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.

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.

William Dembski, Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing

Edward Larson, Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion

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.

You are one arrogant ..... To think you are in any position to criticize God's work. Can you "make" an eye that would see better? How do you know if our eyes are not perfect? Why are you so afraid of the truth?

"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things."

It would be less than wise to suggest that evolution does not occur and has not occurred.

I am more concerned about what is true than what is deemed wise by some. It is true that evolution is supposed by some to be true. It is not true that it is a fact.

It would be less than wise to suggest that evolution does not occur and has not occurred.

Still, both sides agree that there was a beginning. Logic dictates that

(1)

self-causation is absurd. Logic also tells us that time is required in order for motion to occur.

(2)

The claim that time began when the bb exploded is therefore absurd as well.

(3)

Logic tells us that nothing can be infinitely small as goes the claim of the BB'ers regarding all the matter in the universe. The unit of distance called a light-year depends on a consistent speed of light yet we are told that the BB resulted in infinite temperatures

(4)

which are impossible in a finite universe and

(5)

matter traveled at many times the speed of light which requires infinite energy in a finite universe.

So if it is true that we don't know much of anything about "beginnings", we do know the materialist's version is illogical.

Maybe Voltaire was right, "If there were no God, it would be necessary for man to invent one."

Does Voltaire still have credibility with some? His most famous prediction was that Christianity would disappear within a couple of generations. It is now the world's largest and fastest growing "religion."

The fact that evolution is uncertain does not render it useless or unscientific. All scientific theories are uncertain. Does that mean we should stop teaching science? Evolution has a similar status, as far as degree of certainty goes, as does quantum theory, relativity theory, and many other scientific theories. We cannot observe atoms or space-time curvature either. These are the best theories we have for the observations. Similarly evolution is the best scientific theory for the observations. Furthermore, and I'm not necessarily pointing to you in particular, many creationists focus more on disproving evolution than they do supporting their own ideas. Even if evolution were to be completely debunked, it would not necessarily render creationism true. (or ID or any other idea, for that matter). Any alternative to evolution should rise or fall on its own merits.

The answer becomes obvious when we identify the politically powerful and influential ideologues for whom "godless" Darwinism serves as the 'force de jeur' against God of the Bible. These ideologues are Secular Humanists {Dawkins, for instance is a signatore of the Humanist Manifesto}and neo-Marxist socialists. These people virtually comprise the entirety of the Dem. Party, Hollywood, the ACLU, PFAW, George Soros, academia, mainstream media, the NEA, AFT, activist judges, radical homosexual organizations, PlannedParenthood, NARAL, pop culture entertainent {Disney's Epcott Center showcases/teaches the godless human secularist worldview}.

Revealing too much about your support of Ellen G Whiteism?.

There are things in the modern world that bother you. But rather than confronting them on the merits, you choose to blame it all on a mild mannered 19th Century Emglish scientist.

This topic doesn't lend its self easily to discussion between persons having different worldviews. We will continue to talk past each other.

I would argue that pain and emotions do not exist independently of the physical body which experiences them.

Ideas are trickier, particularly mathematical ideas that are widely accepted.

I am getting very frustrated with people who make all kinds of assertions without any knowledge of fact. For about the gazillionth time, evolution has nothing whatsoever to say about the existence of God. Evolution deals with what happened after the first life form came into existence. Notice that it has absolutely nothing to say about the origin of this life. It could have arisen as a result of chemical processes, it could have been created directly by God, it could have come from space, or it could have been sneezed out by the Great Green Arkleseizure. It is completely irrelevant to the theory of evolution. I have furthermore repeatedly maintained that no scientific theory or hypothesis, up to and including the big bang theory is a repudiation of God's existence. Could God not have created space-time via the mechanism of the big bang and allowed the universe to evolve according to the laws of nature which he also created? Could not life have arisen as a result of this process? Could not all the life seen on earth have arisen then as a result of evolution? God would still be the Creator of life; he just used the big bang, the laws of nature and the process of evolution to do the job. To me, a God who could design and create all of this is a much more awe-inspiring God than one who has to create each and every thing separately. Science continues to reinforce my faith. If it causes you to question yours or anyone else's, then maybe the problem isn't science.

Have you ever noticed how liberals embrace Darwin when it comes to evolution but reject him when it comes to natural selection (i.e., survival of the fittest)? They reject war (survival of the fittest), embrace abortion and try to save species from extinction (both are direct interference by man in the natural selection process).

My own simple take: Evolution and natural selection may be the "how" but that doesn't mean God didn't do it. Ya think he's going to try to explain it to man thousands of years ago or just keep it simple and understandable?

"The answer becomes obvious when we identify the politically powerful and influential ideologues for whom "godless" Darwinism serves as the 'force de jeur' against God of the Bible. ... These people virtually comprise the entirety of the Dem. Party, Hollywood, the ACLU, PFAW, George Soros, academia, mainstream media, the NEA, AFT, activist judges, radical homosexual organizations, PlannedParenthood, NARAL, pop culture entertainent {Disney's Epcott Center showcases/teaches the godless human secularist worldview}."

Add to that list the gangs of tatooed, amoral, porn-watching, communist, dope-smoking, late-night-partying biologists and you've captured the core constituency of the evolution-conspiracy cabal. (By the way, we meet on fridays at the VFW. BYOB.)

Does Voltaire still have credibility with some? His most famous prediction was that Christianity would disappear within a couple of generations. It is now the world's largest and fastest growing "religion."

Do you have a credible source for that?

Sounds a bit urban-legendish to me.

The fact that evolution is uncertain does not render it useless or unscientific.

Of course evolution is not useless. It is extremely useful to some. My complements on your honesty regarding its uncertainty.

Does that mean we should stop teaching science?

Has anyone on these threads ever indicated that to be their desire? No one here is opposed to science. That is entirely a construct of the opposition.

Evolution has a similar status, as far as degree of certainty goes, as does quantum theory, relativity theory, and many other scientific theories.

Perhaps, if you think theories about unobserved phenomena should be equal to theories about observed phenomena.

Even if evolution were to be completely debunked, it would not necessarily render creationism true.

The creation does not become true by default as evolution fails. However, in any debate it is SOP to support your argument while dismantling your opponent's. The difficulty in this debate is not exposing the weaknesses of evolution, but (like Gore) getting the opposition to admit when they've lost.

Thank you so much for your reply!

This topic doesn't lend its self easily to discussion between persons having different worldviews. We will continue to talk past each other.

Indeed - but, happily, at the end of the day, we shall retain mutual respect.

We do disagree on whether the mind is an epiphenomenon of the physical brain. I say no, you say yes. But I consider that issue separate from qualia which (IMHO) more closely relates to a (non-corporeal, non-spatial, non-temporal) mathematical structure or idea.

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.