Pages

Friday, February 23, 2018

Scientific Heretic

One of the most interesting intellectual developments of the last couple of decades has been the trend among scientists and other thinkers who've thought seriously about the explanatory power of the Darwinian paradigm, who have considered the enormous difficulties facing any naturalistic account of evolution, and who have judged that paradigm to be both scientifically and philosophically untenable.

One such scientist is a professor of bioengineering and former research director of an international biotech company named Matt Leisola. He documents his apostasy from naturalistic Darwinism in a new book titled Heretic: One Scientist’s Journey from Darwin to Design.

The book has created a considerable stir which is understandable given reviews like one by Ola Hössjer, Professor of Mathematical Statistics at Stockholm University. According to Evolution News Hössjer wrote this about Leisola's book:
In Heretic, Matti Leisola and Jonathan Witt tell the fascinating life story of Leisola, a well known professor of bioengineering and former research director of an international biotech company. The book describes in an informed yet personal way how Leisola early on in his scientific career started to doubt the theories of chemical and Darwinian evolution.

These theories are taught as well established truths throughout European and American universities. They hold that life originated and diversified through purely blind and random mechanisms. But Leisola had the courage and persistence to do what every scientist is supposed to — he carefully followed the evidence and let all possible explanations compete on an equal footing.

The book can actually be read in parallel at three different levels. First, it gives a personal account of Leisola’s own scientific life journey, starting as a supporter of Darwinian evolution, then gradually increasing his skepticism towards the theory and finally becoming an advocate of intelligent design.

Second, the book unfolds the dramatic revolution in genomics and molecular biology that took place during the last forty years. Leisola explains with great expertise, and from his own working experience as a researcher, that the power of mutations, natural selection, and other blind mechanisms is very limited — they can only modify existing structures in modest ways. He argues convincingly that all such materialistic processes have failed to account for the great diversity we see in life. In particular, they cannot explain how information expressed in irreducibly complex structures arose in the first place. It has rather become increasingly clear that an intelligent mind is needed in order to account for the diversity of life.

Third, the book gives many examples of how the resistance towards a design explanation has increased over the years, against the direction of the data itself. This animosity towards intelligent design is seen not only within the scientific community, but increasingly within the church as well.

After reading Leisola and Witt’s book, it is clear that a paradigm shift is needed in order to explain the origin and diversity of life, from chemical and Darwinian evolution towards a design explanation. This raises the question of whether the research community is willing to follow the evidence and allow such a shift to take place. If not, there is a great risk that the judgement of future generations will be hard. However, such a change will not come easily, since ultimately our worldview is at stake.

Should materialism be enforced, or are we, as scientists, willing to allow an intelligent designer through the door?
Materialism, the belief that everything that exists can be explained in terms of matter and energy and that nothing exists which can't be so explained, is a metaphysical strait-jacket on the scientific search for truth. The commitment among many scientists to materialism disallows all non-material explanations in science, but if the ultimate explanation for how we got here is not a material explanation then a lot of scientific careers have been, and are going to be, spent looking in vain for something that's not there.

American philosopher William James once wrote that "any rule of thinking which would prevent me from finding a truth, if that truth were really there, is an irrational rule." The requirement that all scientific explanations must be material explanations is just such a rule.