| Evolution: A Theory in Crisis | |
|---|---|
| Author(s) | Michael Denton |
| Subject(s) | Evolution |
| Publisher | Adler & Adler |
| Publication date | 1985 |
| Pages | 368 |
| ISBN | ISBN 0917561058 |
| OCLC Number | 12214328 |
| Dewey Decimal | 575 19 |
| LC Classification | QH371 .D46 1986 |
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis is a 1985 book by Michael Denton in which he claims that the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection is a "theory in crisis". Reviews by scientists say that the book distorts and misrepresents evolutionary theory and contains numerous errors.
Contents |
The Discovery Institute lists A Theory in Crisis as one of the "Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design",[1] though the work does not mention intelligent design.[2]
A Theory in Crisis predates the 1987 United States Supreme Court 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. Denton's later book Nature's Destiny contradicts many of the points of A Theory in Crisis.[3]
Reviews by parties within the scientific community were vehemently negative, with several attacking 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]
Philip Spieth, Professor of Genetics at University of California, Berkeley, reviewed the book saying his conclusions are "erroneous" and wrote the book "could not pass the most sympathetic peer review" because "evolutionary theory is misrepresented and distorted; spurious arguments are advanced as disproof of topics to which the arguments are, at best, tangentially relevant; evolutionary biologists are quoted out of context; large portions of relevant scientific literature are ignored; dubious or inaccurate statements appear as bald assertations accompanied, more often than not, with scorn."[7]
Creationists including John W. Oller, Jr of the Institute for Creation Research,[8] and Answers in Genesis[9] positively reviewed Denton's book. Intelligent design proponents Phillip E. Johnson[10] and Michael J. Behe[11] say that they rejected evolution after reading the book. Christian apologist and intelligent design advocate Thomas E. Woodward[12] stated "Christians who are interested in the struggle of science to come to terms with the origin of the biosphere in all its variety should read this book and ponder its argumentation."
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.[13] 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.[14] Those familiar with molecular clocks did not agree, since calibration with fossil records shows the cytochrome 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"[13] and marine biologist Wesley R. Elsberry states that all the observations in question can be explained within the modern framework of evolutionary theory.[15]