SpringerLink
Log in

Not by Selection Alone: Evolutionary Explanations and Their Requirements

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Compatibility of Evolution and Design

Part of the book series: Palgrave Frontiers in Philosophy of Religion ((PFPR))

  • 285 Accesses

Abstract

The alleged opposition between design arguments and evolution goes back to the discussions between Darwin and Asa Gray, and this chapter analyzes both traditional and contemporary ways of formulating the opposition. The chapter shows how responses to contemporary anti-evolutionist objections and advances in the understanding of the requirements of evolution point to an understanding of evolution in which the wider teleology of the cosmos is crucial for explaining the biological forms that evolution produces. I argue that as biologists continue to explore “laws of form” and other features of nature that provide some directionality of evolution, the alleged opposition between design and evolutionary explanations is weakened.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Quoted in Giberson and Artigas (2006, 32–33).

  2. 2.

    However, Fodor and Piattello-Palmarini argue that descriptions of selection as “selecting for” something need to be drastically revised due to their inappropriate reference to intentionality.

  3. 3.

    Darwin (1860) states along these lines in a letter to Lyell: “The very existence of the architect shows the existence of more general laws; but no one in giving credit for a building to the human architect thinks it necessary to refer to the laws by which man has appeared. No astronomer in showing how movements of Planets are due to gravity, thinks it necessary to say that the law of gravity was designed [so] that the planets shd. pursue the courses which they pursue. I cannot believe there is a bit more interference by the Creator in the construction of each species, than in the course of the planets. It is only owing to Paley & Co, as I believe, that this more special interference is thought necessary with living bodies.”

  4. 4.

    The discussion of infinite variations and trials as an alternative was debated extensively in the ancient Greek debates on design and chance (Sedley 2007, chapter 5). Dawkins (1986, 67) also uses the example of infinite monkeys.

  5. 5.

    Many would add, following the previously mentioned discussion of neutral evolution, that not all intermediate steps even need to be advantageous. However, at least the intermediate steps cannot be very disadvantageous.

  6. 6.

    This is from Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 2.

  7. 7.

    The example of the tornado in a junkyard originates with Hoyle (1983, 7).

  8. 8.

    For Wolpert’s own critique of Dembski, see Wolpert (2002). However, Häggström (2007a, 229–230) argues persuasively that the NFL theorem can in fact also be applied to co-evolutionary scenarios.

  9. 9.

    Ibid., 39.

  10. 10.

    Brandon and Tooze (1999) speculate that even one out of 100 amino acid sequences may achieve a stable fold, but this seems far too low in comparison to the other estimates. Quoted in Denton et al. (2002, 336).

  11. 11.

    For discussion of these theoretical concepts, see particularly Pigliucci (2010) and McGhee (1999).

  12. 12.

    Axe ’s (2017, 223) response to Wagner is disappointing: “Being familiar with the subject he deals with, I could tell you why I think he didn’t succeed, but in effect I would be asking you to trust me over him, which none of us should find satisfactory. Instead, my whole purpose has been to equip you to trust your own design intuition.” Axe thinks that the design intuition coupled with commonsense reasoning should lead us to suspect any model of evolution where complexity arises without design. But this is of little help to someone who thinks that the basic reliability of the design intuition is compatible with evolution, as I am arguing in this book.

  13. 13.

    Quoted in Alexander (2018, 62).

  14. 14.

    It could be argued that Owen’s approach is quite distant from the Paleyan tradition of teleology, which sees the evidence of design in the adaptive complexity of life. In contrast, the morphologists, whom Owen represents, saw evidence of design in the repeating patterns of life, reflecting a divine mind. See Bowler (1977). In contrast, Gray saw evolutionary biology as combining the two strands of Paleyan teleology and morphology, and the salvaged biological design argument attempts the same. Gray (1888a [1874]) wrote: “let us recognize Darwin’s great service to natural science in bringing back to it Teleology, so that, instead of Morphology versus Teleology, we shall have Morphology wedded to Teleology.”

  15. 15.

    Quoted in Moritz (2019, 303).

