Darwinism: Fact or Speculative Theory http://www.scienceandapologetics.org/engl/carh...

Darwinism: Fact or
Speculative Theory
R. A. Carhart, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Illinois at Chicago

A.  Introduction

Among biological scientists and others who study aspects of the history of life the
Neo-Darwinian Synthesis (NDS) is considered established scientific fact.  Scientific study is
always a work in progress carrying the possibility that major revisions of our overarching
picture or “paradigm” for a given field will prove inadequate and need major revision.  
Therefore, it is fair to examine how well established this scientific theory actually is. 

In our examination we will first consider the degree to which the verification of the NDS
theory conforms to the standard scientific method, including the distinction between
laboratory biology and application of biological knowledge to inferring past events. 

Then five key difficulties of the NDS will be examined:

(1) the absence of fossil evidence for large numbers of intermediate forms or “missing
links,”

(2) the making of wrong predictions and conclusions based on the theory,

(3) the unexamined assumption that similarity of form and function implies time sequence
or ancestry,

(4) the absence of a demonstrated mechanism for substantial heritable morphological

change, and

(5) the undemonstrated ability of chance and necessity to produce high levels of complex
specified information.

Finally, the degree of epistemological certainty we should attach to the NDS is discussed
with reference to:

(1) Shannon information theory and the origin of life,

(2) the open ended nature of scientific discovery, and

(3) the discovery of definite limits to scientific knowledge. 

We will conclude that “truth in labeling” requires the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis to be

described as a speculative scientific theory, not as an established scientific theory for large
scale morphological change of organisms with time.  Some would even go so far as to name
it the “Creation Story of the World View of Materialism.”

B.  Relative epistemological certainty in science by field (1)

To do science we need a definition of “the scientific method” that we can agree will lead to a
high degree of scientific (epistemological) certainty that our model, logic, and equations
describe some aspect of the real physical world accurately and completely.  Philosophers of

1 de 7 11-02-2019 16:50
Darwinism: Fact or Speculative Theory http://www.scienceandapologetics.org/engl/carh...

science emphasize that there is no single “scientific method.”  However, most practicing
scientists have in mind much the same ideal method they would like to be able to follow to
prove the validity of suggested laws of nature. 

In Table 1, though it is abbreviated and can be expanded, the elements of a widely held
scientific method of this type are listed.  When we try to apply the method to various fields
of science, we find that in some fields it cannot be fully carried out.  The more elements of
the method we have to give up, the less epistemological certainty the results have,  
However, in all of the fields listed this author affirms the value of trying to study them
scientifically.

a.) Macroscopic mechanics was developed first by Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton. 
That development formed a model of modern scientific methods which many still accept as
a goal for establishing the certainty of scientific results.  In mechanics we can make direct
observations of all

Table 1: Analysis of relative epistemological certainty of various scientific disciplines.

Falsifiability
Firm (Design & Control Repeatability
Direct Laboratory
theoretical perform a all (Experimental
FIELD observations experiments
predictions crucial important results are
possible possible
to test experimental variables reproducible?)
test?)
MACROSCOPIC
YES YES YES YES YES YES
MECHANICS
MOLECULAR
YES YES yes/no yes/no no yes/no
BIOLOGY
HUMAN

MEDICAL yes yes no yes/no no yes/no

SCIENCE
ASTROPHYSICS yes no yes no NO yes
ORIGINS yes/no
(OC)
COSMOLOGY NO NO NO NO NO
no (NDS)
 or THE NDS

important properties we know of in the form of laboratory experiments.  Newton’s laws plus
the form of known forces between objects allow us to make firm predictions within the
limitations of chaos theory as mentioned in Section 2c.  We can falsify any prediction by
selecting an experiment that provides a crucial test.  In testing Newton’s laws, we have
been able to control all relevant variables, and results have proven extremely repeatable. 
Each cell in the table receives a “YES” for this field, but there are some qualifications on
theoretical predictions that are accurate enough.

