In their commentary “Natural selection and evolution: evolving concepts,” Andre van Wijnen and Eric Lewallen engage in a philosophical discussion about whether to classify natural selection as a “law” and evolution as a “theory.” They conclude that natural selection, being quantifiable, fits the definition of a law, while evolution is a broader conceptual framework—a theory—that incorporates this law alongside other non-adaptive processes. While this semantic clarification may seem like a step toward greater precision, it functions as a sophisticated distraction from the catastrophic explanatory failures at the heart of the evolutionary paradigm. The paper discusses how biological concepts evolve, but it provides no evidence that biological information can evolve in the way required for molecules-to-man transformation.
A Fair Summary of the Research
The authors respond to a proposal by Crouch and Bodmer that “evolution by natural selection is a scientific law.” Van Wijnen and Lewallen largely agree that natural selection can be considered a “biological law,” as it can be described by quantitative mathematical equations that model fitness and population changes. However, they argue that equating evolution entirely with this law is a linguistic error of pars pro toto (a part for the whole).
Their central thesis is that biological evolution is a much broader, overarching “theory” or “cognitive abstraction.” This framework, they contend, includes not only the adaptive law of natural selection but also a host of non-adaptive and stochastic mechanisms such as genetic drift, mutation, and neutral evolution of DNA sequences. They point out that from a molecular perspective, much of the genome evolves independently of natural selection. By framing evolution as a comprehensive theory that incorporates multiple principles and laws, they believe they present a more robust and accurate picture of modern evolutionary biology, a field that continues to refine its models with new data from high-resolution technologies.
Semantics Cannot Substitute for Causal Power
The entire debate over “law” versus “theory” is a red herring that conveniently sidesteps the central problem of biological origins: the source of specified functional information. Calling natural selection a “law” does not grant it creative power. The law of gravity explains why a rock falls, but not how the statue of David was carved from it. Likewise, the “law” of natural selection explains why less-fit organisms are eliminated, but it provides no explanation for the arrival of the fittest. It is a filter for failure, not an engine of creation. By focusing on the downstream process of selection, the authors begin their analysis long after the primary miracle—the origin of a self-replicating organism with an information-rich genome—has already been assumed.
The authors make several key concessions that fatally undermine the grander evolutionary narrative:
- The Dominance of Non-Adaptive Processes: They correctly state that “the vast majority of DNA is non-coding” and that at the molecular level, “there is a neutral evolution of DNA sequences.” This is a critical admission. From a design perspective, this is not “neutral evolution” but evidence of genetic entropy. The relentless accumulation of near-neutral deleterious mutations across the genome is a process of decay and degradation, which the weak filtering power of natural selection is helpless to stop. This observed genomic decay aligns perfectly with the biblical model of a creation under a curse, subject to futility, not a system capable of building itself up from molecules to man.
- The “Assume a Gene” Fallacy: The authors’ entire discussion of natural selection, gene flow, and genetic drift presupposes the existence of functional genes, metabolic pathways, and complex cellular machinery. They discuss the modification of pre-existing information, but are silent on its origin. This is the classic “Assume a Gene” fallacy. The central mystery is not how a finch’s beak can change size by sorting existing genetic variants, but how the information for a beak, a bird, and a feathered flight system arose in the first place. This requires a cause capable of traversing a hyper-astronomical search space to find the vanishingly rare sequences that produce functional proteins and orchestrate their assembly into complex systems. Neither chance nor necessity, nor their combination in a “law” of selection, is causally adequate for this task.
- The Retreat to Complexity: The paper celebrates that “current evolutionary models incorporate different adaptive and non-adaptive processes,” including epigenetics and non-genetic inheritance. This is not an advance for Darwinism, but a retreat from its failed simplistic mechanism of random mutation and selection. These complex inheritance systems—which allow for rapid, targeted adaptations to environmental stress—are themselves irreducibly complex. They represent a layer of information and control on top of the genetic information, pointing to an even more profound level of engineering. From the perspective of the Nonrandom Evolutionary Hypothesis (NREH), these are not chance developments but pre-programmed adaptive systems, designed to enable organisms to respond to challenges and rapidly diversify within their created kinds.
Ultimately, the paper treats evolution as a “powerful utilitarian principle that makes sense of our biological world.” This is a philosophical claim, not a scientific one. An idea’s utility or its ability to organize data into a narrative does not make it true. The Ptolemaic system was also a “utilitarian principle” for centuries, yet it was fundamentally wrong. The evolutionary narrative only “makes sense” if one first assumes a materialistic worldview and ignores the glaring problem of informational origins.
An Inference to the Best Explanation
The methods of historical science demand that we seek a cause that is known to have the power to produce the effect in question. The effect we see in biology is the existence of digitally-encoded, specified information in DNA and the integrated complexity of the cellular machinery that reads and processes it.
- Chance & Necessity: As demonstrated by the combinatorial inflation problem, unguided chance is not a causally adequate explanation for the origin of a single functional protein, let alone an entire genome. The “laws” of chemistry and physics produce simple, repetitive order (like crystals), not the aperiodic complexity required to store information.
- Intelligent Design: In stark contrast, we have uniform and repeated experience that intelligent agents are capable of producing functionally specified information and integrated complex systems. From computer code to blueprints to poetry, intelligence is the only cause we have ever observed to produce this effect.
Therefore, the inference to an intelligent cause is not an argument from ignorance, but a positive inference based on our knowledge of cause and effect. The “law” of natural selection is a real, but limited, process. It is best understood not as a creative engine, but as a quality-control filter, a designed feature that operates on the vast, pre-existing library of genetic information that was front-loaded into the original created kinds. The rapid variation we observe is the result of the designed unpacking of this information, not its blind creation.
Conclusion
Van Wijnen and Lewallen’s commentary on the semantics of “law” and “theory” is an exercise in rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking ship. By focusing on philosophical definitions, they avoid confronting the fatal iceberg: the origin of biological information. Their own admissions—that much of the genome evolves neutrally (decays) and that the definition of evolution must be expanded to include complex (designed) inheritance systems—inadvertently reveal the bankruptcy of the neo-Darwinian mechanism. When the evidence is analyzed through a rigorous scientific and logical framework, it becomes clear that the “law” of natural selection is a minor operational principle. The overarching “theory” of unguided evolution, however, remains a philosophical assumption without a demonstrated, causally adequate mechanism. The signature in the cell points unambiguously to the only cause known to produce such a signature: a mind.
Leave a Reply