During lunch today I read a fine article, published in a Catholic monthly, about the ever-more evident frailties of Darwinism. The writer quoted prominent biologists—evolutionists to a man—who affirm that the missing links are still missing. The fossil record, they say, fails to show even one clear example of species A turning into species B. It shows many examples of one species disappearing and being replaced by another, but that is not the same thing. It also shows the development of minor variations within species but never a transition from one species into another.
As one might expect, this is awkward for Darwin’s theory, which holds that species develop from one another through a long series of minute changes. The quoted biologists do not reject evolution itself, but they say that the scheme given in the Origin of Species is not supported by the fossil record.
Or is it?
I have read articles in which the writers have said that there are many instances in the fossil record of one species transitioning into another. They were quite firm in their views. They insisted that many missing links have been found and, therefore, that Darwin was basically right.
I cannot square this with what has been said by the biologists quoted in the article I read today. I am not a biologist, and I do not have sufficient interest in the question of speciation to work up a knowledgeable conclusion on my own. But what does interest me is that people who are biologists and who do have demonstrated sufficient interest have come to opposite conclusions. One group says the links are missing, and the other says they have been found. It is not possible that both groups are correct, since the same link cannot be both missing and found.
How is a layman to approach such an impasse? Whom is he to believe? Or, maybe more practically, of whom should he be skeptical?
I phrase it that way because my rule of thumb, whether the question concerns science or politics or theology, is to give more weight to those who appear at ease in discussing the matter and less to those who appear agitated, on the principle that agitation often masks a fear that one’s position is not well grounded. I have found over the years that the truth of an idea is usually in inverse proportion to the decibels used to promote it. The louder the argument, the less merit it has.
My undergraduate degree was in the queen of the sciences, mathematics. I studied at a university that was considered to be one of the top science schools in the country, and that meant the ancillary courses I took in physics, chemistry, and biology were rigorous. Even though I took those courses a long time ago, and even though I have forgotten most of the mathematics I once knew, I retain an appreciation for the scientific method and an appreciation for the humility needed if one is to be a good scientist—or a good evangelist, for that matter.