Darwinism today encompasses much more than Darwin probably intended. I mentioned Dennett because he was recently quoted on this thread as an authoritative spokesperson against intelligent design. And he is an authoritative spokesman on the subject of current evolutionary theory.
As to Darwin, I have nothing against him personally, nor do I have anything against natural selection as a theory. It makes a lot of sense. I fully believed it explained everything following the origin of life myself until I read Behe's book not too long ago.
Darwin did write in his Origin of Species: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
The irreducibly complex systems people like Michael Behe write about would appear to be precisely what Darwin was talking about. Irreducibly complex systems have numerous multiple components, all of which are necessary for the system to work. If one compoinent is missing, the overall system doesn't do what it is supposed to. Thus it is reasonable to conclude, such systems couldn't have evolved as Darwin described.
Accordingly, it is reasonable to think that while natural selection may explain an awful lot about the development of life, it can't explain all changes that have occurred since the origin of life.
And that viewpoint should not condemned as heretical. As it clearly is being. |
