EVOLUTION
Darwin’s evolutionary theory states that all living things originated from one ancestor, where then adaptation occurred through natural selection to the living things that are there today. According to Darwin, some minor genetic mutations were advantageous to the existence and survival of a species for instance if a species developed wings and learnt how to fly, that trait would be passed on to the offspring whose offspring would inherit the same trait and so on (Gould, 2002, p. 119). This theory suggests that all life is related, descending from one ancestor and undergoing genetic modifications for self preservation and survival. The advantageous alterations and modifications were passed on from generation to generation eventually resulting in an entirely different creature (Darwin, 2009, p.15).
Intelligence design (ID) proposes that the universe as well as living things were brought about by an intelligent cause or an intelligent designer who is the supreme being rather that the origin being from an undirected process like Darwin’s natural selection (Meyer, 2010, p. 82). Intelligent design is a form of creationism that is based on the traditional argument on the existence of God though it avoids speculating that the intelligent designer is God (Yahya, 1999, p. 103). ID advocates for its argument on the basis of an evidence-based scientific theory that explains the origin of man as opposed to presenting it as a religious-based idea which will not be recognized by the scientific community. ID is making an effort through the Discovery Institute to reshape and redefine some fundamental propositions of the origin of the universe as well as living things to include supernatural explanations that characterize theistic science.
The two main arguments that intelligent design has against Darwin’s evolution theory are irreducible and specified complexity. Irreducible complexity argues that there is no way that certain complex biological systems evolved from simple or incomplete ancestors through the process of natural selection on the basis of genetic mutations that were advantageous to the survival of the biological systems which were then passed down several generations to result in different looking creatures than they were before. The scientific community seems to disagree with this viewpoint arguing that that intelligent design is a pseudoscience because its statements, proposals and arguments are not backed up by any scientific evidence that can be tried and tested.
The other argument that intelligent design has with regard to Darwin’s evolution theory is the specified complexity, an argument proposed by William Dembski. Specified complexity is formed on the basis of patterns which are complex and specified within the DNA of a living thing. According to Dembski a specified pattern is one that has short descriptions while a complex pattern is a pattern that is highly unlikely to occur randomly hence it is impossible for these two patterns to occur in unguided processes such as natural selection. The pattern arrangement in an organized way is attributed to an intelligent agent who guides the formation of these two patterns in living things.
Dembski’s arguments were watered down by Jeffrey Shallit and Wesley Elseberry who claimed that his work was full of inconsistencies, miscalculations, misrepresentation of other researches and results, equivocation as well as poor scholarship. A Harvard professor, Martin Nowak poked holes in the Dembski’s work claiming that some probability calculations carried out by Dembski did not hold any water as there can be no way of calculating the probability that an eye came about hence it was not logical enough to sustain his argument (Dembski, 2010, p. 155).
Although there are several similarities between intelligent design and creationism, the two are totally different. Creationism starts from a religious aspect from where it tries to see how the scientific theories and findings can be traced back to the religious aspect with respect to a supreme being. Intelligent design on the other hand largely agrees with various scientific theories but it also has some reservations in the sense that certain things have an apparent and distinct design that is far more complex and well structured to have only randomly occurred (House, 2008, p. 122). Intelligent design owes the Complex and Specified Information (CSI) found in natural objects as well as living things to have been carefully made by an intelligent designer without specifically referring to a supernatural being. Therefore intelligent design aims at scientifically explaining the nature of things with regard to their design.
According to Darwin’s theory of evolution, this process involved simple things that kept on changing with time through natural selection to become suitable for the current conditions. For an organism or object to have evolved, it had to be simple and a great deal of time would have had to pass for it to take shape and function as required. This notion has come into question with regard to the irreducible complex. An irreducible complex system is made up of several multiple parts all of which are required to be properly in place for a particular thing to function well. The irreducible complex system pokes holes on Darwin’s theory in the sense that the organs in the human body for example the heart, are an irreducible complex system that is made up of multiple parts for it to function as required. This means that there is no way that at one point in time the heart did not have some of its parts because that would mean that it could not work without them. This further goes on to show that there is an intricate design in place whose alteration in any way with regard to reverse-engineering to depict devolution would result in the malfunction of the organ and the end of life.