References

  • Aguilar-Rodriguez, J.F., and A. Wagner. 2009. Evolutionary Plasticity and Innovations in Complex Metabolic Reaction Networks (Plasticity and Innovations in Metabolic Networks). PLoS Computational Biology 5 (12): e1000613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aguilar-Rodríguez, J., J.L. Payne, and A. Wagner. 2017. A Thousand Empirical Adaptive Landscapes and Their Navigability. Nature Ecology & Evolution 1 (2): 45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aguilar-Rodríguez, José, Leto Peel, Massimo Stella, Andreas Wagner, and Joshua L. Payne. 2018. The Architecture of an Empirical Genotype-Phenotype Map. Evolution 72 (6): 1242–1260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahnert, S.E. 2017. Structural Properties of Genotype-Phenotype Maps. Journal of the Royal Society, Interface 14 (132): 20170275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, Denis. 2018. Is There Purpose in Biology? Oxford: Lion Hudson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ardern, Zachary. 2018. What Can Biology Tell Us About Genesis? Capturing Christianity, June 25. Available at https://capturingchristianity.com/what-can-biology-teach-us-about-genesis/.

  • Ariew, André. 2007. Teleology. In The Cambridge Companion to the Philosophy of Biology, ed. David L. Hull, 160–181. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Axe, Douglas. 2004. Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds. Journal of Molecular Biology 341 (5): 1295–1315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2017. Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed. San Francisco, CA: HarperOne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayala, Francisco. 2010. Darwin’s Explanation of Design: From Natural Theology to Natural Selection. Infection, Genetics and Evolution 10 (6): 840–843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behe, Michael J. 2001. Reply to My Critics: A Response to Reviews of Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. Biology & Philosophy 16 (5): 685–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2006. Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. 10th Anniversary ed. New York, NY: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2007. The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism. New York, NY: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2019. Darwin Devolves: The New Science about DNA That Challenges Evolution. San Francisco, CA: HarperOne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berhow, Michael. 2019. Dysteleology: A Philosophical Assessment of Suboptimal Design in Biology. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlinski, David. 2004. A Scientific Scandal. Commentary, April. Available at https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/david-berlinski/a-scientific-scandal/.

  • Bertka, Constance M., ed. 2009. Exploring the Origin, Extent, and Future of Life: Philosophical, Ethical, and Theological Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blancke, Stefaan, Maarten Boudry, and Johan Braeckman. 2011. Simulation of Biological Evolution Under Attack, But Not Really: A Response to Meester. Biology & Philosophy 26 (1): 113–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boudry, Maarten, Stefaan Blancke, and Johan Braeckman. 2010. Irreducible Incoherence and Intelligent Design: A Look into the Conceptual Toolbox of a Pseudoscience. The Quarterly Review of Biology 85 (4): 473–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowler, Peter J. 1977. Darwinism and the Argument from Design: Suggestions for a Re-evaluation. Journal of the History of Biology 10 (1): 29–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowler, Peter. 2009. Evolution: The History of an Idea. 25th Anniversary ed. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brandon, C., and J. Tooze. 1999. Introduction to Protein Structure. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Garland Publishing Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne, Janet. 2010. Asa Gray and Charles Darwin: Corresponding Naturalists. Harvard Papers in Botany 15 (2): 209–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, Sean B. 2001. Chance and Necessity: The Evolution of Morphological Complexity and Diversity. Nature 409: 1102–1109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conway Morris, Simon. 2005. Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2009. The Predictability of Evolution: Glimpses into a Post-Darwinian World. Naturwissenschaften 96: 1313–1337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010. Evolution: Like Any Other Science It Is Predictable. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 365 (1537): 133–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. The Runes of Evolution: How the Universe Became Self-Aware. West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coyne, Jerry. 2007. The Great Mutator. The New Republic 39: 38–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, Charles. 1860. To Charles Lyell, 17 June. The Darwin Correspondence Project. Available at https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-2833.xml.

  • ———. 1861. To Charles Lyell, 1 August 1861. Darwin Correspondence Project, Letter No. 3223. Available at https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-3223.xml.