In considering other fields, we will use what amounts to a five-point system: “YES”, “yes,”
“yes/no,” “no,” and “NO”.  It is tempting to compute an average numerical score, but this
author does not have a reasonable scheme for weighting the elements of the method (the
columns.)  For a given field, the more strongly or weakly positive answers we can give for
items in the method, the higher the epistemological certainty of results in that field.

b.) Molecular biology starts to show some limitations in meeting the scientific method we
have adopted here.  The systems are now so complex that models that include only some of
the system’s behavior must be used for predictions.   Though useful, these are not firm
predictions in advance, but often amount to correlations or specific prescriptions for
manipulating systems.  Predictions can sometimes be falsified and sometimes not.  We are

2 de 7 11-02-2019 16:50
Darwinism: Fact or Speculative Theory http://www.scienceandapologetics.org/engl/carh...

not sure we have always controlled all important variables, and experiments can sometimes
prove difficult to reproduce.  In general, results in molecular biology have relatively high
epistemological certainty.

c.) Human medical studies show additional limitations.  Direct measurements can be made
in most cases, but there are limits to how well one can observe blood flow through the heart
arteries in living people.  The dye used is dangerous for the kidneys, and its injection must
be limited.   Real-time x-ray pictures with the dye in circulation cannot be taken as
frequently as we would like to limit radiation exposure.  Some experiments are disqualified
as unethical or immoral. 

The human organism is so complex that theories of it are imprecise and provisional.  We still
cannot predict IN ADVANCE from a person's genetics which side effects that person will
have from medicines or DNA therapy.  The predictions are only statistical, and subject to
considerable uncertainty.  If you can predict exactly what will happen in advance, then you
demonstrate complete mastery of the system.  We cannot do that, and may never be able
to.  It is part of the difficulty of predicting things in a biochemical factory so complex as a
human being.

Different people with the same condition, such as high blood pressure, will respond to a
medication used to lower it differently.  Some will have dangerous side effects, while others
tolerate the medication very well.  Human studies are often difficult to reproduce.  We are
usually not sure that all relevant variables are controlled.

The cell entries reflect the author’s judgment for each element of the ideal scientific
method.

d.) Astrophysics leads us even farther from our ideal method.  We can measure directly a
number of existing emissions of objects in space, but cannot design and carry out
experiments or observations we would like to make to provide critical tests of model/data
agreement.  We must work with the billions of experiments that are going on and the data
we can obtain from each celestial object.  The first two cells are “yes,” and “no.”  We often
have theoretical predictions of average properties of each type of celestial object, but the
models may not be from first principles, leading to a “yes” in the third cell.  Our inability to
change variables or parameters or observe some quantity that is not available to us on
Earth makes falsifying our theoretical constructs difficult and more tentative.  But, in other
cases the relevant experiment is happening in the cosmos and presents us with the data we
need.  We are not sure what all of the important variables are, and we cannot control them. 
This yields “no” and “NO” for the fourth and fifth cells.  Experimental results have been
reasonably reproducible, but different astrophysicists picking different groups of objects to
study have sometimes obtained differing results, which need to be reconciled, making the
last cell a ‘yes.”

e.) Origins cosmology or the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis are similar in the way they depart
from the ideal scientific method.   There is only one experiment, and it cannot be repeated. 
We cannot control the variables in that experiment or design it in any way.  We must give a
weak or strong “no” answer to each of the method’s elements.  In these last two fields we
measure and observe empirically what we can and try to develop a theoretical framework
using known natural laws extrapolated in space and time from where they were
established.   From the framework we seek to create a web of interconnected coherent
results from natural laws developed in related fields.  The more observations that can be
included in a coherent description, the more persuasive the theoretical construct becomes.  
Origins cosmology differs from the NDS in that detailed computations of average properties
of the cosmos can be made from general relativity and other known laws governing matter. 
In the NDS, there seems as yet to be no demonstrated mechanisms for producing major
changes in the body plans of organisms.  However, the ideas of NDS seem to work well,
even with some numerical accuracy, within species with extremely large populations, such
as bacteria and some insects.

