Another Call for a “New Synthesis”
recently wrote a post critical of biologist Peter Corning’s “synergism hypothesis.” Afterwards Dr. Corning got in touch and advised me to consider his new paper, “Cooperative Genes in Smart Systems: Toward an Inclusive New Synthesis in Evolution,” in Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology.
Of course I was happy to read it. And I’m glad he pointed me to it, because although the paper doesn’t address any of the criticisms from the intelligent design perspective (honestly, I would have been pleasantly surprised if it did) it is quite relevant to the ID/Darwinism debate.
In the new paper, Corning argues that it’s time to throw out the neo-Darwinian synthesis. He goes farther than the call for an “extended synthesis” that was made by some biologists a few years ago. It’s not that the synthesis needs to be extended, he writes — it needs to be replaced.
This paper follows closely behind an article in Nature by Oxford’s Denis Noble arguing for much the same thing, which Casey Luskin reviewed here. Luskin wrote:
Noble’s vision of biology… where dogma is discarded, new ideas are considered, agency and purpose are acknowledged, cells are more complex than computers and machines, proteins are like miniature transformers, and organisms control their genomes, is highly compatible with intelligent design — certainly far more compatible than the biological thinking of the past hundred years. This means biology is moving in the right direction.
In his paper, Corning adds his voice to Noble’s. He cites Noble to argue that genes “play only a minor role” in evolution. Instead, many factors guide the evolution of life. Evolution is complex and unpredictable, he writes, and “biological evolution is not reducible to physics.”
“The time has come,” Corning declares, “to abandon the gene-centered Modern Synthesis and The Selfish Gene model of evolution.” The new synthesis should be a “more inclusive, open-ended synthesis, in recognition of the fact that there may still be more influences yet to be discovered.”
Corning identifies several factors in evolution that are neglected by the Modern Synthesis, including:
Epigenetic guidance of genetic change
Lamarckian evolution (heritable traits introduced by the habits of the parent)
Horizontal gene transfer
Symbiosis (or “cooperative effects,” or “synergy”)
Teleonomy (internal “purposiveness”)
He even cites the panspermia hypothesis, albeit in one of its more modest forms: the idea that the compounds that eventually formed the first life were seeded on Earth by meteors.
If Lamarck Can Do It…
All this points to a truth that is important for the ID position: namely, that “the assured results of modern science” may not be assured forever.
The gene-centered model is a clear example. We were supposed to believe that the “selfish gene” was unassailable and was only doubted by religious fundamentalists and cranks. If ID theorists rejected it, that was because they were at best biased, and at worst, secretly anti-science.
But now, poof! it’s just another discarded model.
Or take Lamarckian evolution. According to Corning, old Lamarck is making something of a comeback. Yet when I was first studying biology, Lamarck’s theory was presented to students as nothing but the debunked historical alternative to Darwinian evolution, faintly ridiculous in hindsight. (And to give you an idea of how quickly that means things can change: I don’t remember 9/11.)
If one theory can return from the dusty, forgotten shelves of the History of Science and spring back to pages of biology journals, then so can another. No theory should be dismissed out of hand simply because the scientific “consensus” is against it. Likewise, no theory is so well-established that it might not someday be discarded.
There Was No Problem, and Also, We Solved the Problem
Granted, the fact that biologists such as Corning are calling for a new synthesis does not, in itself, necessarily indicate a flaw in Darwin’s theory. Yes, you could interpret it as a sign that the contemporary formulation of Darwinism is failing and that its devotees are scrambling to repair or replace it. But you could also put a different spin on it — that Darwin’s mechanism works just fine, but so do many other means of evolution. The call for a new synthesis could simply show that life actually has many ways to evolve.
Corning’s statement in his book Synergistic Selection that “Darwin’s theory does not provide an explanation for the rise of biological complexity” would seem to favor the former view. Yet in this paper, despite the fact that Corning is calling for a new synthesis, he does not seem to want to state that there was ever really any big mystery or explanatory gap in unguided evolution. I suppose to do so would be to admit that ID theorists and critics of Darwin’s theory had a point. That sort of admission would be hard to publish in a peer-reviewed scientific journal (and Corning himself might not like to make it).
This is the sad irony: people will often only admit that an argument against their position has any merit after they think they have come up with a sufficient rebuttal. First, there’s no problem, and you’re ignorant to think that there is — then next thing you know, with no steps in between, you hear that the problem has been solved.
[Editor’s note: Casey Luskin has wryly called this dance move the “retroactive admission of ignorance.” “Years ago,” writes Dr. Luskin, “I began to recognize a repeating phenomenon in the rhetoric of evolutionary literature: Scientists, echoed by science journalists, would only admit a problem with their models or a challenge to their ideas once they thought they had found a solution.” See, for example, here.]
Winning by Not Playing?
Of course, if you’re going to pull the trigger and move on to Phase 2, “The problem has been solved,” you’d better be darn sure that the problem really has been solved. I suspect a major reason the “new synthesis” has yet to become truly mainstream is that its various hypotheses don’t actually resolve any of the problems posed by ID arguments.
Actually, it’s worse than that. They don’t even seem to address the arguments at all.
It’s hard to effectively refute an argument without referencing it. The paper, and the hypotheses it promotes, are presented as being in some sense a rebuttal to the ID position. Yet there are no (even indirect) references to ID arguments in this paper. The mathematical difficulties of getting information for free are not addressed. The fact that only foresight, not natural selection, increases the probability of a system of interworking parts uniting to create a given adaptive feature, is not addressed. The demonstrated improbability of getting even a single truly constructive mutation by chance in the course of Earth’s 4.6-billion-year history is not addressed. The tendency of selective pressures to break things much faster than they build them is not addressed.
If the architects of the new synthesis show no evidence of knowing more about intelligent design arguments than you can learn from Wikipedia, it’s no wonder defenders of Darwinism might be reluctant to embrace this synthesis as the new authoritative explanation for biological complexity. Although it’s rarely said out loud, the point has never been merely to explain complexity; it’s to explain complexity without design. And to do that, sadly, you sometimes have to actually engage with the design arguments (not all of which, by the way, are obvious enough to think of on your own).
As tempting as it may be, simply ignoring the dissidents didn’t work for the old synthesis, and it won’t work for the new synthesis either. Eventually — if the new synthesis survives long enough — its proponents will have to come up with their own answers to the challenges facing unguided evolution.
