Sunday, 6 December 2009

Design returns to biology – in spite of Darwin’s anniversary

Design is on its way back to biology in spite of Darwin’s anniversary. Image courtesy of Wikipedia.

Joel Kontinen

Although the Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711-1776), who was known for his sceptical views, doubted design in nature, the majority of scientists and thinkers in Charles Darwin’s (1809-1882) days still thought that what looked liked it had been designed was no illusion but had actually been designed.

Scientists and philosophers saw signs of design in nature. In the 1850s they still regarded William Paley’s (1743-1805) analogy of the watch and watchmaker as a credible explanation of intelligent design.

Evolutionists assumed that Charles Darwin put an end to the idea of design in nature. They believed that natural selection and random variation (mutations) could account for everything that looked as though it had been designed.

Now, however, 150 years after the publication of The Origin of Species, design is on its way back to biology although mainstream science journals as well as Richard Dawkins and other hard-line Darwinists are still reluctant to admit it.

For instance, the attention that Dr. Stephen Meyer’s book Signature in the Cell has recently attracted, suggests that the wind has gradually begun to change.

Evolutionists used to resort to semantics when they failed to understand the function of an organ or part of a biological system. Thus, we heard of junk this and junk that and that there were vestigial organs everywhere.

Now, there is scant evidence for junk and vestigial organs in biological systems. It seems that design is on its way back to biology.


Olasky, Marvin. 2009. 2009 Daniel of the Year. World (19 December)