  • ———. 1868. The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication. Vol. 2 vols. London: John Murray.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1958 [1887]. In The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, ed. Nora Barlow. London: Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2008 [1859]. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. 2nd Edition (1859). Oxford World’s Classics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, Gregory. 2007. What Is Wrong with Intelligent Design? International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 61 (2): 69–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, Richard. 1986. The Blind Watchmaker. Harlow: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dembski, William A. 1998. The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities. Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2002a. No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2002b. Obsessively Criticized but Scarcely Refuted: A Response to Richard Wein. Design Inference.com. Available at: https://billdembski.com/documents/05.02.resp_to_wein.htm.

  • ———. 2004. Irreducible Complexity Revisited. Unpublished Paper. Available at https://billdembski.com/documents/2004.01.Irred_Compl_Revisited.pdf.

  • Dembski, William A., and Robert J. Marks II. 2009a. Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics A, Systems & Humans 5 (5): 1051–1061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2009b. Life’s Conservation Law: Why Darwinian Evolution Cannot Create Biological Information. In The Nature of Nature, ed. Bruce Gordon and William A. Dembski. Wilmington, DE: ISI Books. Chapter 16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dembski, William A., Winston Ewert, and Robert Marks II. 2016. Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics. Singapore: World Scientific.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, Daniel C. 1995a. Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, Daniel. 1995b. Comment on Brian Goodwin, ‘Biology is Just a Dance.’ Edge Conversations. Edge.org. Available at https://www.edge.org/conversation/brian_goodwin-chapter-4-biology-is-just-a-dance#21968.

  • Denton, Michael. 2013. The Types: A Persistent Structuralist Challenge to Darwinian Pan-Selectionism. Bio-Complexity 3: 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2016. Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis. Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denton, Michael, and Craig Marshall. 2001. Laws of Form Revisited. Nature 410 (6827): 417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denton, M.J., Craig Marshall, and Michael Legge. 2002. The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the Pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law. Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (3): 325–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Draper, Paul. 2002. Irreducible Complexity and Darwinian Gradualism: A Reply to Michael J. Behe. Faith and Philosophy 19 (1): 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Duve, Christian. 1984. A Guided Tour of the Living Cell. New York: Scientific American.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erwin, Douglas H. 2016. Wonderful Life Revisited: Chance and Contingency in the Ediacaran-Cambrian Radiation. In Chance in Evolution, ed. Grant Ramsey and Charles H. Pence, 327–353. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ewert, Winston. 2016. Ev Ever Again. Evolution News and Views, March 23. Available at https://evolutionnews.org/2016/03/ev_ever_again/.

  • ———. 2017. Digital Evolution: Predictions of Design. In Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical and Theological Critique, ed. J.P. Moreland, Stephen C. Meyer, Christopher Shaw, Ann K. Gauger, and Wayne Grudem, 151–216. Wheaton, IL: Crossway.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ewert, Winston, Dembski, William A., and Marks, Robert II. 2009. Evolutionary Synthesis of Nand Logic: Dissecting a Digital Organism. In Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, San Antonio, TX. October 2009, pp. 3047–3053.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrera, Evandro, and Andreas Wagner. 2011. Evolutionary Innovations and the Organization of Protein Functions in Genotype Space. PLoS ONE 5 (11): e14172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, Jerry, and Massimo Piattello-Palmarini. 2011. What Darwin Got Wrong. London: Profile Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortuna, Miguel A., Luis Zaman, Charles Ofria, and Andreas Wagner. 2017. The Genotype-Phenotype Map of an Evolving Digital Organism. PLoS Computational Biology. 13 (2): e1005414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, Scott, and John C. Herron. 2007. Evolutionary Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fry, Iris. 2000. The Emergence of Life on Earth: A Historical and Scientific Overview. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gauger, Ann, and Douglas Axe. 2011. The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway. Bio-Complexity 1: 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giberson, Karl, and Mariano Artigas. 2006. Oracles of Science: Celebrity Scientists Versus God and Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gishlick, Alan. 2004. Evolutionary Paths to Irreducible Systems: The Avian Flight Apparatus. In Why Intelligent Design Fails: The Scientific Critique of the New Creationism, ed. Matt Young and Taner Edis, 58–71. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glass, David, and Mark McCartney. 2014. Explaining and Explaining Away in Science and Religion. Theology and Science 12 (4): 338–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, Brian. 2001. How the Leopard Changed Its Spots: The Evolution of Complexity. First Princeton Edition with New Preface. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, Stephen Jay. 1989. Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History. New York: W.W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1996. Full House: The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin. New York, NY: Harmony Books.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, Stephen Jay, and Elisabeth S. Vrba. 1982. Exaptation: A Missing Term in the Science of Form. Paleobiology 8 (1): 4–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, Asa. 1860. Natural Selection Not Inconsistent with Natural Theology. Atlantic Monthly for July, August and October, 1860. Darwiniana: Essays and Reviews Pertaining to Darwinism. New York: D. Appleton, 1888 [1874].

