# Intelligent Design vs Evolution **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 9, 2005, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-vs-evolution/307650 "2005-06-09T21:24:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2005, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-vs-evolution/307650/61 "2005-06-12T00:49:01Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I dunno. You’ve exchanged some pretty harsh words simply to note that _there is no theory of abiogenesis in the scientific literature_ You have managed, as usual, to totally misconstrue what I have clearly written. Mypoint was never to “note that _there is no theory of abiogenesis in the scientific literature_”. My point was to refute MTGMan’s contention that there were theories of abiogenesis in the scientific literature. See the difference? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2005, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-vs-evolution/307650/62 "2005-06-12T01:00:53Z")
Wow. In the stellar furnaces of the mightiest stars, hydrogen was forced by the unyielding gravity to combine, creating the light of the galaxies, then forced to combine again and again before releasing the end products of this cosmic maelstrom upon a cold and empty void, where such matter could coalesce into the iron, nickel, silicon, and oxygen to form a dense planet, on which the cauldron of life would boil and simmer and struggle and eventually form an open chain of evolution culminating thus far in, among others, two life-forms named Mtgman and Blake, who would snipe at each other on a message board. Heavy. Or alternately, all life was invented by a guy named Fred, last Tuesday. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2005, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-vs-evolution/307650/63 "2005-06-12T03:12:10Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > You have managed, as usual, to totally misconstrue what I have clearly written. Mypoint was never to “note that _there is no theory of abiogenesis in the scientific literature_”. My point was to refute MTGMan’s contention that there were theories of abiogenesis in the scientific literature. > > See the difference? I certainly see that for all your pent up frustration that posters are not reading what you have “clearly written” you are attributing to **Mtgman** a statement that he did not make. At the point where you decided to take umbrage, he had made reference to an “abiogenesis-related theory” which he used as an example of how an actual theory of abiogenesis _might_ be treated. Since he made no claim that there was a theory of abiogenesis in the literature, your angst seems misplaced. As an analogy: Had Mendel’s 1865 paper gotten widespread attention when it was published while Darwin’s and Wallace’s (and Lamarck’s and fellows) papers had languished until 1893 or later, we would have had an example in Mendel’s work of an “evolution-related theory” even though we did not have a theory of evolution in the scientific literature. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2005, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-vs-evolution/307650/64 "2005-06-12T12:34:21Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I certainly see that for all your pent up frustration that posters are not reading what you have “clearly written” you are attributing to **Mtgman** a statement that he did not make. At the point where you decided to take umbrage, he had made reference to an “abiogenesis-related theory” which he used as an example of how an actual theory of abiogenesis _might_ be treated. Since he made no claim that there was a theory of abiogenesis in the literature, your angst seems misplaced. Yeah, **Blake** What he said…with one of these 😛 ---
**Author:** ![IAMBIC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b3f665/32.png) [@IAMBIC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IAMBIC)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2005, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-vs-evolution/307650/65 "2005-06-12T14:23:58Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > In the stellar furnaces of the mightiest stars, hydrogen was forced by the unyielding gravity to combine, creating the light of the galaxies, then forced to combine again and again before releasing the end products of this cosmic maelstrom upon a cold and empty void, where such matter could coalesce into the iron, nickel, silicon, and oxygen to form a dense planet, on which the cauldron of life would boil and simmer and struggle and eventually form an open chain of evolution culminating thus far in, among others, two life-forms named Mtgman and Blake, who would snipe at each other on a message board. A nice (perhaps unintendend) touch of irony, beyond the obvious facetiousness. You present a story about abiogenesis \*and \* evolution, and you start the story with gravity and atomic fusion, both of which have been formulated scientifically, studied experimentally, and have been verified and could be potentially falsfied. But after the heavier elements are created and the Earth is formed (btw, you didn’t mention carbon or the creation of organic molecules, but, yeah, how much detail do you really need in a cute story), you then have an unspecified cauldron “struggle and eventually form” something. \*Struggling and eventually forming \* is not exactly a scientific theory, although, obviously, you were being deliberately simplistic. But it seems that we don’t yet have theories of abiogenesis and evolution that are as “scientific” as that of gravity and atomic fusion. Which, in a convoluted and confused way, is kind of the point of the OP. But proponents of Intelligent Design are merely pointing out what’s wrong with current theories of evolution, rather than making positive, testable claims of their own. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2005, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-vs-evolution/307650/66 "2005-06-12T15:37:34Z")
> [@](#): > > But it seems that we don’t yet have theories of abiogenesis and evolution that are as “scientific” as that of gravity and atomic fusion. > > . . . > > But proponents of Intelligent Design are merely pointing out what’s wrong with current theories of evolution, rather than making positive, testable claims of their own. Actually, we do have a very well formulated (and, as yet, never successfully refuted) theory of evolution which has withstood 146 years of assault and challenge. The ID people are simply uncomfortable with the ramifications of that successful theory and are attempting to interpose an unnecessary agent into areas where we have not yet discovered the complete train of events. Yet, as we continue to examine biochemical development, we have already, for example, closed several of the “gaps” into which Behe claimed that there was no possible bridge. ID does not challenge evolutionary theory; it demonstrates a lack of imagination on the part of people who are frightened by the Theory of Natural Selection. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2005, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-vs-evolution/307650/67 "2005-06-12T15:44:39Z")
> [@IAMBIC](#): > > But proponents of Intelligent Design are merely pointing out what’s wrong with current theories of evolution, rather than making positive, testable claims of their own. Fine, as long as they don’t destroy the one named Kirk. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2005, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-vs-evolution/307650/68 "2005-06-12T17:38:25Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > How does Punctuated Equilibrium “strain[s] the likelihood of random mutations”? If mutations occur at an even rate throughout a population, any event that would reduce the size of an interbreeding population would magnify the effect on that population by any mutation, especially since the population would no longer be so large as to subsume and annihilate all mutations. Well, this time I’m not making an argument but laying out a number of striking distinctions that are relevent to the ID debate but which I don’t think are being made. I could easily left out the refernce to Gould’s theory of puctuated equilibrium. But if we must, PE implys that whole series of constructive mutations take place in rapid succession among small populations of species, while none at all are occuring among the broader populations. This creates an opening for suggesting that some kind of special circumstances are play when evolution is occuring. Or not. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2005, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-vs-evolution/307650/69 "2005-06-12T18:25:15Z")
> [@](#): > > PE implys that whole series of constructive mutations take place in rapid succession among small populations of species, while none at all are occuring among the broader populations. Except that PE does not imply any such thing. Constructive (and destructive) mutations occur across the entire population of a species at a steady rate. It is simply that they tend to be subsumed by larger populations while, mathematically, they have a better chance to express themselves and take hold in limited populations. No special design element is requred for that to happen. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2005, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-vs-evolution/307650/70 "2005-06-12T18:42:57Z")
Reflecting on our exchange, I would note that this seems to me to be the whole problem with the ID movement: they appear to have to create situations into which they can wedge their explorations rather than simply trying to discover what is actually in the record. Just as simple math makes PE work without calls on special agents (and your source of ID informations seems to have made the erroneous (mendacious?) claim that mutations are happening at special rates in smaller populations), so, too, with examples such as Behe who found gaps in the developments of flagella and bombardier beetles and leaped to insert a designer when just a couple more years’ worth of investigation turned up explanations very consitent with Natural Selection that did not require a Designer. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2005, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-vs-evolution/307650/71 "2005-06-12T20:32:30Z")
> [@sqweels](#): > > But if we must, **PE implys that whole series of constructive mutations take place in rapid succession among small populations of species, while none at all are occuring among the broader populations.