The tremendous advancements that have been made in science especially in molecular biology, genetics and biochemistry all put Darwin’s theory in crisis as now there are hundreds of thousands of irreducible complex systems that exist at the molecular level. Some other simpler examples of irreducible complexity are the eye and the ear which go contrary to Darwin’s theory of evolution. Darwin himself confesses in his book that the eye with all its complexity of adjusting focus over different distances as well as allowing different amounts of light to pass through it and the recognition of different shapes could not have been as a result of natural selection.
Evolution can be a central organizing principle in anthropology in the sense that it has been observed and experimented on for a long time and the facts and figures speak for themselves. It can be proved that man did evolve from primates from archeology where the bones of human beings from millions of years ago looked much like the bone structure that primates do have. The tools and weapons they used long ago were crude and this can be backed by the findings of archeologists which are displayed on the internet as well as in various museums. As time went by so did the refining of their weapons and tools to include sharp bits that could stab animals and cut up the meat. This is evidence of evolution in the sense of progression into modernity albeit slow but sure. It is also evident that at first human beings used to live alone in the forest and wild but as time went by they found the need and urge to live together. This development in social behavior was an important step as it was motivated by the sense of belonging and security. When people live together they can defend themselves better and in an organized way thereby increasing their chancel of survival. Living together also ensured that there was plenty to it always because of team effort that made catching prey an easier task (Baxter, 2010, p. 32). Far from food and security they went on to develop means of communication, another very important step in evolution that is being used today and is much more complex because to them communication was only a way of conveying a message or a directive but today communication is a very powerful tool that is used in learning, settling disputes and negotiating, ICT among other key uses of communication.
During the ancient times living together brought about homesteads and small communities comprised of clans which indicates a need for affiliation and acceptance and cooperation. These units were crucial to the survival and well-being of the members of that unit. The men were hunters, while the women were gatherers and child bearers. The men were also charged with offering protection to the women and children. Much like an alpha-male does in his pack, there had to be a man who would give directions and instructions to the rest of the clan. This man was usually the strongest among all the other male members and some disputes were settled through a battle between the men involved or the alpha-male and the culprit. This however took a different turn as time went by as non-cooperative members were not pounced upon and clobbered to death but they were chased away from the rest of the clan to live by themselves in the wilderness as a punishment for their ill behavior.
This sense of organization into small units is what has evolved to what we have today but on a larger scale from a family unit all the way to a country and continents characterized by various trade and economic blocks. This is evolution in a slow and gradual progression over time (Haught, 2010, p. 89). Animals have also evolved for instance amphibians like frogs were once land dwelling animals and due to harsh environmental issues, they were forced to turn to the water lands to find food and continue surviving. Gradually over time they developed webbed feet that help them to swim easily in water since they have no fins or a tail that they can use to propel themselves forward in water. They also have lungs as well as well developed gills. The two aid them to breathe both in and out of water (Leslie, 2004, p. 16).
Another study that was carried out during the industrial revolution on white moths revealed that these moths changed color over time to black through natural selection so as not to be seen by their predators and be eaten up. If they remained white colored while everything around them was dark due to heavy smoke and soot, then they would be easily spotted by their predators and be devoured and possibly lead to a severe shortage of white moths or a near extinction of that species. The study also found that this trait was passed on from generation to generation to ensure continued survival (Godfrey & Petto, 2008, p. 64).
Evolution should be used as a central organizing principle in anthropology because it is very significant to the study of origin, behavior, cultural, social and physical development of human beings. There has been tremendous evidence from researchers and scientist that back the evolution theory. Darwin’s theory of natural selection is also very significant in anthropology. This paper has looked at evolution in human beings and also touched on evolution of some animals in order to give a more general view of evolution as it broadly is.
REFERENCES
Darwin, C. (2009). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the
Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Leslie, A. (2004). Evolution and Revolution in Anthropology. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of
Nebraska.
Dembski, W. (2010). Intelligent Design. London: Readhowyouwant.com
Baxter, S. (2010). Evolution. London: Orion Publishing Group.
Meyer, S. (2010). Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design. London:
HarperOne
House, W. (2008). Intelligent Design 101: Leading Experts Explain the Key Issues. Washington
DC: Kregel Publications
Godfrey, L. & Petto, A. (2008). Scientists Confront Creationism: Intelligent Design and Beyond.
Boston: W.W. Norton & Company
Haught, J. (2010). Making Sense of Evolution: Darwin, God, and the Drama of Life. New York:
John Knox Press.
Gould, S. (2002). The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. New York: Harvard University Press
Yahya, H. (1999). The Evolution Deceit. Chicago: Ta-Ha Publishers
