Posted on 11/11/2004 3:44:08 AM PST by Lindykim
Has Darwin Become Dogma?
500 years ago science revolted against theological dogma as the source of all knowledge. Today it is science that is trying to assume the mantle of the sole arbiter of truth. On magazine covers such as this month's National Geographic and in legal battles across the country, the scientific community has become absolute in its belief that evolution will answer all of the questions regarding our beginnings. They have become so dogmatic that anyone who questions this belief is considered a heretic who should be ridiculed into silence.
November 11, 2004
Dear Concerned Citizen, by Dr. Benjamin Wiker
Nearly a century and a half has passed since the publication of Charles Darwins Origin of Species. Evolution has been taught as an undeniable fact in high school textbooks for well over a half century. Why all of the sudden do we find the cover of the November 2004 issue of National Geographic emblazoned with the question, "Was Darwin Wrong?" It's that like asking "Was Copernicus Wrong?"
So, what's up? When we turn to the first page of the article, we find the same question again, this time written across the gray feathered breast of a domestically bred Jacobin pigeon, the outlandish plumage of which reminds one of the costumes of the late Liberace. Flip to the next page and we find our answer, a resounding 'NO' printed in a font a third of the page high. But if the answer is such a large and definitive NO, why would the venerable National Geographic entertain (even rhetorically) the apparently foolish question 'Was Darwin wrong?"
If you read the article, you'll wonder what all the shouting is about. The author David Quammen paints a calm picture of an established science unburdened by serious criticism. The only critics, so we are told, are 'fundamentalist Christians','ultraorthodox Jews', and 'Islamic creationists', all of whom view evolution as a threat to their scientifically uninformed theology. Obviously, they aren't the ones ruffling National Geographics feathers.
Who else arouses the great NO? As it turns out, 'Other' people too, not just scriptural literalists, remain unpersuaded about evolution. According to a Gallup poll, no less than 45 percent of responding U.S. adults agreed that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.
"Why are there so many antievolutionists?' they ask impatiently. Why indeed? Unfortunately, you won't find the real answer in the article, which merely offers a fluff and flash, unambiguous public relations presentation of evolution.
The real answer is this. To the question 'Was Darwin Wrong?' the proper answer is not a clamorous 'NO' but a well-informed 'Yes and No'. While there are merits to his theory, there are also serious problems, serious scientific problems.
Listen to these words: 'despite the power of molecular genetics to reveal the hereditary essences of organisms, the large-scale aspects of evolution remain unexplained, including the origin of species. So Darwin's assumption that the tree of life is a consequence of the gradual accumulation of small hereditary differences appears to be without significant support." Are these the words of a 'fundamentalist Christian', 'ultraorthodox Jew', or an 'Islamic creationist'? No, they are the words of Dr. Brian Goodwin, professor of biology, one of a growing number of scientists who find that the powers of natural selection are woefully insufficient to perform the amazing feats promised in the title of Darwins great work of producing new species.
But that was the great promise of Darwin. Small variations among individuals are 'selected' by nature because they make the individual more 'fit' to survive. Those more 'fit' characteristics are passed on to the offspring. Add enough little changes up over time, and the species becomes gradually transformed. Given enough time, evolution will have produced an entirely new species.
So it was that Darwin assumed that little changes in character and appearance (microevolution) would eventually yield, through natural selection, enormous changes (macroevolution). From a single living cell, given millions upon millions upon millions of years, the entire diversity of all living things could be produced.
That was the grand promise of Darwins theory. And Darwin wasn't wrong about microevolution. But the case for macroevolution is far from closed. In fact, biologist Mae-Wan Ho and mathematician Peter Saunders contend that, "All the signs are that evolution theory is in crisis, and that a change is on the way." Darwins theory is in crisis, they argue, because it has failed to explain the one thing that made its promise so grand; how new species arise.
