IMPACT No. 173

There are at least seven significant approaches to macroevolution. The Darwinian three are (a) classical Darwinian evolution, which has been effectively abandoned; (b) the neo-Darwinian synthesis, which is the majority viewpoint; and (c) punctuated equilibria, the growing minority viewpoint. The four non-Darwinian approaches are (a) transformed cladistics, also a growing approach whose proponents refuse to use and in some cases reject macroevolution entirely; (b) antievolutionist approaches (other than theories of creation); (c) non-Darwinian evolution, such as nonequilibrium evolution and structuralism; and (d) anti-Darwinian evolution. The existence of widespread dissent strengthens the point made by Stonehouse of Cambridge, an evolutionist:**

Some fundamental truths about evolution have so far eluded us all, and that uncritical acceptance of Darwinism may be counterproductive as well as expedient. Far from ignoring or ridiculing the groundswell of opposition to Darwinism that is growing, for example, in the United States, we should welcome it as an opportunity to re-examine our sacred cow more closely. . . . ¹

a. Non-Darwinian Evolution

"Non-Darwinian" approaches to macroevolution are taken by "a generally silent group of students engaged in biological pursuits who tend to disagree with much of the current thought." ² Denton notes:

". . . throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless. When Arthur Koestler organized the Alpbach Symposium in 1969 called "Beyond Reductionism," for the express purpose of bringing together biologists critical of orthodox Darwinism, he was able to include in the list of participants many authorities of world stature, such as Swedish neurobiologist Holgar Hyden, zoologists Paul Weiss and W. H. Thorpe, linguist David McNeil and child psychologist Jean Piaget. Koestler had this to say in his opening remarks: . . . invitations were confined to personalities in academic life with undisputed authority in their respective fields, who nevertheless share that holy discontent.
At the Wistar Institute Symposium in 1966, which brought together mathematicians and biologists of impeccable academic credentials, Sir Peter Medawar acknowledged in his introductory address the existence of a widespread feeling in his own words that: ". . . something is missing from orthodox theory." ³

Darwinism has been so "severely criticized" from the scientific and philosophic communities that "the scientific status of the theory has become a subject of contention." ⁴

Evolutionary saltationists, such as famed geneticists De Vries ⁵ and Goldschmidt, ⁶ paleontologists Schindewolf ⁷ and Spath, ⁸ and neontologist Clark, ⁹ rejected Darwinism and proposed a "hopeful monster" approach or macromutations. Some modern evolutionary saltationists follow suit, such as Grant ¹⁰ and Wolsky. ¹¹

Neutral selectionists fall back on "a population genetics view," such as Kimura, Crow, Ohta, Thoday, and Ewens. ¹² Their challenge is directly against Darwinism, as Grene perceives:

Of the many lines of debate now current, however, it seems to me, that two, or perhaps better three, constitute such fundamental challenges [to Darwinism]: (1) neutral mutation theory, (2) cladism, and (3) a protest from the perspective of ontogenesis and sometimes also of morphology. . . . That mutations are random even the most fervent selectionist admits: indeed, it is necessary to the structure of a neo-Darwinian, non-Lamarckian account that this be so (see Rensch's essay, for example). But that alleles wholly unconnected with fitness should persist for long periods and in great numbers is a thesis that selectionists find difficult to accept. Yet despite selectionist arguments to the contrary, the view persists (Kirmura, 1976: King and Jukes, 1969). ¹³

Structuralists reject Darwinian functionalist explanations in favor of structural explanations of the various morphologies that can be classified hierarchically. ¹⁴ Their general anti-Darwinian view is summarized by Webster and Goodwin, biologists at University of Sussex, as follows:

The only way of achieving clarification was to abandon the system of concepts which we call the `evolutionary paradigm' and attempt to construct what seems to us a more satisfactory conceptual structure. . . .

In this paper we question the adequacy of the evolutionary paradigm in relation to its failure to provide any satisfactory theory of the production and reproduction of biological form. We do not believe that this failure is a result of the supposed difficulty of the problem, but rather that it is a consequence of the intrinsic inadequacy of the current system of concepts; we contend that, without a change in the system, no progress can be expected in this crucial area. It follows inevitably from the absence of any coherent account of morphology or morphogenesis that the current theory of evolutionary transformations remains, at best, incomplete and unsatisfactory. . . . It will be apparent that we regard the theory of evolution, and in particular neo-Darwinism, as having extremely limited explanatory power with respect to the problem of form to which it was originally addressed. This limitation arises as a consequence of the absence of any adequate theory of the means of production of "typical forms" and is such, we would maintain, as to render debatable the claim that neo-Darwinism is the unifying theory in biology. (Maynard Smith, 1975). ¹⁵

Hughes and Lambert concur that, in contrast to their structuralist view, functionalist "neo-Darwinism is like a cosmological theory in physics without the context of physical law." ¹⁶

Nonequilibrium thermodynamics rejects Darwinism while holding to macroevolution, as Brooks and Wiley, its leading American proponents, indicate:

In this book we will develop the idea that evolution is an axiomatic consequence of organismic information and cohesion systems obeying the second law of thermodynamics in a manner analogous to but not identical with, the consequences of the second law's usual application in physical and chemical systems. By "axiomatic" we mean that the results are necessary consequences or outcomes.
If evolution is an axiomatic consequence of certain biological processes following the second law, then current theories of the evolutionary process must necessarily be incomplete because they are theories of proximal cause . . . . In a real sense Darwin produces a theory of proximal cause, evolution by natural selection. ¹⁷

Szent-Gyorgyi rejects the neo-Darwinian approach and casts aside "the usual answer . . . that there was plenty of time to try everything." ¹⁸

b. Anti-Darwinian Evolutionists

Many other viewpoints are anti-Darwinian although macroevolutionist. The prominent biologist, Lovtrup, professor of zoophysiology at University of Umea (Sweden), poses a new theory while brilliantly repudiating Darwin, with the provocative title Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth:

After this step-wise elimination, only one possibility remains: the Darwinian theory of natural selection, whether or not coupled with Mendelism, is false. I have already shown that the arguments advanced by the early champions were not very compelling, and that there are now considerable numbers of empirical facts which do not fit with the theory. Hence, to all intents and purposes the theory has been falsified, so why has it not been abandoned?

