Robert Augros

The New Biology (1987) claims to offer a new paradigm for the unification of biology. In fact, it is more like a modern version of William Paley’s Natural Theology (1802). Augros and Stanciu reject natural selection on the grounds that it is epitomized by competition, inefficiency, and gradualism. While they acknowledge Darwin’s impeccable logic in The Origin, they argue that the evidence is against Darwin. “Nature is not wasteful and inefficient” (p. 177). Apparently they were unaware of the considerable evidence for natural selection that was available even at the time they wrote the book (e.g., Natural Selection in the Wild, 1986, by John A. Endler). Near the end of the book, they make it clear that they believe God is responsible for the ‘jumps’ that produce new species. Similar to Paley’s watchmaker argument, they present a teleological view of nature guided by the creative hand of God the artist. They write, “There must be a mind that directs and shapes matter into organic forms. ... The artist is God, and nature is God’s handiwork” (p. 191).

The following example illustrates the flaws in the reasoning supporting Augros and Stanciu's 'new paradigm.' They offer a teleological argument to explain away the ‘wasteful’ and ‘ruthless’ high-fecundity, low-care reproductive strategy found in so many species. They write, “Producing enormous numbers of offspring is not proof of ruthless competition but rather of cooperation since the excess eggs and seeds supports thousands of predators that could not otherwise subsist. If all species used the high-care, low-fecundity strategy, the vast numbers and varieties of animals we see in nature would not be possible” (p. 128). The problem with this teleological argument is that they have taken an effect of the reproductive strategy, “excess eggs and seeds supports thousands of predators”, as its cause.

In contrast, a plausible scientific explanation employs natural selection as the cause of the successful reproductive strategy. Organisms that produce very large numbers of eggs or seeds evolved from ancestors who produced fewer eggs and seeds. Within the ancestral population, there would have been variation in the number of eggs or seeds each individual organism produced. Opportunistic predators who ate the eggs or seeds acted as agents of natural selection. Those organisms who produced smaller numbers of eggs or seeds would have had most or all of them eaten, while those who produced large numbers of eggs or seeds would have substantial numbers of them survive. If the number of eggs or seeds produced is a heritable trait, then the eggs or seeds that were most likely to survive and produce the next generation would produce adult organisms that also produce large numbers of eggs and seeds. Over generations of continued selection, the number of individuals who produced large numbers of eggs and seeds would increase until they made up the largest proportion of the population.

Augros and Stanciu weave a pleasant story for those who are dismayed by the prospect of a purposeless universe, but it is not the business of science to find grand purposes in nature that give our lives meaning. We must find that meaning elsewhere. Neither can science appeal to supernatural causes as explanations. Such claims are not testable. Augros and Stanciu's teleological explanations confuse causes with effects and employ supernatural entities and thus are not scientific. Contrary to their claims, Augros and Stanciu have failed to present a new paradigm for the science of biology.… (mehr)