Evolution: A Theory in Crisis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
Author Michael Denton
Subject(s) Evolution
Publisher Adler & Adler
Publication date 1985
Pages 368
ISBN 0917561058

Evolution: A Theory in Crisis is a controversial 1985 book by Michael Denton in which he claimed that the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection was a "theory in crisis".

Contents

[edit] Reviews

Creationists reviewed the book positively. John W. Oller, Jr of the Institute for Creation Research described the "secular critique of orthodox Darwinism" as "thoughtful, logical, empirical and well-written"[1]. Answers in Genesis, though cautioning that Denton's views are not of a "Biblical creationist" describe his book as having "exposed thousands to the overwhelming scientific problems of Darwinian belief"[2].

Christian apologist Thomas E. Woodward positively reviewed the book in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, the journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, describing it as "an intellectual and spiritual delight," a forceful critique," and a "careful historical review". Marvin Keuhn had a letter to the editor published in the December 1989 edition of Perspectives, criticising this review "I take serious objection to all these points", including Woodward's impression that "informed reviews likewise share the same positive appraisal"[3]. Keuhn said that "five out of seven reviews I could obtain in my university library pointed out the serious errors of logic, synecdoches, direct misquotes, gross factual mistakes, and even spelling errors in Denton's book. The only slightly positive comments came from the Parabola - an eastern mysticism journal - and from Stephen Rose [probably Steven Rose] who approved the critique of the path of avian evolution of flight even though he acknowledged the serious errors and oversimplifications in the book".

Reviews by parties within the scientific community were vehemently negative, with several attacking perceived flaws in Denton's arguments. Biologist and philosopher Michael Ghiselin described A Theory in Crisis as "a book by an author who is obviously incompetent, dishonest, or both — and it may be very hard to decide which is the case" and that his "arguments turn out to be flagrant instances of the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion"[4]. Biologist Walter P. Coombs writing in Library Journal said that Denton "details legitimate questions, some as old as Darwin's theory, some as new as molecular biology, but he also distorts or misrepresents other 'problems'" and that "much of the book reads like creationist prattle, but there are also some interesting points"[5]. Mark I. Vuletic, in an essay posted to the talk.origins Archive, presented a detailed argument that Denton's attempts to make an adequate challenge to evolutionary biology fail, contending that Denton neither managed to undermine the evidence for evolution, nor demonstrated that macroevolutionary mechanisms are inherently implausible.[6]

[edit] Historical significance and intelligent design

Reading A Theory in Crisis led to the rejection of Darwinian evolution by intelligent design proponents Phillip E. Johnson[7] and Michael J. Behe[8].

A Theory in Crisis predates the 1987 SCOTUS decision in Edwards v. Aguillard which was a catalyst for the foundation of the intelligent design movement in the early 1990s. Denton himself was involved with the intelligent design movement but has since left.

The Discovery Institute lists A Theory in Crisis as one of the "Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design"[9], though the work is purely anti-Darwinian and does not mention intelligent design[10].

Denton's later book Nature's Destiny contradicts many of the points of A Theory in Crisis. [11]

[edit] Molecular equidistance

Molecular equidistance is a term that was first used by Michael Denton in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis to criticise the theory of evolution. The variations in structure of proteins such as cytochrome C can be analyzed to provide a phylogenetic tree that matches trees provided by other taxonomic evidence. However, what Denton pointed out was that if the percentage difference in cytochrome C structure was measured from one organism to other organisms, the changes could be highly uniform. For example, the difference between the cytochrome C of a carp and a frog, turtle, chicken, rabbit, and horse is a very constant 13% to 14%. Similarly, the difference between the cytochrome C of a bacterium and yeast, wheat, moth, tuna, pigeon, and horse ranges from 64% to 69%.

Denton suggested this undermined the notion that fish were ancestral to frogs, which were ancestral to reptiles, which were ancestral to birds and mammals. If they were, then wouldn't the difference in cytochrome C structures be increasingly different from carp to frog, to reptile, to mammal? How could the differences in cytochrome C structure instead be "equidistant" from each other? The fallacy in Denton's argument was that there is really no such thing as a "living fossil", all modern species are cousins. A carp is not an ancestor to a frog; frogs are not ancestors to turtles; turtles are not ancestors to rabbits. The variations in cytochrome c structure were all relative to the common ancestor of these different organisms and it was not surprising that they showed a similar level of divergence.

Denton did understand this reply, but claimed that it was implausible to assume that such a molecular clock could keep such constant time over different lineages. Those familiar with molecular clocks did not agree, since calibration with fossil records shows the cytochrome c clock to be surprisingly reliable, and also found his suggestion that molecular equidistance was instead evidence of some sort of evolutionary "direction" to be a more implausible assumption than the one to which he was objecting. Critics found it difficult to accept a "directed" mechanism for changes in cytochrome C that were neutral, producing different proteins whose action was the same.

Denton's conclusions have been called "erroneous" and "spurious"[12] and marine biologist Wesley R. Elsberry states that all the observations in question can be explained within the modern framework of evolutionary theory.[13]

[edit] References

  1. ^ A Theory in Crisis, John W. Oller, Jr, Institute for Creation Research.
  2. ^ Blown away by design: Michael Denton and birds' lungs, Answers in Genesis, 1999.
  3. ^ Letter to the Editor Marvin Keuhn, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, December 1989
  4. ^ An Essay Review based on Evolution: A Theory In Crisis by Michael Denton, Michael T. Ghiselin
  5. ^ quoted in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Amazon.com website
  6. ^ Review of Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Mark I. Vuletic, 1996–1997.
  7. ^ Berkeley’s Radical: An Interview with Phillip E. Johnson, Touchstone Magazine, 2002.
  8. ^ The Evolution of a Skeptic: An Interview with Dr. Michael Behe, biochemist and author of recent best-seller, Darwin's Black Box, origins.org, 1996.
  9. ^ Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated), Discovery Institute
  10. ^ CI001.4: Intelligent Design and peer review, Talk.Origins, An Index to Creationist Claims
  11. ^ 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: A Response to Ashby Camp's "Critique", Talk.Origins "Interestingly, it appears that Denton has finally rectified his misunderstanding about nested hierarchies and common descent, since in his latest book he unconditionally assumes the validity of the nested hierarchy, common descent, and the tree of life"
  12. ^ *Zygon 22 (2), 249–268. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1987.tb00849.x
    Reprinted here: Review of Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Spieth) by Philip T. Spieth
  13. ^ Sequences and Common Descent: How We Can Trace Ancestry Through Genetics, Wesley R. Elsberry