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1888a [1874]. Charles Darwin: Sketch Accompanying a Portrait in ‘Nature’. In Darwiniana, 283–288. New York, NY: D. Appleton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1888b [1874]. Darwiniana: Essays and Reviews Pertaining to Darwinism. New York: D. Appleton.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, Paul E. 1996. Darwinism, Process Structuralism, and Natural Kinds. Philosophy of Science 63 (3): S1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Häggström, Olle. 2007a. Intelligent Design and the NFL Theorems. Biology & Philosophy 22 (2): 217–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2007b. Uniform Distribution Is a Probability Distribution. Unpublished Paper. Available at http://www.math.chalmers.se/~olleh/reply_to_Dembski.pdf.

  • Hecht, Michael, Das Aditi, Abigail Go, Luke H. Bradley, and Wei Yinan. 2004. De Novo Proteins from Designed Combinatorial Libraries. Protein Science 13 (7): 1711–1723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Himma, Kenneth. 2005. “The Application-Conditions for Design Inferences: Why the Design Arguments Need the Help of Other Arguments for God’s Existence.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion Vol. 57. No. 1 (2005). 1–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoggard Creegan, Nicole. 2013. Animal Suffering and the Problem of Evil. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hoyle, Fred. 1983. The Intelligent Universe: A New View of Creation and Evolution. London: Michael Joseph Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ilardo, Melissa, Markus Meringer, Stephen Freeland, Bakhtiyor Rasulev, and H. James I.I. Cleaves. 2015. Extraordinarily Adaptive Properties of the Genetically Encoded Amino Acids. Scientific Reports 5 (1): 9414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez, Jose, Ramon Xulvi-Brunet, Gregory W. Campbell, Rebecca Turk-MacLeod, and Irene A. Chen. 2013. Comprehensive Experimental Fitness Landscape and Evolutionary Network for Small RNA. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences – PNAS 110 (37): 14984–14989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • John, J.D., D.S. Linden, G.S. Hornby, A. Rodriguez-Arroyo, S.E. Seufert, B. Blevins, and T. Greeling. 2004. Evolutionary Design of an X-Band Antenna for NASA’s Space Technology 5 Mission. IEEE Antennas and Propagation Society International Symposium 3: 2313–2316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Curtis. 2015. Darwin’s Dice: The Idea of Chance in the Thought of Charles Darwin. New York, NY & Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kacar, Betül. 2016. Rolling the Dice Twice: Evolving Reconstructed Ancient Proteins in Extant Organisms. In Chance in Evolution, ed. Grant Ramsey and Charles H. Pence, 312–327. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman, Stuart A. 1996. The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman, Stuart. 2000. Investigations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman, Stuart A. 2008. Reinventing the Sacred: A New View of Science, Reason and Religion. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2013. Evolution beyond Newton, Darwin and Entailing Law: The Origin of Complexity in the Evolving Biosphere. In Complexity and the Arrow of Time, ed. C.H. Lineweaver, P. Davies, and M. Ruse, 162–190. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kojonen, Erkki Vesa Rope. 2016. The Intelligent Design Debate and the Temptation of Scientism. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Koonin, Eugene V. 2007. The Cosmological Model of Eternal Inflation and the Transition from Chance to Biological Evolution in the History of Life. Biology Direct 2 (1): 15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koonin, Eugene, and Yuri A. Wolf. 2010. Constraints and Plasticity in Genome and Molecular-Phenome Evolution. Nature Reviews Genetics 11: 487–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laland, Kevin, Tobias Uller, Marc Feldman, Kim Sterelny, Gerd B. Müller, Armin Moczek, Eva Odling-Smee Jablonka, Wray John, A. Gregory, Hopi E. Hoekstra, Douglas J. Futuyma, Richard E. Lenski, Trudy F.C. Mackay, Dolph Schluter, and Joan E. Strassmann. 2014. Does Evolutionary Theory Need a Rethink? Nature 514 (7521): 161–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenski, R.E., C. Ofria, R.T. Pennock, and C. Adami. 2003. The Evolutionary Origin of Complex Features. Nature 423 (6936): 139–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewens, Tim. 2007. Adaptation. In The Cambridge Companion to Philosophy of Biology, ed. David L. Hull, 1–21. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Livingstone, David N. 2020. The Telos of Darwin’s Troubling Metaphor: Darwin’s Pigeons, Dennett’s Cranes, Fodor’s Granny. Paper for the Conjunctive Explanations in Science and Religion Conference, September 2–September 3, 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loikkanen, Juuso. 2019. A Bridge Between Science and Theology? William A. Dembski´s Theory of Intelligent Design. Publications of the University of Eastern Finland. Dissertations in Education, Humanities, and Theology. No. 140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louis, Ard A. 2016. Contingency, Convergence and Hyper-astronomical Numbers in Biological Evolution. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biology & Biomedical Science 58: 107–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGhee, George. 1999. Theoretical Morphology: The Concept and Its Applications. Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. Convergent Evolution: Limited Forms Most Beautiful. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McLeish, Tom. 2020. Evolution as the Unwrap** of the Gift of Freedom. Scientia et Fides 8 (2): 43–64. https://doi.org/10.12775/SetF.2020.014.

