NOTES on DARWIN’S DILEMMA
1. The Wrong Rocks in Wales
The film begins with beautiful scenes of the Welsh countryside. The narrator explains:
“In 1831, the renowned geologist Adam Sedgwick began to excavate the
Cambrian rock strata in northern Wales. He was assisted by Charles Darwin, a
recent graduate of Cambridge University. For the young Darwin, the fossils
embedded in the Cambrian shale were an intriguing curiosity.”
According to personal communication with Michael Roberts, author of numerous
articles1 about Darwin’s sojourns in Wales, the Welsh countryside shown in Darwin’s
Dilemma is Cwm Idwal. Cwm Idwal consists of Ordovician volcanics, not Cambrian
stata. Therefore, this area had nothing to do with the Cambrian explosion.
Darwin did visit Cwm Idwal—but not with Sedgwick. In fact, according to Michael
Roberts, Darwin and Sedgwick never observed Cambrian rocks together. Moreover,
Darwin found very few fossils during his time in Wales.
The idea that Sedgwick and Darwin visited the Cambrian together in Wales, and there
Darwin was troubled by the mysterious Cambrian fossils, is completely inaccurate and
misleading about both of Darwin and of the geology of Wales.
2. Misrepresenting Simon Conway Morris and James Valentine
Darwin’s Dilemma features interviews with Cambrian experts Simon Conway Morris and
James Valentine. Drs. Conway Morris and Valentine, however, did not know were being
interviewed for an intelligent design movie.2 In fact, Dr. Valentine’s interview was
conducted about a decade ago. Dr. Conway Morris’ interview was conducted in 1996.
Darwin’s Dilemma disingenuously intersperses the interviews of Drs. Conway Morris
and Valentine, sandwiching them between interviews with intelligent design proponents
such as Drs. Stephen Meyer and Jonathan Wells, without clarifying that Drs. Conway
Morris and Valentine are not supporters of intelligent design.
If one listens carefully to the interviews of Drs. Conway Morris and Valentine in
Darwin’s Dilemma, it is clear that they support evolution and are in no way promoting
intelligent design.
Roberts, Michael (2009) “The Welsh Galápagos” Trail May 2009; Roberts, Michael (2001) “Just before
the Beagle: Charles Darwin’s geological fieldwork in Wales, summer 1831.” Endeavour, v. 25(1) 2001;
Roberts, Michael (2000) “I coloured a map: Darwin’s attempts at geological mapping in 1831” Archives of
Natural History, v. 27 (1): 69-79; Roberts, Michael (1996) “Darwin at Llanymynech: the evolution of a
geologist” BJHS, 1996, v. 29, p. 469-78
2
http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2009/09/this_seems_fishy_to_me.php,
http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2009/09/cambrian_confusion_some_answer.php
1
3. Discovery Institute Fellows as Cambrian Experts
Darwin’s Dilemma features interviews with several Discovery Institute fellows. Although
they are presented as if they were experts on the Cambrian, in fact they are not
paleontologists at all.




Paul Chien, PhD in Biology (UC Irvine, 1971).3
Stephen Meyer, PhD in the History and Philosophy of Science
(Cambridge University, 1991).
Paul Nelson, PhD in Philosophy (Univ. Chicago, 1998).
Jonathan Wells, PhDs in Molecular and Cell Biology (Berkeley, 1994) and
Religious Studies (Yale, 1986).
These degrees do not involve expertise in the specific topic of Cambrian paleontology.
This is said not as disparagement of their degrees, but simply to point out that experts in
one area do not automatically merit qualification as experts in all other disciplines. For
example, chemical engineers are not necessarily experts in art history, nor are art
historians usually experts in chemical engineering.
However, with a nod to Charles Walcott’s lack of any college degree, it might be argued
that in substitution for academic credentials, a robust publication record on the topic of
the Cambrian could also suggest expertise in this field. In this regard, the four Discovery
Institute interviewees fail as well. Three out of the four have never published a paper on
the Cambrian explosion in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. One of the four has
published a single review paper, but this was subsequently withdrawn by the journal.
This vacant publication record demonstrates the lack of qualifications of Drs. Chien,
Meyer, Nelson, and Wells in the field of Cambrian studies.
4. Getting the Tree of Life Backwards
At 42:30 into the movie, a graphic appears that implies Darwin believed species evolve
into genera, which become families, all the way up to phyla. This is backwards and
contradicts Darwin’s idea of common descent.
