"Given the pervasive pattern of 'sudden appearance' and 'stasis' in the fossil record, does science need a Theory of Stasis or Theory of Conservation to better explain how nature actually functions. Explain.

How would such a theory help to strengthen an inference to intelligent design?"


Response 1 -

I think the discussion of how "Darwinism" morphed into "Neo-Darwinism" captures it all.

Darwin hypothesized that "gemmules" would lead to small, incremental changes in the organism over time. For Darwin, stasis is unexpected.

Mendel showed how traits are "digital" appearing in pairs: full; half; or missing. Mendel's genetics would assume stasis is expected, evolution unexpected.

Darwin assumed that gemmules were randomly diffusing or collecting with time, and therefore needed no designer, just as water needs no directing to flow downhill.

Mendel assumed that traits were fixed designs that did not change over time, nor did species become something other than what they were designed to be.

So indeed, Mendel's genetics support a theory of design, whereas Darwin's hypothesis denied it (regardless of what a Molinist might say). Which is why most biologists rejected Darwinism in 1900. How it was resurrected, and what subterfuges were taken, is the story of the Neo-Darwinian Theory: its rise, dominance and, like Venezuelan socialism, its certain fall.