What are Darwinists so afraid of?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: July 27, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern

As a doctoral student at the University of Kansas in the '90s, I found that my professors came in all stripes, and that lazy ideas didn't get off easy. If some professor wanted to preach the virtues of communism after it had failed miserably in the Soviet Union, he was free to do so, but students were also free to hear from other professors who critically analyzed that position.

Conversely, students who believed capitalism and democracy were the great engines of human progress had to grapple with the best arguments against that view, meaning that in the end, they were better able to defend their beliefs.

Such a free marketplace of ideas is crucial to a solid education, and it's what the current Kansas science standards promote. These standards, like those adopted in other states and supported by a three-to-one margin among U.S. voters, don't call for teaching intelligent design. They call for schools to equip students to critically analyze modern evolutionary theory by teaching the evidence both for and against it.

Some want to protect Darwinism from the competitive marketplace by overturning the critical-analysis standards. My hope is that these efforts will merely lead students to ask, What's the evidence they don't want us to see?

Under the new standards, they'll get an answer. For starters, many high-school biology textbooks have presented Haeckel's 19th century embryo drawings, the four-winged fruit fly, peppered moths hidden on tree trunks and the evolving beak of the Galapagos finch as knockdown evidence for Darwinian evolution. What they don't tell students is that these icons of evolution have been discredited, not by Christian fundamentalists but by mainstream evolutionists.

We now know that 1) Haeckel faked his embryo drawings; 2) Anatomically mutant fruit flies are always dysfunctional; 3) Peppered moths don't rest on tree trunks (the photographs were staged); and 4) the finch beaks returned to normal after the rains returned – no net evolution occurred. Like many species, the average size fluctuates within a given range.

This is microevolution, the age-old observation of change within species. Macroevolution refers to the evolution of fundamentally new body plans and anatomical parts. Biology textbooks use instances of microevolution such as the Galapagos finches to paper over the fact that biologists have never observed, or even described in theoretical terms, a detailed, continually functional pathway to fundamentally new forms like mammals, wings and bats. This is significant because modern Darwinism claims that all life evolved from a common ancestor by a series of tiny, useful genetic mutations.

Textbooks also trumpet a few "missing links" discovered between groups. What they don't mention is that Darwin's theory requires untold millions of missing links, evolving one tiny step at a time. Yes, the fossil record is incomplete, but even mainstream evolutionists have asked, why is it selectively incomplete in just those places where the need for evidence is most crucial?

Opponents of the new science standards don't want Kansas high-school students grappling with that question. They argue that such problems aren't worth bothering with because Darwinism is supported by "overwhelming evidence." But if the evidence is overwhelming, why shield the theory from informed critical analysis? Why the campaign to mischaracterize the current standards and replace them with a plan to spoon-feed students Darwinian pabulum strained of uncooperative evidence?

The truly confident Darwinist should be eager to tell students, "Hey, notice these crucial unsolved problems in modern evolutionary theory. Maybe one day you'll be one of the scientists who discovers a solution."

Hey, Gumlegs. You ignored my plea not to post a rebuttal. Since you did, I have to break my pledge, made on the grave of dear dead Darwin, with my hands on a pile of bones from Missing Links, and coupled with a plea that a mounted skeleton of T. rex might fall and crush me if I broke the pledge. It didn't, so I get to reply.

It's not just my opinion about Jim Jones. His conduct of the People's Temple wouldn't meet the standards of any Christian denomination I know of. I don't care what J.J. might say. Haven't you ever heard of people on the Left lying? Besides, J.J. when eventually set up his cult, HE became the source of authority (like all cult leaders), not the Bible. As I said about Hitler, these leaders will use bits of rhetoric from orthodox sources, but they are, to say the least, not consistent.

If the Discovery Institute is "injecting religious interpretations," just what religion are we talking about? There is no deity named, no creed of beliefs, no prayers, liturgy, or other features of a recognizable religion. In fact, the D.I. denies that the intelligence they allude to is divine. You could claim that they are being sneaky and disingenuous in doing so, but it's your word or opinion against theirs. (Which is what you said about me vs. the people I say are not really Christian.)