I quote the words of Brian Goodwin, Mae-Wan Ho, and Peter Saunders because they represent the growing number of scientific dissenters from orthodox Darwinism (or more accurately, neo-Darwinism). National Geographic makes no mention of them. That would make the quick and confident 'No' into a rather sheepish "well, sort of".
They also purposely avoid mentioning the growing Intelligent Design movement, a group of scientists, philosophers, and mathematicians who have very serious doubts about many other aspects of Darwins theory. One suspects reading between the lines that the real reason that National Geographic suddenly 'doth protest too much' against doubters of Darwinism, is that the Intelligent Design (ID) movement has done so much to bring the scientific and philosophical problems with evolutionary theory into the public spotlight. They cannot draw attention to the ID movement, however, or people might become more informed about the difficulties that beset Darwinism. So, we return to the question, 'Was Darwin Wrong?" National Geographic says "NO". But readers who aren't satisfied with such simple answers should read the following books.
Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
Michael Behe, Darwins Black Box
Brian Goodwin, How the Leopard Changed Its Spots
John Angus Campbell and Stephen Meyer, Darwinism, Design, and Public Education
William Dembski, Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing
Mae-Wan Ho and Peter Saunders, Beyond Neo-Darwinism
Edward Larson, Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion
Benjamin Wiker, Moral Darwinism Scientific Difficulties with Darwinism
The origin of life: Darwin conjectured that all life was descended from a single, simple form. But where did the first living thing come from? In a now famous private letter to Joseph Hooker, Darwin offered a conjecture: if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., that a proteine [sic] compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, then we could explain the origin of life as a lucky chemical reaction. Against this hope, origin of life researchers have fallen on hard times. While there were some initial victories in the laboratory, generating small amounts of pre-biological molecules, scientists are unable to generate anything more biologically interesting unless they artificially rig their experiments in ways that contradict the actual conditions of early Earth.
The problem is so acute that many origin of life scientists have given up, and are now turning their efforts to trying to discover ways that complex, life-seeding molecules may have been delivered from space. Alas, the problems facing such efforts are just as severe.
The fossil record: According to Darwin, evolution had to occur very slowly, through slight changes not by leaps and bounds. Unfortunately, the fossil record does not support such gradual transformation. Instead, species seem to appear quite suddenly, fully formed, stay the same for millions of years, and then just as suddenly disappear. The most significant problem for Darwinism is the Cambrian explosion, where quite suddenly, about 550,000,000 years ago, all the major phyla of the animal kingdom appear in the fossil record.
The Truth About Inherit the Wind "Of course, such a simple choice between bigotry and enlightenment is central to the contemporary liberal vision of which Inherit the Wind is a typical expression. But while it stands nominally for tolerance, latitude, and freedom of thought, the play is full of the self- righteous certainty that it deplores in the fundamentalist camp. Some critics have detected the play's sanctimonious tone-"bigotry in reverse," as Andrew Sarris called it-even while appreciating its dramatic quality and well-written leading roles. The play reveals a great deal about a mentality that demands open-mindedness and excoriates dogmatism, only to advance its own certainties more insistently-that promotes tolerance and intellectual integrity but stoops to vilifying the opposition, falsifying reality, and distorting history in the service of its agenda.
In fact, a more historically accurate dramatization of the Scopes Trial than Inherit the Wind might have been far richer and more interesting-and might also have given its audiences a genuine dramatic tragedy to watch. It would not have sent its audience home full of moral superiority and happy thoughts about the march of progress. The truth is not that Bryan was wrong about the dangers of the philosophical materialism that Darwinism presupposes but that he was right, not that he was a once great man disfigured by fear of the future but that he was one of the few to see where a future devoid of the transcendent would lead. The antievolutionist crusade to control what is taught in the schools may not have been the answer, and Bryan's own approach may have been too narrow. But the real tragedy lies in the losing fight that he and others like him waged against a modernity increasingly deprived of spiritual foundations." Carol Inannone First Things
The Debate Rages On Although nearly 100 years have passed since the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial, the debate rages on. In Grantsburg, Wisconsin a firestorm of critique was leveled against the school board this month for revising its science curriculum to include more than one model/theory of origin in the districts science curriculum. Current Wisconsin state law mandates that evolution be taught but the school board viewed the law as too restrictive.
