Affiliation:
1. Independent Scholar, Mobile , Alabama , United States
Abstract
AbstractIn his theory of evolution by natural selection, Charles Darwin provided a plausible alternative to Christianity’s creation account of human origins. In response, the Christian botanist Asa Gray suggested that the variation that drives evolution might be generated by God. Darwin rejected Gray’s hypothesis, invoking philosophical naturalism, a hallmark scientific paradigm. Darwin’s conclusion was reached on ideological grounds rather than empirical ones. I frame the question of the source of biological variation in a way that is accessible to modern experimental science and trace historical advances in biology that have accumulated to favor Gray’s theistic view. In particular, I show that empirical evidence collected subsequent to Darwin’s time contradicts the assumption of randomness in the mutation process, and thereby undermines the basis for his invocation of naturalism in the origins of biological variation.
Reference71 articles.
1. Alberts, Bruce, Dennis Bray, Julian Lewis, Martin Raff, Keith Roberts, and James D. Watson. Molecular Biology of the Cell. New York: Garland Publishing, 1994.
2. Allen, Garland E. Thomas Hunt Morgan: The Man and His Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978.
3. Allen, Garland E. “The Evolutionary Synthesis: Morgan and Natural Selection Revisited.” In The Evolutionary Synthesis: Perspectives on the Unification of Biology, edited by Ernst Mayr and William B. Provine, 356–82. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998.
4. Antonarakis, Stylianos E. and David N. Cooper. “Human Gene Mutation: Mechanisms and Consequences.” In Vogel and Motulsky’s Human Genetics: Problems and Approaches, edited by Michael Speicher and Stylianos E. Antonarakis. New York: Springer, 2010.
5. Baer, Charles F., Michael M. Miyamoto, and Dee R. Denver. “Mutation Rate Variation in Multicellular Eukaryotes: Causes and Consequences.” Nature Reviews Genetics 8 (2007), 619–31. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2158.