  • Meester, R.W.J. 2009. Simulation of Biological Evolution and the No Free Lunch Theorems. Biology and Philosophy 24: 461–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, Stephen C. 2013. Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, Kenneth. 2002. Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreland, J.P., Stephen C. Meyer, Christopher Shaw, Ann K. Gauger, and Wayne Grudem. 2017. Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical and Theological Critique. Wheaton, IL: Crossway.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moritz, Joshua M. 2019. Contingency, Convergence, Constraints, and the Challenge from Theodicy in Creation’s Evolution. In God’s Providence and Randomness in Nature: Scientific and Theological Perspectives, ed. Robert J. Russell and Joshua M. Moritz, 289–328. West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conway Morris, Simon, and Stephen Jay Gould. 1998. Showdown on the Burgess Shale. Natural History Magazine 107 (10): 48–55. Available at http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/naturalhistory_cambrian.html.

    Google Scholar 

  • Musgrave, Ian. 2004. The Evolution of the Bacterial Flagellum. In Why Intelligent Design Fails: The Scientific Critique of the New Creationism, ed. Matt Young and Taner Edis, 72–84. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, Dan-e, and Susanne Pelger. 1994. A Pessimistic Estimate of the Time Required for an Eye to Evolve. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. 256 (1345): 53–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noble, Denis. 2008. The Music of Life: Biology Beyond the Genome. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orr, Allen. 1996. Darwin v. Intelligent Design (Again). Boston Review. December/January Issue.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oslington, Paul. 2012. God and the Market: Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand. Journal of Business Ethics 108 (4): 429–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paley, William. 2008 [1802]. Natural Theology. Oxford World’s Classics. Oxford: Oxford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pallen, Mark J., and Nicholas J. Matzke. 2006. From the Origin of Species to the Origin of Bacterial Flagella. Nature Reviews Microbiology 4 (10): 784–790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perakh, Mark. 2004. There Is a Free Lunch After All: Dembski’s Wrong Answers to Irrelevant Questions. In Why Intelligent Design Fails: The Scientific Critique of the New Creationism, ed. Matt Young and Taner Edis, 153–171. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pigliucci, Massimo. 2010. Genotype–Phenotype Map** and the End of the ‘Genes as Blueprint’ Metaphor. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 365 (1540): 557–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012. Landscapes, Surfaces, and Morphospaces: What Are They Good For? In The Adaptive Landscape in Evolutionary Biology, ed. Ryan Calsbeek and Erik I. Svensson, 26–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2016.The Neo-Platonic Argument for Evolution Could not be More Wrong. Nautilus. http://nautil.us/blog/the-neo_platonic-argument-for-evolution-couldnt-be-more-wrong.