Narrator: “According to Darwin, as one form of life morphed into another, new
species arose. And as they gradually branched apart, larger differences in form
emerge. Eventually, evolution produced an even greater level of disparity, the
distinct body plans of new phyla.”
Paul Nelson: “Phyla are abstract categories that bring together basic features that
unite large groups of animals.”
3
http://ncseprojects.org/creationism/analysis/soft-bodied-fossils
Darwin’s Dilemma and Paul Nelson seem to regards phyla as set, absolute distinctions. In
fact, as James Valentine explains in his book On the Origin of Phyla, the concept of a
phylum has changed remarkably throughout history, from Cuvier’s 4 part division, to an
initial 6-part division by Haeckel, to Parker’s 30 phyla, to Funch & Kristensen’s 36
phyla. A phylum is a human invention. The concept of phyla has evolved, especially as
new evidence from genetics clarifies the interrelationships of organisms.
An examination of the phyla listed by Funch and Kristensen will show that, far from
being “as different as it can be” from other phyla, some phyla are quite similar to one
another, while others are quite different. Paul Nelson’s contrary claim reflects his own
misinterpretation, not a biological truth.
5. Doubting Geologic Time?
Several phrases in the movie seem to question the validity of the geologic time scale:
23:00
Stephen Meyer: “We now know that the oldest rocks on the bottom only date
back to the Jurassic period, which means that on the standard geologic time scale,
they’re hundreds of millions of years younger than the rocks below the Cambrian
strata.” [emphasis added]
24:19 Graphic of a geologic timescale shown, without numbers
Narrator: “According to standard estimates, almost 90% of the Earth’s history
took place during the Precambrian geologic period.” [emphasis added]
There is no reason to add the word “standard” unless one is proposing that another, nonstandard timescale should be considered. One, for example, that involves a 6,000-yearold Earth. Previous statements by Paul Nelson, who is featured prominently in Darwin’s
Dilemma, indicate he believes in a young earth.
6. A Mystery?
50:30
Stephen Meyer: “How did these new animal body plans and fundamentally new
forms of life come into existence? This was the mystery that Darwin set out to
solve. But everything we’ve learned in biology over the last 50 years has brought
this mystery back with a vengeance. How do you explain the origin of the
Cambrian animals seemingly out of nowhere?”
Darwin did not set out to solve the Cambrian explosion. Indeed, since so much of our
understanding of this has come from discoveries after Darwin’s time, it is fair to say that
what we mean by the Cambrian radiation is different than Darwin’s conception.
Modern paleontologists do not think the Cambrian phyla appeared “out of nowhere.”
Molecular evidence suggests divergence of the animals far earlier than is yet shown by
the fossil record. The discovery of the Ediacaran fauna gives new insight into the roots of
the complex animals of the Cambrian. Rather than viewing Ediacarans as strange
creatures, Simon Conway Morris views them as ancestors to many of the organisms we
see today:
“In my opinion not only are the frond-like Ediacaran fossils cnidarians [jellies,
corals, anemones], but so too are many of the other fossils.”
The interpretation of the Burgess Shale animals as bizarre creatures is not shared by
every paleontologist. Simon Conway Morris has written:
“…the strangeness of the problematic Cambrian animals is just a human artifact, a
construction of our imagination.”
Furthermore, the claim that these represent “fundamentally new” forms of life begs the
question. Modern biologists do not conceive of the Cambrian as producing life
fundamentally different than what came before. Cambrian life certainly possesses novel
features, and modern research demonstrates how such features can and do evolve.
Declaring these changes “fundamental” assumes the conclusion Meyer wishes us to draw.
7. Lack of Transitional Fossil Forms?
Darwin’s Dilemma proposes that a lack of transitional fossil forms poses a challenge for
evolution. Had the filmmakers bothered to read Simon Conway Morris’ book Crucible of
Creation, however, they would have known that he had written:
“The likelihood of at least one individual of a species being found is probably more
or less constant. If, however, a new group evolves through a series, say ten, of
different species in only half a million years, then the chances of finding more than
one or two species in this chain of descent are rather unlikely. In fact, the new group
will probably appear in the fossil record as if from ‘nowhere.’ Indeed,
palaeontologists acknowledge that such cryptic originations are very common. It is
important to understand, however, that this does not necessarily mean that there is
some mysterious mechanism of evolution in operation. It is far more plausible to
argue that we lack the necessary information.”