Punctuated Equilibrium FAIL — Basics of Intelligent Design

In the 1970s and 1980s, two American paleontologists came up with a revolutionary attempt to reconcile Darwinian evolution with the fossil record. Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge called their hypothesis “Punctuated Equilibrium.” This theory holds that evolution doesn’t happen slowly, gradually, and continuously, but rather rapidly and in limited periods of time. The key argument with which Gould and Eldredge backed up their unconventional theory is known as allopatric speciation. Punctuated Equilibrium created significant noise in the scientific community as it challenged the key tenets of Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism, and it came to be referred to as “evolution by jerks” and “Punk Eek.” The hypothesis fails in various respects, however, and even Gould himself, recognizing the significant shortcomings and inconsistencies of Punctuated Equilibrium, later started to reconcile his theorizing again with Neo-Darwinian orthodoxy. This means, that the Cambrian explosion and the lack fo intermediate forms in the fossil record persists as a serious challenge to evolutionary theory. This episode in our series on Intelligent Design and critical thinking about evolution will cover all the basics and relevant aspects you need to know about Punctuated Equilibrium. Punctuated Equilibrium is the last major attempt of Darwinists to reconcile paleontology with evolution and its failure seems to seal the incompatibility of Darwinian theory with the fossil record once and for all. Join me for this episode which lays another important foundation upon which the argument for Intelligent Design will later be built. 0:00 Intro & Recap 2:58 What is Punctuated Equilibrium? 4:51 What led to Punk Eek? 6:18 Allopatric Speciation 8:40 Species Selection 10:32 No Pool Available 11:28 Large Populations Needed 14:25 No Complex Traits 18:12 Punk Eek Retreats 19:47 Back to Square 1 This is the third 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 series is done in partnership with 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!