Here the author offers only a starting point for discussion of relative epistemological
certainty of different scientific fields.  The canonical method used for the table can be

3 de 7 11-02-2019 16:50
Darwinism: Fact or Speculative Theory http://www.scienceandapologetics.org/engl/carh...

debated.  One can also debate the specific cell entries for a given field.  However, the author
believes this discussion is very important and its results can provide a background for
discussion of the certainty of scientific knowledge in various fields.

C.  Laboratory versus historical science

Stephen Meyer (2)  has given an excellent historical review and summary of the distinction
between the methods of experimental laboratory science (physics, chemistry, laboratory
biology) and the application of those scientific results to the inferring of past causes and
events based on present observable data.  He outlines the discussion and development of
the unique methods of historical science from Darwin’s day to our own. 

Meyer’s discussion helps us to organize our epistemological chart further into three key
categories: (1) Highly predicted and controlled current science, (2) partially predicted and
controlled current science, and (3) historical science.  These three categories have different
shading in Table 1.

Historical science has a distinctive objective: to explain present events by reference to past
events, rather than by reference to general laws, though such laws often support such
explanations.”  This process is called abductive reasoning, and seeks a set of causes that
have worked their effects in temporal succession.   One reasons from present clues or
evidence back to a sequence of causes. 

The problem with abductive reasoning is that there can often be more than one set of
causes that can explain the same effect; a problem that is called the  “single-valuedness
problem.” One has to find the hypothesis that is most likely to be true and also look for
more evidence that can discriminate candidate explanations.   This realization about the
nature of scientific reasoning for the historical sciences adds epistemological uncertainty to
their conclusions.

D.  Key difficulties of Neo-Darwinism

(1)  few intermediate fossils (“missing links”):  Several times each year journals and
news media report the discovery of a “missing link” fossil with much excitement that
another piece of a branch on the “tree of life” has been established.  Last year it was the
Tiktalik fossil, considered a link between fish and land-based air breathing reptiles.  Here it
is easy to “miss the forest for the trees.”   Rather, what the NDS requires is not a few links,
but a huge set of intermediate forms as new life forms gradually develop, one or two
nucleotide substitutions at a time, with a huge number of changes over a long time.  The
NDS predicts that it should be difficult to find a long lasting species in the fossil records,
and that we should instead see a vast variety of fossil life forms as all species sample new
forms subject to natural selection.

The actual fossil record shows that species come suddenly into existence, remain mostly
unchanged over long times, and then suddenly become extinct.   The facts of the fossil
record led the late Steven Jay Gould and others to postulate “punctuated equilibrium” (PI). 
PI says that species changed into other species in small populations over short times under
severe environmental stress, often leaving no fossil record.  Though controversial, PI was
advanced by respected established evolutionary biologists and did fit the fossil evidence.  To
date no mechanism for heritable mutation that could produce such rapid changes has been
established experimentally or theoretically.

(2)   wrong predictions and conclusions:   When a theory repeatedly makes incorrect
predictions, one can question its validity.   The NDS has made a number of wrong
predictions, of which two are mentioned here.

(a)  vestigial organs: appendix and tonsils:  For the first 60 years of the 20th century the
concept of vestigial organs was common in evolutionary biology.  These were said to be
organs that had persisted in life forms even though they no longer had a function.  They
were thought to come from DNA that remained in the organism from earlier forms that did
need the organs to function.

4 de 7 11-02-2019 16:50
Darwinism: Fact or Speculative Theory http://www.scienceandapologetics.org/engl/carh...

Human tonsils and the appendix were universally held to be such vestigial organs for many
years.  Many surgeries were decided on this basis.  The conclusion was made even though
the natural prediction of the NDS seems to be that natural selection will eliminate the use
of energy and materials from the environment for unnecessary purposes to allow their use
for purposes necessary for survival. 