"Well, that’s what you say. There are other people who appear to believe themselves devout Christians who claim differently... But let’s look at churches: some say the Bible forbids intoxicating drink. Others say this isn’t true. Some mainstream Protestant churches in this country won’t let their members drink coffee or dance...You may well say they’re wrong. They say they’re right. You both use the same Bible."

There is a difference between fundamental doctrine, which is explicitly stated in the N. Testament, and secondary things which various churches derive by their own logic from things they think they see in the NT. St. Paul specifically endorses drinking of wine, so obviously the Bible doesn't forbid intoxicating drink, but it does disapprove of drunkenness. If some churches choose to ban drinking among their members, that's their right, but it's not based directly on the Bible. It's somewhat like strict construction of the Constitution, vs. filling in the gaps with one's imagination. Religious liberals turn the Bible into a meaningless "living, breathing document," just as they do with the Constitution. Anyway, there is nothing in the text of the NT which bans lightning rods, vaccination, etc. You make it seem that the acts of anyone who claims to be a Christian can be used to discredit the generally very benign influence of Christianity in the West. The fact is that there is an objective standard for what is Christian (the NT), just as there is an objective standard for how the U.S. govt. is supposed to operate (the Constitution). You can judge these individuals by that standard.

"The attacks are not on Christianity in general (although they can be mistaken for that)."

There are plenty of attacks on Christianity in this thread which are very vicious and insulting. Furthermore, some of the attacks on the Old Testament are actually implicit attacks on the basis of Judaism.

"“I don't seek to challenge the scientific validity of the TofE.” In the 21st century, it’s basic science and it needs to be covered in science class."

Well, that depends on the definition of "basic science." I follow Richard Feynman in thinking that physics is THE basic science, chemistry next, and the other sciences secondary derivations. If students haven't reached the point where they really know how science works, and all the ideas which go into such a complex theory (e.g. age of Earth from isotopic decay), then what they basically get is just arbitrary, rote information, rather than science. In chem. or physics, you go into the lab and play with stuff, learn how science is done, partially recapitulate the ontogeny of theories. You can't do that with evolution. Another theory now being fed to kids at a very young age is plate tectonics. Again, not what I consider basic science. It's hard to do chem. lab safely at home, or to afford the equipment, so it pretty much has to be done in school, but anyone who wants to read about evolution or plate tectonics can easily do so on his own.

"Of course science education at the secondary level is cursory and oversimplified. If it weren’t the kids wouldn’t be able to grasp it. It would be nice if the schools taught the scientific method."

The science education I got at the secondary level was not cursory, because it was what I consider truly fundamental--chem. and physics. You can do, in secondary school, all sorts of experiments which nail down fundamental truths about matter, and are very exciting to boot. I built a couple of cloud chambers in H.S., and watched the particle tracks for hours. Seeing evidence of actual subatomic particles was stunning. There are experiments in mechanics and optics which are simple but hardly cursory.

"You’re still playing the religion song. Religion doesn’t belong in science class. "

True, it doesn't. But no one can convince me that what was at issue in the PA case was "introducing religion into science class." You could argue that it was a foot in the door, but honestly I don't see a vast army of fundamentalists waiting to demolish science education. That has about as much credibility as Hillary Clinton's "vast right wing conspiracy." Christianity is actually on the run, driven out of schools and public life.

"I disagree that biology is somehow not as basic as chemistry or physics. In my high school, for instance, biology was taught in freshman year, chemistry is sophomore year, and physics in junior year. Biology and chemistry were required; physics was an elective."

Again I would refer you to Feynman. Physics was not my favorite subject, although I appreciate it more now. It really is the most basic science, and should not have been an elective. I would guess physics was put last in your school because it can be quite difficult, and requires attainment of a certain level of math. Furthermore, there is a great deal you can learn and do in biology without any reference to evolution. You can learn some of the stuff Darwin had to know before he came up with his theory, for example. Going immediately to the theory is bass-ackwards.

"So if one can be a Pope and accept the TOE, doesn’t that mean that anyone objecting on religious grounds is, in fact, “forcing a specific religion on others”?"

Plenty of people don't agree with the Pope on this, so they could just as well say that the Pope, or atheists, secular humanists, etc. are forcing THEIR religion on the fundamentalists.