I think the answer to this question is that current Evolutionists follow Darwin's example--they refuse to accept falsifying evidence. ¹⁹

The biochemist Fox of the University of Miami, with Ho of Open University and Saunders of King's College at London, have proposed a new model in place of Darwinism. ²⁰ Polyphyletists such as Schwabe say that "neo-Darwinism is or rather should be . . . disputed," and replace it with life having "countless origins." ²¹ Hsu, a prominent geologist at the Geological Institute at Zurich, argues that Darwin misunderstood geology, and concludes, "We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time that we cry: `The emperor has no clothes.'" ²² Von Eisenstein similarly discards Darwinism for other mechanisms. ²³

Many anti-Darwinians find no explanation satisfactory for macroevolution, such as Grasse, ²⁴ Lemoine, ²⁵ Macbeth, ²⁶ Ambrose, ²⁷ Russell, ²⁸ and Martin. ²⁹ For example, Grasse reached the following anti-Darwinian conclusion:

Their success among certain biologists, philosophers, and sociologists notwithstanding, the explanatory doctrines of biological evolution do not stand up to an objective, in-depth criticism. They prove to be either in conflict with reality or else incapable of solving the major problems involved. ³⁰

¹ B. Stonehouse, "Introduction" to M. Pitman, Adam and Evolution 9, 12 (1984) (italics added).
² E. Olson, "Morphology, Paleontology, and Evolution," in Vol. 1 Evolution After Darwin 523 (S. Tax ed. 1960).
³ M. Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis 327 (1985) (italics added).
⁴ Riddiford & Penny, "The scientific status of modern evolutionary theory," in Evolutionary Theory: Paths into the Future, 1-2 (J. Pollard ed. 1984).
⁵ Bulhof, "The Netherlands," in The Comparative Reception of Darwinism 306 (T. Glick ed. 1974).
6 R. Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution (1940).
⁷ O. Schindewolf, Grundfragen der Paleontologie (1950).
⁸ L. Spath, The Evolution of the Cephalopoda, 8 Biol. Rev. 418 (1933).
⁹ A Clark, The New Evolution: Zoogenesis (1930).
¹⁰ V. Grant, Organismic Evolution (1977)
¹¹ M. Wolsky & A. Wolsky. The Mechanism of Evolution: A New Look at Old Ideas (1976).
¹² Wasserman, "Testability of the Role of Natural Selection within Theories of Population Genetics and Evolution," 29 British J. Philosophy of Science 223, 234 (1978).
¹³ M. Grene, "Introduction" to Dimensions of Darwinism 1, (M.Grene ed. 1983)
¹⁴ "Workshop on Structuralism in Biology." 80Rivista de Biologia 1980.
¹⁵ Webster & Goodwin, "The Origin of Species: A structuralist approach," 5 J. Social & Theoretical Biology 15, 15-16, 44 (1982) (italics added).
¹⁶ Hughes & Lambert, "Functionalism, Structuralism, and Ways of Seeing." III J. Theoretical Biology 787, 796 (1984).
¹⁷ D. Brooks & E. Wiley, Evolution as Entropy ix (1986) (U. of Chicago Press).
¹⁸ Szent-Gyorgyi, "The Evolutionary Paradox and Biological Stability," in Molecular Evolution: Prebiological and Biological III (D. Rohlfing & A. Oparin eds. 1972).
¹⁹ S. Lovtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth 352 (1987) (Italics added).
²⁰ Ho, Saunders & Fox, A New Paradigm for Evolution, New Scientist, Feb. 27, 1986, at 41.
²¹ Schwabe, "On the Validity of Molecular Evolution," in Trends in Biochemical Sciences 280, 282 (1986)
²² K. Hsu, "Darwin's Three Mistakes," 14 Geology 532, 534 (1986).
²³ I von Eisenstein, "Ist die Evolutions theory wissenschaftlich begrundet?" Inhaltsverzeichniscthaft 3, Band 15 at 241 & 404 (1975).
²⁴ P. Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (trans. 1977).
²⁵ Encyclopedie Francaise 06-6 (P. Lemoine ed. 1937).
²⁶ N. Macbeth, Darwin Retired 134 (1971).
²⁷ E. Ambrose, The Nature and Origin of the Biologic World 131 (1982).
²⁸ E. Russell, The Diversity of Animals 69-71 (1962).
²⁹ C. Martin, A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution, 41 Am. Scientist 100, 100, 105 (1953).
³⁰ P. Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms 202 (trans. 1977).

* Taken from a new book to be published shortly by Philosophical Library (New York 10025) in two volumes ($19.95 per volume, if ordered before December 15, $26.95 otherwise). The author, an Atlanta attorney and Yale Law School graduate, argued the recent creation law case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

** All scientists mentioned in this article are evolutionists.