Since 1960 biologists have shown conclusively that both organs are part of the human
immune system, and have other beneficial functions.  The NDS prediction was wrong, and
many bad medical decisions were based on it.

(b) junk DNA:  Until about 3 years ago biologists considered at least 95% of human DNA to
be “junk DNA” left over from evolution.  The idea was very similar to the concept of vestigial
organs with a similar rationale from the NDS.  Since then we have witnessed an explosion of
new understanding of the function of the 95% or more of the DNA that appears not to code
directly for protein construction sequences.  The NDS prediction was seriously wrong.

(3) the assumption that similarity of form and function implies time sequence
(ancestry):  In seeking to reconstruct the tree of life, biologists often use a similarity of
form and function to infer time sequence (ancestry.)  This does not take into account that
the building blocks of life, including DNA itself and the many organ systems, have inherent
rules built into them by the laws of chemistry that determine how they can be structured
and arranged.  These can require similar structures in organisms that are not related.  The
demonstration of actual time sequence is a separate step that is absent from the majority of
such published arguments.

An example could be the construction of imaginative structures by children using one of the
many construction sets, like one widely available called “Legos.”   The structure of the
blocks and the ways they can be connected insure similarity of form in any structure the
child makes.  Anyone who has watched this creative process can identify similar structures
with similar functions in two objects that had no relationship, such as the more complex one
being built starting with the simpler one.

(4)  absence of demonstrated mechanism for substantial morphological change:  To

date no mechanism for heritable mutation that could produce such rapid changes has been
established experimentally or theoretically.   Many general suggestions have been made,
such as mutations in HOX genes, but no coherent, experimentally demonstrable explanation
has yet emerged.

(5)  large complex specified information arising by “chance and necessity” (natural
selection due to environmental pressure):  The information stored in the DNA base 4
computer code for running the complex biochemical factory that is a living organism is
extremely large.  As yet, except for the simple measure of Shannon information, no suitable
quantification of this complex specified information has been developed.

Every month now numerous results are published showing how sophisticated this code is
including subroutine libraries, folders, and super folders of folders, reminding us of a
Windows operating system.  When genes are moved from one chromosome to another, the
code seems to even be able to locate their new position and express them in protein
manufacture as needed.  There is no known natural mechanism that can produce these high
levels of complex specified information.  Certainly chance and necessity (natural selection)
have never been shown to have this ability, although it is universally assumed.

Once again, the NDS is seen not to have parts crucial to regarding it as a proven scientific
theory.

E.  Science is open-ended, and it is always dangerous to predict what “will not be
discovered”

Science is an open-ended pursuit.  At any time in its history one could have plausibly said
that certain facts would never be explained, but later they were.  Scientists have often made
this mistake in the past.  Humans have learned to be very cautious about saying what will

5 de 7 11-02-2019 16:50
Darwinism: Fact or Speculative Theory http://www.scienceandapologetics.org/engl/carh...

not be discovered. 

For example, perhaps a mechanism for producing heritable mutations that lead to
large-scale morphological change in one generation will one day be found and tested.  This
would provide a mechanism for “punctuated equilibrium” as postulated by Gould to explain
the fixity of species over long times and the absence of intermediate forms.  However, until
such a mechanism is found, it is wrong to say that, “Such a mechanism must exist because
there must be a naturalistic explanation.”   It is also wrong to say that the NDS is an
established fact before it is found.   It is correct to say that one expects a naturalistic
explanation to emerge in time.  This shows clearly that an extended evolutionary model,
beyond the NDS, is a tentative theory of the development of life.  Similar points can be
made for the other difficulties of evolutionary theory as it stands.