Similar skirmishes are being fought around the country. Ever since the Scopes Trial, the ACLU has been an active player, bringing lawsuits against any group who questions the Darwin dogma in school curriculum. After a group of parents in Cobb County Georgia complained about the exclusive presentation of evolution as the sole theory of origin in three biology textbooks in 2002, stickers were placed in the science texts intended to remind students to keep an open mind. Now the ACLU is representing another group of parents in a lawsuit against that school district claiming that the stickers promote the teaching of creationism and discriminate against particular religions.
The Dover Area School Board in Pennsylvania recently voted to include the theory of 'intelligent design' and other alternative theories to evolution in their science curriculum. Similar action was taken by the Ohio board of education this spring when they narrowly approved a similar plan. Critics charge it risks a return to teaching creationism.
To say that evolution has not answered all the scientific questions regarding our origins does not suggest you have to teach creationism in schools as a scientific theory. What should be taught is an honest assessment of what science does and does not know regarding our beginnings. The questions regarding our origins are too big for science alone to answer. People of faith should not allow themselves to be relegated to an anti-science position for questioning Darwin. Questioning the validity of theories is what science is supposed to do.
Benjamin Wiker Benjamin Wiker holds a Ph.D. in Theological Ethics from Vanderbilt University, and has taught at Marquette University, St. Mary's University (MN), and Thomas Aquinas College (CA). He is now a Lecturer in Theology and Science at Franciscan University of Steubenville (OH), and a full-time, free-lance writer. Dr. Wiker writes regularly for a variety of journals, including Catholic World Report, New Oxford Review, Crisis Magazine, and First Things, and is a regular columnist for the National Catholic Register. Dr. Wiker just released a new book called Architects of the Culture of Death (Ignatius). His first book, Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists, was released in the spring of 2002 (InterVarsity Press). He is writing another book on Intelligent Design for InterVarsity Press called The Meaning-full Universe.
Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org. © Copyright 2004 - tothesource
Agreed. And she's done more than her share.
But honest fundamentalists very seldom even get involved in trying to overthrow the scientific paradigm. I'm not even sure that Alamo-Girl, regardless of her religious beliefs, should be put on the side of outright idiots like NoDataDoofus or MM or HL or AC or ...
I think she's in her own category. She's a very good person.
We're talking about you.
Personal integrity is not a function of either religious beliefs or scientific understanding. And I think most of us on this side understand that.
“The important point about the standard evolutionary story is that the human species and all of its features are the wholly physical outcome of a purely physical process…If this is the correct account of origins, then there seems neither need, nor room, to fit any nonphysical substances or properties into our theoretical account of ourselves. We are creatures of matter. And we should learn to live with that fact.”
– Paul Churchland
But the question, “Has Darwin Become Dogma?”, is to me more of a; “Can Darwinism become dogma?” – “Why does Darwinism become dogma while other aspects of science don’t?” – “Why does neo-darwinism need to rule out any intelligence and design in regard to mankind and science?”
And for the people who think Darwinism cannot become dogma:
SELECT FROM users where clue is > 0
no rows returned >
Mind you, I think Darwinism falls apart on the fossil record and irreducible complexity issues, but ignoring that for the moment, why do so many evolutionists treat ID theory like the boogyman? Why is it a threat?
I think Dawkins let slip the answer: Darwinism makes it possible to be an intellectually-fulfilled atheist (or agnostic, or deist, or whatever one's prefered form of non-theism). As soon as you enter a Designer as the root cause, regardless of your theories on evolution after that you loose that intellectual fulfillment. It's as much an attack on the atheist's creation myth as "primordial soup" Darwinism is on Genesis--and those wed to this myth react with the same outrage as a religious zealot.
If we could remove the invective from the conversation (not just here on FR, but in the media and scientific community as well), I think we'd get more done.