"When Dawkins rants about atheism, he’s not ranting as a scientist. His scientific work doesn’t filter down as far as high school anyway. And when Dawkins is carrying on about something other than science, he’s irrelevant. Some of Einstein’s … extracurricular activities have just come to light. Do we need to stop teaching relativity because he chased skirts?"

I don't really agree about Dawkins. All that's necessary to get to his position is to dismiss anything supernatural, moral, or non-mechanistic from your thinking, where is pretty much exactly where we are in the public schools today. As I keep trying to get across, you can't look at the teaching of evolution on a mass scale in a vacuum. You have to consider the context, which is a school system devoid of any moral content. As for Einstein, his animal activities have no relevance to the intellecual climate, but Dawkins' mental processes certainly do.

Free will vs. determinism has concerned theologians longer than a few centuries. It's regarded as a mystery, somewhat like the parts of quantum theory which boggle the human mind (e.g. wave-particle duality). The way I think of it is that what would seem predetermined from a divine perspective seems like free will from ours, so there is no contradiction.

"Now who’s using hyperbole and insults?"

What hyperbole and insults? All the terms I cite were used by pro-evolution posters against anti-evolution posters in this thread. Of course, not by you personally.

"You’re confusing the fact of gravity with the Theory of Gravity"

No I'm not. You can do classroom experiments which bear directly on Newton's theory, and you can easily describe how Einstein's theory was experimentally verified. There simply are no experiments you can perform for the kids which can directly prove that (e.g.) dinosaurs or trilobites arose by natural selection.

"And you appear to have the idea that science should be nothing more than stamp collecting. As in, “Here’s this fact, and this fact over here, and that fact over there, and we have no idea how they link up or what they might mean.” How would that help students recognize the vacuity of say Al Gore?"

That's just my point. Since evolution is too complex to be taught or confirmed by experiments in secondary school (let alone middle school), kids get the idea that science is a story which some authority figure narrates while they sit passively in a chair. That sets them up to swallow garbage from other authority figures, like Algore. If they spent their class and lab time doing experiments, seeing how quantitative data are generated, recorded, analyzed, and interpreted, they would be less gullible.

"Theories of gravity imply nothing about the nature of man. Evolution does."

You question this. However, the publication of Darwin's theory sent ripples through Western culture. The intellectual class quickly moved away from traditional religion, as have many of the pro-evo posters on these threads. Many of them made statements not much different from Dawkins'. No such effects followed Germ Theory of Disease, Gravitation, or other theories. You can say Darwin and his TofE are technically innocent, but it's empirical fact that the effects of the TofE on Western culture have been profound. If we're here by a series of accidents (as the theory says), how can we be special? How can human life be sacred?

As I keep saying, it can't be unimportant that the left generally feels no problems with evolution. The nihilistic implications of evolution are just fine with them. In fact, they welcome them.

I might ask you: Why do YOU think so many pro-evo posters gleefully trash religion, why are some of their posts identical to ones you might find on leftist venues, and why is there this association (not without exceptions, but still generally valid) between traditional religious belief and conservative values? Why did the Founding Fathers explicitly attribute their thinking to Christian influences, and predict that the Republic would founder, as it is doing, if those influences were weakened?

I contend that dispersing evolution among young people who really do not need it, together with surgical removal of traditional values from the culture, are destroying the foundations of our free nation, and neither should be encouraged by conservatives.

When you study evolution you can hold the skulls in your hand and examine them, you can line them up on the desk and study the changing morphology, through time, of a variety of traits. They tend to sort themselves out pretty well on their own.

What a lovely essay/post, Coyoteman!

Of course we must have people who can "hold the skulls in their hands" and examine them, so to study the changing morphology of living beings through time. Philosophers don't do this sort of thing; but science is an indispensable human endeavor whose pursuit has served the human race to its immense benefit in uncountable ways throughout evolutionary (or historical) time.

Yet science is not geared to dealing with other vitally indispensable aspects of human life that are necessary to the "good order" of the person, and the "good order" of human societies.

By good order I mean the optimal state of existence for human beings -- This is the province of philosophy. If I might boil it all down to its essence, the problem that philosophy engages -- at least the non-school, non-academic brand of philosophy that flourished in classical Greece -- is essentially the fundamental problems of human existence. Plato (and Aristotle) would perhaps say that true philosophy deals with the right order, and right orientation, of the soul.

