Origin of Life Research Has Failed to Generate a Coherent and Persuasive Framework

A Maze of Madness

Because while Franklin Harold wonders in 2014 if “we may still be missing some essential insight” (given that a century of origin of life research “has failed to generate a coherent and persuasive framework that gives meaning to the growing heap of data and speculation” and has “remarkably little to show for” for all the effort expended), it was, in fact, just over a century ago when evolution’s co-founder, the great Alfred Russel Wallace, provided exactly what Harold may be looking for, to wit:

there was at some stage in the history of tile earth, after the cooling process, a definite act of creation. Something came from the outside. Power was exercised from without. In a word, life was given to the earth. … Postulate organization first, and make it the origin and cause of life, and you lose yourself in a maze of madness. An honest and unswerving scrutiny of nature forces upon the mind this certain truth, that at some period of the earth's history there was an act of creation …

But who is capable of such “honest and unswerving scrutiny”? For as I explained in Science’s Blind Spot, this never was about honest, objective scientific inquiry:

Naturalism has no way to distinguish a paradigm problem from a research problem. It cannot consider the possibility that there is no naturalistic explanation for the DNA code. This is science's blind spot. If a theory of natural history has problems—and many of them have their share—the problems are always viewed as research problems and never as paradigm problems. … Problems are never interpreted as problems with the paradigm. No matter how badly naturalism performs, when explanations do not fit the data very well, they are said to be research problems. They must be, for there is no option for considering that a problem might be better handled by another paradigm.

The problem with evolutionary theory is not that the naturalistic approach might occasionally be inadequate. The problem is that evolutionists would never know any better.

And so what Harold does not, and cannot, tell his readers is that our problem in figuring out the evolution of life may be more serious than merely “missing some essential insight.” Our problem may be that our methodological naturalism mandate has planted us firmly in the belly of anti realism. Or more simply put, there may be no naturalistic explanation. It may not be that we are missing some essential insight, but rather that there simply is no such insight to be found.

In fact that is what the science has been indicating for a long time. The strictly naturalistic evolution of life, of eukaryotes, of multicellular species, of fish, of reptiles, of amphibia, of mammals, and of a thousand other novelties is unlikely. Period. That is what the science is telling us, like it or not.

But evolutionists cannot say that. They cannot admit to the scientific truth. In fact, quite the opposite and quite unbelievably, they insist evolution is a fact beyond all reasonable doubt.

Evolutionists say that their skeptics oppose science, present theories that are driven by presupposition and are unfalsifiable. But all of that precisely describes evolution. Why can't we just tell the truth?

[h/t: The Man]

Alfred Wallace: Evolution’s Creationist in the Closet

Coming Out

The fact of evolution does not refer to survival of the fittest, natural selection, gradualism, common descent, or any of the dozens of other subhypotheses but rather to evolution’s core idea that the species arose naturalistically. How it occurred is an open question—the theory of evolution. That it occurred is not in question—the fact of evolution. That makes evolution an all-or-nothing affair. If you don’t agree that science reveals the species arose strictly by natural causes and nothing else, then you’re not an evolutionist. In fact, according to evolutionists, you are a creationist. That is their term not just for those with a particular interpretation of Genesis. That is their term for anyone who doesn’t accept the fact of evolution. It doesn’t matter how many of evolution’s subhypotheses you accept.

That makes the case of one Alfred Russel Wallace rather interesting. With his centenary of passing observed this past week there has been a resurgence of interest and praise for evolution’s co-founder. There now is even a statue of Wallace at the Natural History Museum in London. Wallace is receiving his much deserved recognition, but all of this is a bit awkward because Wallace was, according to the evolutionist’s own terminology, a creationist.

Beyond the Power of Accident

Just over a century ago a gracefully aging scholar quietly left the world with these wise words:

A young bird makes us laugh. When its feathers have grown, the same bird makes Shelley write an immortal ode. Such is the wonder of feathers. And how do they grow? Evolution can explain a great deal; but the origin of a feather, and its growth, this is beyond our comprehension, certainly beyond the power of accident to achieve. … The scales on the wings of a moth, have no explanation in Evolution. They belong to Beauty, and Beauty is a spiritual mystery. Even Huxley was puzzled by the beauty of his environment. What is the origin of Beauty? Evolution cannot explain.

Was this man a fundamentalist resisting the inexorable progress of science? No, this was evolution’s co-founder Alfred Wallace who believed evolution to be a good, but limited, hypothesis. Once again wisdom is justified by all her children for now, a century later, Wallace’s simple yet profound observations have been fulfilled. There is no scientific explanation for the origin of feathers, wings of moths, or untold other biological designs. Evolution is a fact, but not because it explains the origin of species.

Who Was Alfred Russel Wallace?

Go here to find out who Alfred Russel Wallace was. Or better yet, buy the book. For Michael Flannery’s biography is the most important new book I have read in years. The immense attention focused on Charles Darwin by evolution historians has unfortunately overshadowed Wallace, whose life was arguably more fascinating and insightful. Unfortunately views that are offered on Wallace today are often from Darwinist perspectives. Flannery remedies this imbalance with his story of Alfred Wallace that brings an entirely new light to the theory of evolution. In this corrective against the familiar but erroneous casting of Wallace as a miniature Darwin, Flannery artfully brings out the stark contrast—even down to their final works—between the evolution co-founders.

But Flannery’s biography is not merely a look back. Like any good history, Flannery’s tells us something about where we are, and how we got here. From their early years onward, Wallace and Darwin existed in different worlds. Their paths intersected at evolution, but they approached and departed that intersection with many different perspectives. Flannery provides a broader context than is usually found in such histories and in convincing detail demonstrates the influences and connections to today’s discussion. Neither idolizing Wallace nor minimizing Darwin, Flannery provides a much needed balanced view that leaves us with a richer understanding of our ideas on origins.