"Darwinism" is a construct of Creationists.
The fossil record supports the Theory of Evolution in all particulars.
And, finally, "irreducible complexity" does not exist. Or, at least, all examples put forth so far have been demonstrated to have evolutionary predecessors.
... but ignoring that for the moment, why do so many evolutionists treat ID theory like the boogyman?
Very simple. Scientists understand that it is not a scientific theory - it is not even a valid scientific hypothesis. Did you overlook post #114 directed at you? Do you want to try to address it now? Do I need to repeat it to you?
But yet...
Biology = function -> structure -> sequence
It is reverse engineering and quite frankly, looking at technology far more advanced then anything man has created.
We have always underestimated cells. . . . The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines. . . . Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts.
Bruce Alberts, "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists," Cell 92 (February 8, 1998): 291.
Now what stops science from viewing this obvious design and what is the difference between what Albert says and what Dembski says here?:
Organisms display the hallmarks of intelligently engineered high-tech systems: information storage and transfer capability; functioning codes; sorting and delivery systems; self-regulation and feed-back loops; signal transduction circuitry; and everywhere, complex, mutually-interdependent networks of parts. For this reason, University of Chicago molecular biologist James Shapiro regards Darwinism as almost completely unenlightening for understanding biological systems and prefers an information processing model. Design theorists take this one step further, arguing that information processing presupposes a programmer?
- Dembski
Overlooks that ID, like so much of creationism, is sniping at evolution without advancing a story of its own. Overlooks that so much of that sniping consists of mantras directly cribbed from creationism. Overlooks that the ID advocates below the level of Discovery Institute staffers are creationists pure and simple (no wordplay intended).
Creationism has studied from the political left and discovered the concept of "front movement." I can remember considering myself an environmentalist until the early 80s, about the time Greenpeace was calling for the unilateral disarmament of the west. It hit me then: these people are communists out to destroy traditional western society and masquerading as people caring about something else in order to do it.
I would have had to be dumb as a brick not to see the light when I did. I would say the same about anyone who doesn't realize that an ID advocate is a religiously motivated anti-science crusading witch doctor.
Already answered multiple times, but hey, what's 1,216,165,244 times between friends: You mean except for that annoying lack of gradualism that inspired Stephen J. Gould to come up with punk-eek in the first place? Come on, guys, if the fossil record supported Darwinism as it was proposed and as it's taught to kids in school and on the tube, it wouldn't have been necessary to explain the lack of continual transitions away like that. When you have twenty fossils of one species and twenty of its nearest "cousin," but no gradual succession linking them, you have a problem that even Darwin acknowledged as being the biggest argument against his theory. If Evolution were true as it's conceieved, finding two virtually identical fossils should be the exception rather than the rule.
And as for calling it Darwinism instead of simply evolution, we do so to avoid the third-grade mentality that refuses to distinguish micro-evolution from the Theory of Evolution.
And, finally, "irreducible complexity" does not exist. Or, at least, all examples put forth so far have been demonstrated to have evolutionary predecessors.
As is so often the case with evolutionists, your rhetoric far exceeds your evidence. I defy you to present a sequence by which the forty protein components of the rotary motor of a bacterial flagellum could come together one small mutation at a time, with each stage increasing (or at the least not decreasing) the organism's survivability, and then present the mathematical odds of each individual protein falling into just the right place in the right sequence to so advance the organism. Here's an article on the problem facing you on this one relatively simple organ on an extremely simple lifeform. Start adding up all those little changes that are necessary, and you end up with a real mess for Darwinism to have to explain away.
(Sentence structure and wording of prior post excluded)
Or I might be an agnostic--there's a really good chance on that one--or a theistic evolutionist. But thanks for confirming once again where your problems with mainstream science arise.
If you are a ‘theistic evolutionist’ than you believe an intelligent force intervened at ‘some’ time.
I've got you pegged as a Methodist.
Typically, once--at the very beginning. You could ask Junior, Lurking_Libertarian, or Physicist.
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.