Basics of Intelligent Design: Darwin’s Nightmare

When Charles Darwin published “On the Origin of Species” in 1859, he was painstakingly aware of the fact that the fossil record diametrically opposed his theory. Ever since Darwin’s time, paleontologists have put their finger on the so-called Cambrian explosion. The term describes the fact that within one single geological era called the Cambrian era, a wide variety of fossilized animal forms shows up suddenly and without any evidence of intermediate forms preceding them in Precambrian strata. This state of affairs is hard to reconcile with Darwin’s idea that species evolved slowly and gradually over long periods of time. Darwin himself acknowledged this problem and admitted that if we assume the theory of evolution to be true, we should find an interminable number of intermediate forms in the fossil record. However, at Darwin’s time, those countless transitional forms were nowhere to be found. The leading figures of paleontology didn’t hold back with their criticism of Darwin, who, in turn, described their objections as potentially fatal to the entire theory of evolution. Yet, instead of dealing with the paleontological evidence as it presented itself to him, Darwin explained away the absence of paleontological evidence for evolution by asserting that future discoveries by paleontologists would eventually unearth those countless intermediate forms that his theory needed in order to be vindicated. Have his hopes come true? No, they haven’t. In fact, as the science of paleontology has, like any other scientific discipline during the 20th century, made huge leaps forward, the evidence that has emerged has put the theory of evolution into even greater trouble. Find out why in this very first episode of my new series on the basics of Intelligent Design. 0:00 Intro 0:52 Darwin's Theory 2:16 A Troubling Conundrum 4:42 A Milestone Discovery 5:09 Phyla and Fossils 6:38 The Blink of an Eye 7:28 Amazing Trilobite 8:22 Stubborn Paleontology 9:05 Darwin's Problem Amplified 11:23 Wrapping Up & Looking Ahead This is the first video of an ongoing series on the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate. My aim is to make the basics of Intelligent Design and of critical thinking about evolutionary theory available to the uninitiated viewer. I will unpack, in a step-by-step fashion, why the complex, specified information we find in organisms of the animal kingdom is better explained by the theory of Intelligent Design than by Neo-Darwinism. The videos in these series are based on the New York Times bestseller “Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design” by Stephen C. Meyer (Revised ed. Edition, San Francisco: HarperOne, 2014). In fact, the videos can be thought of as summaries of the most essential points of Meyer’s book. This video in particular relates to the content of chapters 1-2. However, my videos are not officially endorsed by Stephen Meyer. Stephen Meyer heads the Center for Science and Culture of the Discovery Institute, the leading Intelligent Design think tank (https://www.discovery.org/). The Discovery Institute is sometimes accused of advancing Biblical creationism disguised as science. This is an ad hominem attack that does nothing to address the actual arguments that are being put forward by Intelligent Design theorists. Besides, the accusation reveals ignorance of the fact that there is a wide range of atheist and agnostic scientists who consider Intelligent Design a legitimate scientific hypothesis. Nevertheless, one of my videos will talk about how the hypotheses advanced by Intelligent Design and creationism are fundamentally different. I have not received formal training in evolutionary biology. However, I have spent a great amount of time studying Neo-Darwinism and Intelligent Design over the last three years. I am mentioning this for two reasons: First, this is simply a matter of transparency and intellectual honesty, which are, I believe, key, as we’re dealing with a controversial topic. Second, I’m aware that the fact of me not being an evolutionary biologist will be used by critics in the attempt to undermine the credibility of the arguments I offer here. However, the validity of an argument is not affected by the question of who advances it. Therefore, questioning my content because I’m not an evolutionary biologist (or, a scientist, for that matter) is logically fallacious. In addition, the following may be pointed out: Unless the person who offers such criticism is him or herself an evolutionary biologist, advancing such criticism is at best hypocritical and at worst self-defeating. For if the credibility of my arguments is supposedly questionable due to me not being an evolutionary biologist, why should the critic’s criticism of my arguments be any more credible, given that he or she isn’t an evolutionary biologist either? As always, I'm thankful for feedback!