If mainstream evolutionary theory can account for the eye of an eagle, does it make any sense to say that intelligent design is also needed? Our peer-reviewed paper, “On the Relationship between Design and Evolution,” in the journal Religions considers that and related questions. The paper is a critical appraisal of theologian Rope Kojonen’s book The Compatibility of Evolution and Design. This is the final installment of a 15-part occasional series on the subject. As we’ll see here, despite Kojonen’s thoughtful attempt to harmonize evolution and design, he nonetheless inadvertently sets the table for the rejection of mainstream evolutionary theory. Similarly, his model is no ally to thinkers who want the ID movement to accept only versions of design that are compatible with mainstream evolutionary theory.

Kojonen’s Task

The heart of Kojonen’s book is an attempt to reinvigorate a biology-based design argument that is compatible with mainstream evolutionary theory. That is, he accepts evolutionary explanations of the rise of flora and fauna, yet he alsoargues that this same flora and fauna provides empirical evidence of intelligent design. At first blush, this sounds like a violation of Ockham’s razor. If natural selection and random mutation are up to the task, what ground is there to say that an intelligent agent is also needed? 

Kojonen’s task, then, is to show that “design and evolution” better explain biological complexity than does evolution on its own. He argues that his conception of design adds to evolution’s explanation of biological complexity. If design adds little or nothing, then it is of little account and should be shaved away by Ockham’s razor. By contrast, if design adds notable explanatory insight, then it should be retained.

Kojonen believes that his particular conception of design rises to the challenge. He argues that design helps evolution succeed. In this collaborative model, God directly designed the laws of nature, which in turn gave rise to special preconditions that enabled evolution to produce biological form and function. As we explain in our article:

In chapter four, Kojonen marshals various arguments to show that the preconditions of evolution must be designed if evolution is to be successful (as he believes it to be). The deck must be stacked in advance. In particular, fitness landscapes must be finely tuned ahead of time in order for evolutionary processes to successfully produce biological complexity and diversity. Kojonen believes that it is implausible to think that evolutionary processes can account for flora and fauna without these special preconditions. To make his case, Kojonen cites the work of Andreas Wagner, William Dembski, and others on protein evolution, evolutionary algorithms, structuralism, and the like. For Kojonen, these thinkers’ arguments powerfully show that evolutionary processes need prior “fine-tuning” of fitness landscapes (Kojonen 2021, pp. 97-143, esp. pp. 109-23). Thus, “evolution and design” is superior to “evolution alone.”

The Heart of the Matter

This is a key way that “design” adds value to “evolution.” Yet is there empirical evidence that these fine-tuned preconditions and landscapes exist? If so, then there are good grounds for Kojonen’s particular conception of design. If not, then his view of design falls short. As we explain:

Kojonen situates design precisely in those fine-tuned preconditions which yield smooth fitness landscapes that allow evolution to succeed. His case for marrying design with evolution therefore depends on the existence of this fine-tuning. So, it is crucial to assess whether this fine-tuning is real. And this question can be assessed scientifically: are fitness landscapes smooth? Are there open pathways between functional proteins, for example? Or are there impassible barriers between such proteins?

Alas, this is where the dike breaks. As we show in our article — and in previous posts — there is no good evidence for fine-tuned preconditions and smooth fitness landscapes (as Kojonen envisions them). Indeed, there is extremely strong evidence against such things. 

Why is this significant? We explain: 

Kojonen’s model may have devastating implications for mainstream evolutionary theory. Recall that the heart of his proposal is that evolution needs design (in the form of fine-tuned preconditions). Evolution on its own is insufficient to produce flora and fauna. But if we are correct that Kojonen’s conception and justification of design are flawed, then it follows — by his own lights — that evolution is impotent to explain biological complexity. Kojonen’s own account of the efficacy of evolution depends upon the success of his case for design. But if the latter stumbles, then so does the former. In a startling way, Kojonen has set the table for the rejection of evolution. If he has failed to make his case for design, then he has left readers with strong reasons to abandon mainstream evolutionary theory. The full implications of this striking result warrant further exploration.

Kojonen’s model provides yet another significant reason to reject evolutionary theory. Of course, the general falsity of evolution is not the focus of the argument in our paper per se; it is nonetheless a direct implication of the failure of Kojonen’s model. Readers who take his case seriously will realize that he has given a beautiful account of how to falsify evolutionary theory. Kojonen mounts a sophisticated argument — based on evolutionary algorithms, convergence, structuralism, and the like — that evolution is impotent on its own to explain biological complexity. It requires design. If he is correct, then evolution cannot succeed without design. And if we are correct, there is no such design. The inescapable conclusion is that evolution does not succeed.¹

No Ally of Accommodationism

We bring our long series to a close on a note of current relevance to the ID community. As members of this community know, some thinkers actively call for advocates of ID to accept only versions of design that are compatible with mainstream evolutionary theory. They believe that ID will only stand a chance of success if it accepts conventional thinking. Naturally, advocates of this view may be tempted to see Kojonen’s model as an ally in their quest. 

But the reality is quite different. Kojonen’s argument is that mainstream evolution on its own is insufficient to explain biological complexity. Hence, he argues that designed laws and preconditions are needed. His claim about the impotence of evolutionary theory is hardly the received view among evolutionary biologists. (At least, this is true in their public-facing statements; in private, one sometimes hears great cause for concern.) Indeed, many evolutionary biologists say they reject design precisely because they think evolutionary processes are fully sufficient. Why else would they accept the theory? So, even when Kojonen’s model is taken on its own terms, it runs against the grain of mainstream evolutionary thought. Thinkers who petition the ID movement to accept evolutionary theory and who see Kojonen’s model as an aid to their cause have not understood the actual contours of the debate. Kojonen’s model is no ally of accommodationist versions of intelligent design.

Moreover, if our criticisms of Kojonen’s model are correct, then he has, in effect, falsified mainstream evolutionary theory. Far from bringing people into the evolutionary fold, Kojonen has done science (and ID) a great service by showing them why they should pursue a richer, more thoughtful path.

Notes

1. Strictly speaking, Kojonen’s attempt to harmonize “design” and “evolution” does not per se require fine-tuned preconditions. He argues, for example, that his model is compatible with divinely guided mutations. (See, for example, Kojonen’s response to David Glass in Kojonen, “Response: The Compatibility of Evolution and Design,” Zygon 57 (2022): 1024–36.) Be that as it may, in CED, Kojonen strongly emphasizes fine-tuned preconditions (CED, p. 63-68, 119-33, 156-74). This is the centerpiece of his model. Yet insofar as this conception fails, it’s not clear that Kojonen succeeds at showing how “design” and “evolution” are compatible. And surely this is a desideratum: whether “design” and “evolution” are reconcilable is closely tied to how they are to be reconciled. Second, if his model allows direct divine tinkering with mutations, it’s also unclear that his view of evolution is consistent with “mainstream” evolutionary theory. As such, it’s unclear that his model reconciles mainstream evolution with design. Third, even setting aside these two criticisms, Kojonen’s model, in its various conceptualizations, does not seem to escape our deeper epistemological concerns, which we have described in our original paper (Section 7) as well as here and here.