** This creates an opening for suggesting that some kind of special circumstances are play when evolution is occuring. Or not. No. First of all, mutation occurs at a more or less constant rate; that is to say, radiation or mutagentic substances can affect rates of mutation, and different parts of the genome are more or less subsceptible to mutation, but punctuated equilibrium doesn’t require a change in the rate of mutations, or that they be limited to small populations. Second, thinking of mutations in terms of “constructive” vs. “destructive” is a gross simplification and a false diachotomy; mutations are beneficial or not to their host based upon their phenotypical effects. A mutation that gives an ungulate herbivore the ability to much leaves on higher branches than his contemporaries offers an advantage, which is likely to allow the animal in question to better prospher in times when leaves are scarce, and therefore more likely to reproduce and pass on its genes, including the one that allows for the higher reach. However, the same gene, and even the same phenotype, may have negative effects; the higher reach may be accompanied by stretched musculature and skeletal elements that are more likely to strain or break, or it may require more energy to maintain, or whatnot. Mutations are “good” or “bad”, and are often both simultaneously (as with sickle cell anemia) based upon their effect upon the carrier and species, but only as seen in hindsight. In other words, genes (and their carriers) don’t survive because they’re good; therey’re good because they survive. This brings us to punctuated equilibria; this happens when some kind of rapid environmental or life cycle change occurs which alters the “economy” upon which phenotypes are measured. If, for instance, a rash of volcanos goes off, spewing ash into the air for several years and causing a regional or global alteration in available sunlight and average temperature, this will have an effect on vegetation and photosynthetic organisms which depend on certain cycles and temperatures Now, the less efficient members of those classes, those say, that made less use of sunlight, are suddenly in a better position. Whereas the previously grew slower and made less use of resources, they now grow at just the right speed, while their more energetic brethern will continue to spin their wheels trying to use materials but lacking enough energy to put them together. Suddenly, populations that were small because they weren’t able to compete effectively or only survived in a tiny niche now have the capabilities to expand and compete effectively, while populations that were large and topheavy in the old regime now can’t forage or make use of tthe new environment and so are reduced in number. Consider General Motors–once, the worlds largest and most respected automaker-- and, say, Toyota, with their little undesireable econoboxes and tiny engines; when the “environment” (i.e. the price of gas) changed, the econoboxes became superior to the gas-guzzling bohemeaths cranked out in Flint. The effects if this run up the food chain, of course, through herbivores and various predators, and back around to the scavengers, parasites, and bacteria that feed on them, and laterally between different species that exist in some kind of sympathetic or synergetic relationship. Normally, species can survive and adapt to normal environmental shifts without dramatic reorganizations, but once in a while, a massive change in environment, or just the right set of conditions (such as a key species which is verging toward extinction) is enough to create a large instability in the economics of ecology. In other words, PE occurs because something that was less valuable yesterday–say, the Euro versus the American Dollar–is now more valuable today. There’s no inherent change in the structure of the unit in question (Jackson’s face is still on the $20) but what it can by or be traded for is different, and if that change is radical enough it may cause massive shifts in trading and economic dominance. There’s no mysticism or supernatural agents behind PE; just the simple game theory models that drive all exchange processes. Although it is chaotic and unpredictable, the principles are simple and the changes are clear in hindsight. Intelligent Design is an _argumentum ad ignoratum_, an appeal to the notion that because we are ignorant of a connection or causation, that therefore must be some kind of inexplicable cause; a God-of-the-Gaps to fill in what we don’t know. The truth is that, simply, we don’t know but strive to find out; that’s the scientific approach; hypthesize, test, falsify, refine, repeat. ID strives to offer up the quick answer (“Goddidit!”) while insisting that we pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. There is nothing scientific about it, even when promoted by PhD’s in biochemistry. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2005, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-vs-evolution/307650/72 "2005-06-12T22:25:19Z")
> [@sqweels](#): > > There _aren’t just two_! Here is a list of several possible scenarios. Maybe some of you can indicate which one you lean in favor of, or give some alternatives: > > 1. The Earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old and all species were specially created at that time. > > 2. A smaller number of “proto-species” were specially created 6,000 years ago and those that survived on Noah’s Ark “micro-evolved” over the last 4-5,000 years to their present forms. > > 3. The Earth is billions of years old, but each species (or proto-species) was created separately over the course of that time-frame. > > 4. The Earth is billions of years old and all living things evolved except humans, who were specially created 6-10,000 years ago, and remains of human ancestors are either advanced apes or decendants of Adam and Eve. > > 5. All life evolved, but the first bit of DNA was intelligently designed, and bouts of “punctuated equilibrium” were intelligently engineered to create new species from old ones. > > 6. All life evolved without any supernatural intervention. Indeed! And you can add more, such as: 1. God created the Universe last Thursday and popped in false memories / the fossil record / light from other galaxies etc, simply to test our faith in Him. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2005, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-vs-evolution/307650/73 "2005-06-12T23:16:05Z")
