is it just something that happened on its own and is unguided, thus having no purpose as such? I have always presented the supporting arguments for both sides as convincingly as possible for me. And I have often stepped into the world of naturalism and sat in Darwin’s chair in order to see reality from his perspective. Over time the view from that chair has become less and less tenable.
I was watching a football game at the time of this moment of clarity. It occurred to me that the struggle between the two opposing sides is a bit like a football game, with each team trying to finish off the other. Who will win? Will it be the naturalist team, the Dinosaurs, with Darwin at quarterback calling plays with agnostic linemen blocking for atheist running backs? Or will it be the Grand Design team?

On TV today the New England Patriots have a 20-10 lead and are running down the clock with under two minutes to go. There is a mathematical possibility that the Carolina Panthers could recover a fumble, score a touchdown, do an onside kick and make a 60-yard field goal to send the game into overtime. But realistically, the game is over. The Patriots have the ball. The outcome is decided.

The same for this philosophical debate. The two minute warning has been given now. The design team has just taken the lead and has possession of the ball. I think the game is over. Design has won. Evolutionism is still on the field but is essentially defeated.

Darwin’s bulldogs are getting more desperate and shrill. The Design team is now capturing the majority of fans.

How has this happened?

For over a century the Darwin Dinosaurs built a winning franchise. The fossil records, with a little bit of tweaking, seemed to show the progress of complexity over millions of years. One could then assume that the picks of geologists would soon unearth the missing links. Everything would be explained without appealing to a design factor.

Then came microbiology, examining human cells. Darwin knew nothing of the cell’s composition—it was blob of gelatin for all he knew over 100 years ago. Now we know a lot. What is contained in a single cell is an incredible complexity of wonders that stretches Darwinian assumptions to the breaking point. It now takes a huge leap of faith to believe that chance could create this complexity in a few hundred million years. To see the hand of intelligence in it is now a small and logical step.

What is lighting the fuses of militant atheists like Richard Dawkins?

Desperation perhaps? It is a shame to see scientists of his caliber, who are theoretically committed to follow evidence wherever it leads, resort to rhetorical tricks that shows desperation. They seem to be hoping for Hail Mary long-ball. Er— make that a Hail Darwin.

Meanwhile Francis Collins, Michael Behe, William Dembski, Phillip Johnson, Hugh Ross and many others argue for an overarching intelligence as the only adequate explanation for the complexity of the universe as we know it. Even one of atheism’s most prestigious voices has jumped ship, now concluding there is a deistic intelligence that authored the complex universe we live in. He is Antony Flew.

An intelligence is at work. Chance operating over time cannot explain what is now before our wondering eyes. Is that intelligence the God of Genesis? Or the god of Aristotle who operates internally within the universe? The most sophisticated candidate is the God whom Jesus Christ revealed in his matchless teachings.

Admittedly, looking at the issue from the perspective of a cosmologist we cannot prove that such an intelligent creator reveals himself in sacred documents or has visited planet Earth in person. But it makes such claims conceivable.

Postmodern perspectives.

One of the problems with Darwinism—and Intelligent Design—is that they operate within the paradigm of Cartesian foundationalism—the attempt to prove the absolute truth of a set of abstract ideas that give a cogent and coherent account of reality. This paradigm is losing credit among philosophers.

So the crux of the concern shifts to the value and meaning human life rather than speculation about the nature of existence as a whole. While a worldview must accommodate a reasonable explanation of the facts as we currently know them, it must also be practical—a worldview that enhances life—in which life can flourish.

Here Darwinism is at a second disadvantage. If humans are no more than intelligent animals what can one aspire to? While it may be theoretically possible for us to create a world of peace and prosperity, the odds are against it. Human beings tend to be self-centered. If one believes that death is the end of one’s existence forever, why fight against the dark side of human nature? Why be concerned for the health of the planet since biology claims that every species goes extinct sooner or later. Even if one enjoys a life of ease there is a spiritual hunger in us that yearns for transcendence. I suppose education could possibly erase this aspect of our nature. That would prove difficult. Furthermore, would it be desirable even it could be done?

What is the likelihood that social engineering of the human person would result in harmony and a flourishing culture? Wherever social engineering has been tried on a large scale it has not made things better.
What makes us better is a commitment to a higher cause, especially a transcendent cause. It takes a renovation of the heart that inspires us to serve a transcendent meta-narrative. Darwinism is unable to support such a commitment. A teleological view of the universe can sustain it. There is a Grand Design that beckons us. If the evidence points to an Intelligence that is pulling the universe toward a transcendent end, our task is to seek a relationship with this Intelligence that will satisfy the innate longings of the human heart. That intelligence has spoken through the genetic code in a convincing way. Has that Intelligence spoken to us more directly in human language? Maybe if we seek, we will find the answer.