Foreword:
Ever since Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859, the theory of evolution has been the center of many heated controversies. There is no doubt that leading scientific institutions—partly influenced by philosophical or ideological considerations, rather than strictly science—have always accepted and continue to accept the basic Darwinian concept, or one of its more up-to-date but essentially unchanged versions. However, a countercurrent that treated Darwinian ideas with criticism existed from the beginning. There have always been researchers who never accepted the Darwinian concept as proven. Nature’s I.Q. follows in this critical trend of pointing out the many weak points of the theory.
Critiques of Darwinism—or more generally, of evolutionism—often focus on general principles. This somewhat decreases their persuasive power, since the uncovering of factual details is usually more convincing than mere generalities. This is all the more evident when we realize that the arguments for Darwinism, or evolutionism, are for the most part also general.
One of the key questions of current discussions is the problem of the mechanism of evolution or, more precisely, of transformation (i.e., the transformation of different species into another). According to Darwinism and neo-Darwinism, this question is easy to handle. Proponents of these theories simply refer to two factors: mutation and selection. Mutation is the modification of the genetic material of a living thing. As a result, the living thing will produce issues that are hereditarily different from it. Selection in turn filters out the less fit for life from among these issues and, at the same time, helps multiply those more fit.
The great improbability of organisms developing by mutation and selection can seriously shake one’s faith in this mechanism. Several scientists made mathematical calculations to prove that if the extremely differentiated living world had come into existence in such a way, it would have necessitated a tremendous number of mutations. For the production of all these mutations, even the estimated billions of years of the existence of the universe would not be enough.
Nature’s I.Q. approaches the question in a similar way, but from a slightly different angle. Rather than presenting the often not-so-graphic considerations from the realm of the calculus of probabilities, it shows us the unlimited variety of the living world, including those highly improbable—we may confidently say, wonderful— phenomena that researchers encounter daily. Anyone reading this book will certainly contemplate whether it is probable, even possible, that these extremely complex phenomena are merely products of the primitive, arbitrary mechanism of mutation and selection.
Besides its outstanding achievements in the field of principles, another merit of the book is its presentation of examples, allowing readers to improve their knowledge of numerous natural phenomena.
And finally, a personal remark: by qualification I am a physicist, but apart from factual questions of this branch of learning, I have always been interested in the most general, philosophical questions of science. From among these, one of the most interesting and most crucial is the question of the variety of the living world, in other words, the question of biodiversity. When I began to explore this topic, I soon realized that “science” means something much less exact in this field than what I was accustomed to in physics. Statements that in physics would be accepted as at most provisional working hypotheses, in biology are accepted as theories, and even as proven facts. I am convinced that scientific theories that determine our whole worldview should not rest on such shaky foundations.
Thus, I kindly recommend this book to all readers.
Budapest, January 10, 2002
Dr. Ferenc Jeszenszky

Download File Size:49.66 MB

---