And I am still In a State of Oscillation: On the Theory of Evolution

As I exposed myself to a number of articles, research papers , and books, that discuss the issue of evolution and how natural selection can lead to the formation of different organisms, I have been perplexed from time to time, for the reason that I also use to read on those who oppose the whole notion of evolution ( not charlatans, but people talking by the language of science). 

In fact, it is a matter that someone needs to immerse himself deep into it to come with a stand, and for sure that stand in most cases won't be a permanent one but one that oscillates, as the evidence on one scale might get heavier and change the balance. Many people talk on this issue, some talk using science, but I find that many people are just followers of some scientists without giving themselves the chance to read on opposing views and this is what caused the great extreme that each takes, for it turned from being a scientific notion to being a dogmatic one. I shall jot down some of what struck me today in a simple manner; some of the notions of evolution as presented by Richard Dawkins and the opposing view by Michael Behe. 

Dawkins is an ardent follower of the theory of Evolution and he had published books that discuss the issue in great detail. As I am reading his book the Selfish Gene, I realized that he believes that everything developed from primitive substances, and by numerous modifications over time they were able to create organisms. He thinks that organisms are survival machines meant to be driven by the genes, for the genes to reach their goals and increase their number in the population. By natural selection, survival machines are altered over time to serve the genes in a better way. So, he thinks that every complexity we see has a primitive origin and everything is reducible to the most primitive substance and there is nothing that is impossible to reduce. He made it clear, "We know a lot more about animals and plants than Darwin did, and still not a single case is known to me of a complex organ that could not have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications. I do not believe that such a case will ever be found. If it is . . . I shall cease to believe in Darwinism.' Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, p. 91. 

On the other hand, Michael Behe, an American biochemist who is a great expert in his field believes that Evolution theory does not explain everything, yet it explains some things. He thinks that when we get into the realm of Biochemistry , we realize that there are substances which are intricately complex, and can't be reduced to simpler states, and as someone tries to trace these substances back to a simpler form, he gets stuck and finds no way. Behe, puts forward the argument of Intelligent design as an alternative, and this is what made his words receive negative criticism and be regarded as pseudoscience. Many fans of Evolution criticized him, yet the criticism was not to the point, and they meant to attack his belief in an Intelligent design rather than try to refute his words in Biochemistry. He gave the example of the complexity of the flagellum of the Bacteria and many other examples.





We realize that other scientists are aware that The Theory of Evolution doesn't function well when facing complex substances in Biochemistry but they hate the notion of Intelligent Design and I will just quote a Colorado State University biochemist Franklin Harold“We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity ;but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” (Harold 2001, 205 The Way of the Cell) 


Concluding, I find this topic to be intricate and interesting at the same time, and one can't make his stand by reading from one scientist or accepting it just because the majority of the educated take it for granted; one must have a deep probe in the issue before making comments and arguing with people while his own basis is fragile. I have been in an ambivalent state so far, as I sometimes find myself arguing for evolution and sometimes showing that it carries no powerful evidence and I am still at the same state of oscillation and I shall complete my search on the issue.