F.  Discovery of definite scientific limits

As discussed in detail in an earlier paper,(1) scientific results also become less certain due to
certain proven limits on scientific knowledge.  In mathematics and logic the are the Gödel
Theorems; in the physics of the microscopic world there is the quantum uncertainty
principle, and in macroscopic systems governed by coupled nonlinear differential equations
which have proven deterministic solutions, there are the predictive uncertainties described
by chaos theory.

G.   Shannon information theory limits our knowledge of the origin of life (H.
Yockey)

The DNA molecules in a living organism each have a sequence that is essentially a
computer code or “information message” expressed in the base 4 “ACTG” coding system. 
Every three adjacent base pairs form a codon, which specifies a unique amino acid out of
the 20 occurring in organisms (43 = 64 > 20, but 42 = 16 < 20.)  The NDS focuses on point
mutations or simultaneous replacements of nucleotides (base pairs.)   Only one (or two
simultaneous) point mutations have been shown experimentally to occur.

The study of the origin of life hopes to uncover the sequence of chemical steps that
occurred historically in building up the first living organism based on existing data from life
forms.  Shannon Information Theory (SIT) and other theorems related to coding systems
like the DNA/protein relationship have yielded tentative information theory limits on our
scientific knowledge of biological systems.  One researcher who has produced a body of
respected research on the limitations imposed by theorems on the Shannon information in
organisms and its transmission with regard to our theories of the origin of life is Hubert
Yockey. (4)

Using proven theorems in SIT, Yockey has proven that it is impossible from current genetic
data to decipher the unique chemical pathway that led to the first living organism:
“Nevertheless, horizontal gene transfer has substantially erased the record of the earliest
genetic sequences. This means that the earliest branches of the tree are not knowable.”  In
particular, he rules out the popular “DNA first” model of the origin of life. 

Yockey concludes, “The segregated, linear and digital character of the genome has allowed
us to apply information theory and other mathematical theorems about sequences or strings
of symbols to make a quantitative rather than an anecdotal and ad hoc discussion of
significant problems in molecular biology.  This procedure has led us to avoid a number of
illusions common in the literature.  The application of these mathematical procedures will
play a role in molecular biology analogous to that of thermodynamics in chemistry.” (5)

H.  Conclusion

The NDS has been shown experimentally to be quantitatively predictive for single and
simultaneous double nucleotide substitutions leading to minor changes in large populations
of organisms like bacteria, some parasites, and some insects.  In this realm the NDS can be
accurately labeled as scientifically proven or “a scientific fact.” 

6 de 7 11-02-2019 16:50
Darwinism: Fact or Speculative Theory http://www.scienceandapologetics.org/engl/carh...

However, for large scale morphological changes, like those needed to produce new families
within an order, the NDS suffers the limitations detailed in this article.  Unproven theories
in science are acceptable, but should be truthfully labeled.  The Neo-Darwinian Synthesis
for large scale change is one such theory as we have demonstrated above.  The scientific
establishment should refrain from calling it a “proven scientific fact” or a “proven theory”
until the necessary facts and experiments are provided. 

References

(1)  
R. A. Carhart, “How Certain Are the Scientific Facts About Our World?”, Proceedings of
the International Scientific-Practical Conference "Creation Paradigm in Modern Science: On
the Road to an Integrated World View,” Nov. 2008, pp. 28-29, Ostrozka Acad., Ostroh City,
Ukraine, 2009

(2)  
S. C. Meyer, “Signature in the Cell,” New York, HarperCollins (HarperOne), 2009,
Chapter 7: “Of Clues to Causes,”

(3)   H.P. Yockey, “Origin of Life on Earth and Shannon’s Theory of Communication”,
Computers and Chemistry, 24 (2000) 105-123; “Information Theory, Evolution and the
Origin of Life”, Information Sciences 141 (2002) 219-225; “Information Theory, Evolution
and the Origin of Life”, New York, Cambridge University Press (2005), 259 pages.

(4) op. cit., pp. 117-165

7 de 7 11-02-2019 16:50