> [@glee](#): > > 1. God created the Universe last Thursday and popped in false memories / the fossil record / light from other galaxies etc, simply to test our faith in Him. really!!! Why that little scamp. You just wait till I see that rapscallion. There’ll be hell to pay. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2005, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-vs-evolution/307650/74 "2005-06-12T23:31:09Z")
> [@sqweels](#): > > But if we must, PE implys that whole series of constructive mutations take place in rapid succession among small populations of species, while none at all are occuring among the broader populations. This creates an opening for suggesting that some kind of special circumstances are play when evolution is occuring. Or not. Others have taken you to task about this, and I have my own nits to pick with it, as well as with some of the previous explanations. First and foremost, Punctuated Equilibria is a theory about the nature of the fossil record – not of speciation, not of mutations, not of evolution in general. It states, most simply, that the fossil record appears as it does – long periods of stasis (or _equilibria_), in which species change little, followed (_punctuated_, if you will…) by periods of rapid change, resulting in species “suddenly” appearing in the fossil record, and just as suddenly disappearing – precisely _because_ of how speciation occurs. Previously, this had all been chalked up to the woefully-incomplete record itself. If changes were gradual, then at least hypothetically, all these minute gradations could be captured within the record. However, the actual act of speciation typically involves “peripheral isolates” – smaller populations cut off, by whatever means, from the parent population. These smaller populations will tend to change more rapidly than a larger one (as noted previously). Fossilization, being the crap-shoot that it is, will be less likely to occur within these small, localized, rapidly changing populations than it will for a large, wide-spread one. Thus, the species as a whole may be completely absent from the fossil record until such time as the species becomes stabilized and established. When a species does finally show up in the record, it is usually more or less “mature” at that point. So, repeat after me: PE is a theory about the appearance of the fossil record, not a new or alternate mechanism for evolution itself. Mutations and natural selection and speciation and all that still operate exactly as they have always been theorized to act. The “new” part of PE is that the appearance of the fossil record _is exactly what we should expect it to be, given the nature of speciation and the process of fossilization_. Were we to dig up every fossil in existence, so called “gaps” would necessarily remain. And, as a final nitpick, the name of the theory is “punctuated equilibri **a** ”, not “punctuated equilibri **um** ”. The idea being that it is _all_ those periods of equilibria taken together which add up to produce the fossil record we have today. ---
**Author:** ![IAMBIC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b3f665/32.png) [@IAMBIC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IAMBIC)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2005, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-vs-evolution/307650/75 "2005-06-12T23:47:23Z")
From [Opus 200 by Stephen Jay Gould, 1991](http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_opus200.html) > [@](#): > > Opus 200 shall discuss the theoretical idea most central to my work — punctuated equilibrium. Moreover, Niles Eldredge and I formulated the theory of punctuated equilibrium in 1971 … > … > Punctuated equilibrium began, as so much else that later looms large in our lives, as a little path that might never have opened. > … > I coined the term punctuated equilibrium and wrote most of our 1972 paper, but Niles is the proper first author in our pairing of Eldredge and Gould.) > > The idea that we eventually called punctuated equilibrium had two sources and one overriding purpose—to provide an exit from the “disabling rescue” of Darwin’s argument on imperfection. > … > The jury is still out on the relative frequency of punctuated equilibrium (twenty years is a short case in biology), but utility has already been proved in the pudding of practice. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2005, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-vs-evolution/307650/76 "2005-06-12T23:53:43Z")
Eldredge, N., & Gould, S. J. 1972. Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism. In: _Models In Paleobiology_ (Ed. by T. J. M. Schopf). Gould, S. J., & Eldredge, N. 1977. Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered. _Paleobiology_, 3, 115-151. ---