To the extent that certain influential branches of modern science regard the soul as a fiction, obviously philosophy would lose its millennial appeal to the human mind. But that does not signify that human souls, and human problems, are obviated by this "closure" to the human condition. Human problems -- the problems of existence, of birth and death, of the universal sense that humans participate in both time and timelessness, of justice and injustice, of good and evil, in war and peace, in suffering and joy, in health and decrepitude, as actors, creators in their own right, and "patients" of adversity, etc., etc. -- cannot be a problem for science at all. It has no method to deal with such issues.

But just because science cannot engage such problems given its methodology (which is perfectly well-suited to the investigation of the phenomena of the natural world), does not mean that such human problems "go away." Thoughful men down the millennia have insisted on an understanding of their place in the natural order. And here's a millennial theme that has engaged the human mind through all of recorded history: Man wants to know to what extent human life has a supernatural extension. Which of course I am convinced it does, as did some of the greatest thinkers of mankind down the ages, from both sides of the "epistemic divide" that separates science and philosophy.

So philosophy is radically different than science. I think both are absolutely necessary for the full expression of human genius. I think they are "complementarities" in Niels Bohr's sense of the term: Though seemingly mutually exclusive, it requires both to give a complete description of what it means to be human.

In short, man has an "exterior life" in his relations to his natural environment; he also has an interior life -- also in relation to his environment, but one that is "more than natural."

I won't say "supernatural"; I suspect you might find that word "off-putting." But think of it: even such concepts as "nation" or "society" (even such constructs as phyla and species) refer to something that is "supernatural" in the sense I intend in the present writing.

FWIW Coyoteman. Thank you so much for writing!

If the Discovery Institute is "injecting religious interpretations," just what religion are we talking about? There is no deity named, no creed of beliefs, no prayers, liturgy, or other features of a recognizable religion. In fact, the D.I. denies that the intelligence they allude to is divine. You could claim that they are being sneaky and disingenuous in doing so, but it's your word or opinion against theirs. ...

But no one can convince me that what was at issue in the PA case was "introducing religion into science class." You could argue that it was a foot in the door, but honestly I don't see a vast army of fundamentalists waiting to demolish science education.

Passages from The Wedge Strategy.

The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built.
Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies.
We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
Governing Goals: To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies. To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

Hellbender, the Wedge Document, which was leaked from the Discovery Institute, lays out a plan which it appears they have been trying to follow. Dover was a serious setback to that plan.

Given what this internal document stated, how can you still believe that their plan is something other than a PR effort to replace science, which studies the natural world, with a "Christian and theistic" version of science (in other words, something other than real science)?

TXnMA posted: I see no more relationship between the theories of Darwin and my "creation in the Image of God" than I do between those of Hawking or Einstein and my salvation. Hence I really cannot identify with fellow Christians who are driven to "Defeat Evil Darwinism". Any insight you can provide would be most appreciated!

You responded: Speaking for myself, I have no desire to "defeat" Darwinism; I just want to place it into the larger context it needs in order to be "true."

First, I assume by "Darwinism" you mean the theory of evolution. Darwin has been dead for a long time, and the theory he proposed (and which was largely based on contemporary scientific thought) has advanced a great deal since then. The huge number of fossil finds and the development of genetics are but two examples. As such, "Darwinism" is not an appropriate term; it is largely used only by opponents of the theory of evolution. Those who practice the various fields that make up the study of evolution generally prefer something a little more neutral, like "scientists."

What puzzles me is your need to "place [the theory of evolution] into the larger context it needs in order to be 'true.'"

Is this the same as the Discovery Institute's goal: "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"? [The Wedge Strategy]

From my viewpoint, you are not advocating science, you are advocating religion. You keep going off on these obtuse "philosophical" journeys, which, when they finally come to ground, always end up supporting a particular brand of theology.

You have suggested that this is the "larger context" for understanding everything. Can you support this notion without resorting to religious belief?

As things stand, I am not convinced that what you are doing is science, nor am I convinced that what you are advocating supersedes science.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.