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
Two words. Yugo. Microsoft. ;-)
(I was just kidding!)
(2) If Darwinism can't be tested experimentally and must be taken on faith, how is that different from magic?
Magic has perjorative connotations within the scientific community. (Go back to the middle ages / enlightenment when empiricism, mysticism, 'quackery', and scholasticism were all beginning to distentangle themselves).
Science is based on observation under controlled conditions. Its applicability to ordinary life varies depending on how closely factors which cannot be controlled for in the laboratory, come into play under 'everyday' conditions. For many circumstances, it does pretty d*mn well.
But this does not stop it from being questioned, e.g. Physics Today once had a reference to a traffic accident lawyer who won a case by convincing the jury (my paraphrase) "The laws of Physics are obeyed in the laboratory, but not on the streets of rural New Jersey." Even allowing for the fact that it was a (shudder)lawyer, this demonstrates that Luddites need not be populated exclusively from the ranks of "fundamentalists" (another popular term among scientists).
Cheers!
I would assume that in your entire existance , you have seen a human create and/or design something. You need not see the person who designed your car to know that a human engineered your car.
No one ,however has ever created a species.
1. God would not make mistakes in design, as the designer of your washing machine did. Why do we need vitamin C to survive? What does the appendix do and why does its removal when infected not harm us, but the infection does?
No, intelligent design is simply superstition and faulty theology disguised as science.
2.Science is not all about experimentation. It is collection and analysis of data, too. Over the last 150 years, millions of data points have been collected, not one of them contradicting Darwin's Hypothesis, which elevates the hypothesis to a Theory (a Theory is a fact of science).
If any contradiction of any element of the Theory or the Theory as a whole is obtained, science would immediately drop it. However, Darwin explains how biology has worked and is working today. It is observable today in genetics.
Both faith and science are founded on fact. However, belief in God is a leap of faith that science does not cover. Do you deny that Jesus existed? If so, this is the same as denying Darwin's ideas. Do you believe Jesus existed-faith founded on fact.
Yes, these threads seem to exhibit a lot of random mutations and mass extinctions themselves!
(Runs for cover, ducking to avoid rotten produce thrown his way...)
You need not see the Person who designed your body to know that a Person designed your body.
No one ,however has ever created a species.
That's simply an unproven assertion.
What you are talking about here IS Darwinism; i.e., evolution by natural selection. If you have a number of mutations in a population, some will be neutral, some will be harmful, and some will be beneficial vis-a-vis survival. Those individuals with harmful or "less stable" mutations will die off, while those with beneficial mutations will flourish. Over time this equals a change in the genetic make-up of the population. Speciation occurs when an accumulation of those changes in the population makes it a discreet unit, reproduction-wise.
This subject always does it. I tried to sum it up real fast earlier in post # 2, but I guess it won't work. ;-)
By the way, do you agree?
We're talking molecular biology here---not archeaology.
I was born, I wasn't designed. That logical fallacy would be a "weak analogy".
I need not prove my assertion. Humans can't even find a cure for the common cold let alone engineer an entirely new species.
Danke, your post is an inspiration and wise.......... a wonderful combination. You made my week!
Heretic!
Well o.k, then, show us where, in peer-reviewed literature, somebody ever mutated one species into another entirely different species. Please provide data which will allow an independent researcher to replicate that result in another lab.
IMO it's because members of the atheist religion have attempted to use evolutionary arguments to undermine the faith community (or people of the book in PC). The reaction of the faith community has been to attack the science.
Paraphrased: "Ideas are better than beliefs. Beliefs cannot be changed, ideas can." Chris Rock in Dogma the movie.
Did you mean, mind closed?
Well, they attempt to ridicule into silence. They don't seem to have been very successful.
No need to dip into arcana. Why not ask: why can't we fly? Why do we have to eat or sleep?
What you perceive as a "mistake" may not actually be one.
No, intelligent design is simply superstition and faulty theology disguised as science.
Calling ideas names doesn't invalidate them. I'll add that you don't seem to understand what the word "superstition" means and that you're not well-versed enough in theology to determine what in the discipline is "faulty".
Science is not all about experimentation. It is collection and analysis of data, too.
Absolutely. Once data is collected and verified it can be used to construct a theory which can then be tested. Observation is a necessary precondition to experimentation and an essential part of the scientific method.
Over the last 150 years, millions of data points have been collected, not one of them contradicting Darwin's Hypothesis,
That's simply incorrect.
which elevates the hypothesis to a Theory (a Theory is a fact of science).
Incorrect again. A theory is not a "fact of science" - it is the working model under which scientific inquiry operates.
If any contradiction of any element of the Theory or the Theory as a whole is obtained, science would immediately drop it.
That's an extremely naive statement. The scientific community was so dedicated to Newtonian mechanics that for decades it refused to consider that Newton's model might not subsume all mechanics. Phlogiston theory is another paradigm that preoccupied chemists for more than a century.
Historically, scientific theories hang on as ruling paradigms for quite a long time after they should have been discarded.
However, Darwin explains how biology has worked and is working today. It is observable today in genetics.
Darwinism does not explain modern biology. Mendelian genetics does, and Mendelian genetics - the real way physical characteristics are passed on from generation to generation - demonstrates the difficulties in the Darwinian hypothesis. Genetics shows that mutations are continually rejected by populations and that reversion to the mean is characteristic of genetic variation.
Both faith and science are founded on fact.
True. As St. Augustine said, God wrote two books - the Scriptures and Nature.
However, belief in God is a leap of faith that science does not cover.
Incorrect. God's existence is a matter of fact, not of faith. What God has revealed about Himself, or whether He has revealed anything at all, is the subject of faith.
Do you deny that Jesus existed? If so, this is the same as denying Darwin's ideas.
That's just silly. Christ existed and Darwin had ideas.
The fact that Darwin had ideas does not mean his ideas are automatically true.
Denying a historical fact - that Christ existed - is not the same as denying that Darwin's ideas are valid.
That's just an illogical statement.
Do you believe Jesus existed-faith founded on fact.
Immaterial.
It's never happened and it will never happen because it is impossible. The notion that such a thing could happen is based on a flawed theory.
I'm sure you were.
I wasn't designed.
That's an unproven assertion.
I need not prove my assertion.
Of course not. And it's lucky for you, since it can't be proven.
Humans can't even find a cure for the common cold let alone engineer an entirely new species.
Quite true. Which is why evolution remains a theoretical construct and not a proven fact.
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.