**Author:** ![A.I.Wintermute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/7bcc69/32.png) [@A.I.Wintermute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A.I.Wintermute)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2005, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-vs-evolution/307650/77 "2005-06-13T00:11:16Z")
> [@Darwin's Finch](#): > > Previously, this had all been chalked up to the woefully-incomplete record itself. If changes were gradual, then at least hypothetically, all these minute gradations could be captured within the record. However, the actual act of speciation typically involves “peripheral isolates” – smaller populations cut off, by whatever means, from the parent population. These smaller populations will tend to change more rapidly than a larger one (as noted previously). Fossilization, being the crap-shoot that it is, will be less likely to occur within these small, localized, rapidly changing populations than it will for a large, wide-spread one. Thus, the species as a whole may be completely absent from the fossil record until such time as the species becomes stabilized and established. When a species does finally show up in the record, it is usually more or less “mature” at that point. Would you mind expanding on this a bit, or pointing to a resource where I can get (credible, accurate) details? I’ve never really seen much about PE before, and from the posts in this thread it seems apparent that misconceptions abound. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2005, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-vs-evolution/307650/78 "2005-06-13T02:46:39Z")
This [TalkOrigins](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html) article spells out everything you’d probably ever want to know about the topic. ---
**Author:** ![IAMBIC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b3f665/32.png) [@IAMBIC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IAMBIC)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2005, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-vs-evolution/307650/79 "2005-06-13T11:29:23Z")
Or you could go to the source: > [@](#): > > The idea that we eventually called punctuated equilibrium had two sources and one overriding purpose—to provide an exit from the “disabling rescue” of Darwin’s argument on imperfection. First, a statement about mode of change: Most new species do not arise by transformation of entire ancestral populations but by the splitting (branching) of a lineage into two populations. Niles and I had learned the standard evolutionary version of speciation by branching—a notion popularized by Ernst Mayr and called by him the allopatric theory. Allopatric means “in another place,” and the theory argues that new species may arise when a small population becomes isolated at the periphery of the parental geographic range. Isolation can occur by a variety of geological and geographic contingencies—mountains rising, rivers changing course, islands forming. Without geographic isolation, favorable variants will not accumulate in local populations, for breeding with parental forms is a remarkably efficient way to blur and dilute any change that might otherwise become substantial enough to constitute a new species. Most peripherally isolated populations never become new species; they die out or rejoin the larger parental mass. But as species may have no other common means of origin, even a tiny fraction of isolated populations provide more than enough “raw material” for the genesis of evolutionary novelty. > … > What then is the expected geological expression of speciation in a peripherally isolated population? The answer is, and must be, punctuated equilibrium. The speciation event occurs in a geological instant and in a region of limited extent at some distance from the parental population. In other words, punctuated equilibrium—and not gradualism—is the expected geological translation for the standard account of speciation in evolutionary theory. Species arise in a geological moment—the punctuation (slow by our standards, abrupt by the planet’s). They then persist as large and stable populations on substantial geological watches, usually changing little (if at all) and in an aimless fashion about an unaltered average—the equilibrium. > [Opus 200 > by Stephen Jay Gould, 1991](http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_opus200.html) And: > [@](#): > > In summarizing the impact of recent theories upon human concepts of nature’s order, we cannot yet know whether we have witnessed a mighty gain in insight about the natural world (against anthropocentric hopes and biases that always hold us down), or just another transient blip in the history of correspondence between misperceptions of nature and prevailing social realities of war and uncertainty. Nonetheless, contemporary science has massively substituted notions of indeterminacy, historical contingency, chaos and punctuation for previous convictions about gradual, progressive, predictable determinism. These transitions have occurred in field after field; Kuhn’s celebrated notion of scientific revolutions is, for example, a punctuational theory for the history of scientific ideas. Punctuated equilibrium, in this light, is only palaeontology’s contribution to a Zeitgeist, and Zeitgeists, as (literally) transient ghosts of time, should never be trusted. Thus, in developing punctuated equilibrium, we have either been toadies and panderers to fashion, and therefore destined for history’s ashheap, or we had a spark of insight about nature’s constitution. Only the punctuational and unpredictable future can tell. > [Punctuated equilibrium comes of age](http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_comes-of-age.html) ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2005, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-vs-evolution/307650/80 "2005-06-13T11:33:11Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Who designs the Intelligent Designer? Red herring. If the designer is not natural, then nothing compels it to have been designed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-vs-evolution/307650.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intelligent-design-vs-evolution/307650.md?page=5)