  • Pigliucci, Massimo, and Gerd B. Müller, eds. 2010. Evolution: The Extended Synthesis. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressman, Abe D., Ziwei Liu, Evan Janzen, Celia Blanco, Ulrich F. Müller, Gerald F. Joyce, Robert Pascal, and Irene Chen. 2019. Map** a Systematic Ribozyme Fitness Landscape Reveals a Frustrated Evolutionary Network for Self-Aminoacylating RNA. Journal of the American Chemical Society 141: 6213–6223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridley, Mark. 2004. Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riskin, Jessica. 2016. The Restless Clock: A History of the Centuries-Long Argument over What Makes Living Things Tick. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rockoff, Hugh. 2011. Parallel Journeys: Adam Smith and Milton Friedman on the Regulation of Banking. Journal of Cultural Economy 4 (3): 255–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruse, Michael. 2013. Wrestling with Biological Complexity: From Darwin to Dawkins. In Complexity and the Arrow of Time, ed. C.H. Lineweaver, P. Davies, and M. Ruse, 279–307. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sedley, David. 2007. Creationism and Its Critics in Antiquity. Sather Classical Lectures 66. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sepkoski, David. 2008. Macroevolution. In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Biology, ed. Michael Ruse, 211–237. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanks, Niall. 2007. God, the Devil and Darwin: A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, Dan. 2013. Evolutionary Optimization Algorithms: Biologically-Inspired and Population-Based Approaches to Computer Intelligence. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sober, Elliott. 2008. Evidence and Evolution: The Logic Behind the Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S.V., K.U. Walter, P. Kast, and D. Hilvert. 2001. Searching Sequence Space for Protein Catalysts. Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences USA 98: 1056–1060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tian, Pengfei, and Robert B. Best. 2017. How Many Protein Sequences Fold to a Given Structure? A Coevolutionary Analysis. Biophysics Journal 113 (8): 1719–1730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tokuriki, Nobuhiko, and Dan S. Tawfik. 2009. Stability Effects of Mutations and Protein Evolvability. Current Opinion in Structural Biology 19 (5): 596–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatarayalu, N. V., and Ray, T. 2003. Single and Multi-Objective Design of Yagi-Uda Antennas Using Computational Intelligence. The 2003 Congress on Evolutionary Computation, CEC ‘03, 8–12 December 2003. 1237–1242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, Andreas. 2014. Arrival of the Fittest: Solving Evolution’s Greatest Mystery. New York, NY: Current.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2016. Without a Platonic Library of Forms, Evolution Couldn’t Work. Aeon.com. March 16. Available at https://aeon.co/essays/without-a-library-of-platonic-forms-evolution-couldn-t-work.

  • Ward, Keith. 2004. Theistic Evolution. In Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA, ed. William A. Dembski and Michael Ruse, 261–274. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Weinreich, Daniel, Nigel F. Delaney, Mark A. DePristo, and Daniel L. Hartl. 2006. Darwinian Evolution Can Follow Only Very Few Mutational Paths to Fitter Proteins. Science 312 (5770): 111–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wichmann, Stefan, and Zachary Ardern. 2019. Optimality in the Standard Genetic Code Is Robust with Respect to Comparison Code Sets. Bio Systems 185: 104023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willmer, Patricia. 2003. Convergence and Homoplasy in the Evolution of Organismal Form. In Origination of Organismal Form: Beyond the Gene in Developmental and Evolutionary Biology, ed. Gerd Müller and Stuart Newman, 33–50. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolpert, D. H. 2002. William Dembski’s Treatment of No Free Lunch Theorems Is Written In Jello. Posted on December 13, 2002 at Talk Reason. Available at www.talkreason.org/articles/jello.cfm.

  • Wolpert, D.H., and W.G. Macready. 1997. No Free Lunch Theorems for Optimization. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 1 (1): 67–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Helsinki Faculty of Theology, Helsinki, Finland

    E. V. R. Kojonen

Authors
  1. E. V. R. Kojonen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. V. R. Kojonen .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kojonen, E.V.R. (2021). Not by Selection Alone: Evolutionary Explanations and Their Requirements. In: The Compatibility of Evolution and Design. Palgrave Frontiers in Philosophy of Religion. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69683-2_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation