|
Michael Behe (Darwin's Black Box, 1996) makes a couple of good points: the creation/evolution debate should move into the molecular realm, and it appears that there is no mutation-selection pathway for the assembly of macro-molecular complexes (irreducible complexity). But doesn't his conclusion "therefore it must be design" leave us a little empty? A new design theory that is purported to replace neo-darwinism needs to be elaborated. What mechanisms are involved? What is the timeline of events? How does the transmutation of species occur? Given that the Creator of the universe is sovereign over all material and natural mechanisms so that chemical mutations that appear to us as accidents are no surprise to the Almighty, neo-darwinism should actually be considered a theory of design, but one that falls short of explaining the data. In the molecular realm, comparisons of gene sequences have provided us with good evidence as to when the common ancestor of currently divergent species lived, but it is assumed a priori that the sole mechanism for change is natural selection working on mutations. Since neo-darwinism apparently inadequate to explain the molecular data (such as the irreducible complexity of molecular machines), as well as the pattern of appearance of different life forms in the fossil record, I will consider the molecular biology of another theory, the DeHaan theory of MacroDevelopment (Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 48, no. 3) which takes into account common ancestry and is not necessarily constrained by methodological naturalism. |
Back to Library
Back to MacroDevelopment Home Page