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.

"C'mon. Believing the magic hypothesis answers nothing and certainly doesn't make you right, religious, or scientific."

Ah, the magic of evolutionary theory. Lightening strikes a pool of goo which just happens to have the right compounds in the right place at the right time, and the first life is formed. Then this life form, without having had the time required to evolve the ability to reproduce, somehow reproduces itself.

Now, that is magic!

Take 100 fat overweight Americans (50 male and 50 female), and dump them off on a deserted isle in the Pacific. Don't go back for 200 years. When you finally go back...the descendents of the 100 islanders will not be fat. They will be sleek slim islanders. Do I call this evolution? Not really...but some folks might. The same would occur with any animal or any plant that is taken from its normal place...and placed in different surroundings or different climate. Again, I would hate to use the word evolution, but things change. Did the dinosaurs evolve? While I can't prove anything...I can say point-blank they couldn't meet the requirements of existence...so they met their untimely end. Would I refer to this as evolution? No.

We have taken this word evolution and tried to make it fit a particular situation...and too many holes are left in it. But the word change does fit. In this simple world of ours, you either change or die...its the one common denominator of life on earth.

"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."

Sheesh. Was this writer competing for the "How much nonsense can one pack into a single paragraph" award?

You'd think he'd at least try to sneak up on ya with it after he'd gotten your interest with a halfway rational beginning.

Ah, the magic reading the same clueless posts over and over on this subject.

I really should work on reviving the "List-O-Links." It didn't stop any of this stuff, but it put the info out there for those who wanted to learn.

It's amazing how the word 'science' has become the banner with which the "Kings New Clothes" sort of people have swathed themselves in order to give validity to what is nothing more than their 'conceit."

Science is but a word that describes a learning process by which a person {a}'observes' something, {B}creates a theory concerning that 'something', {C}tests his theory and then restarts the sequence . There is the 'science" of fine art, the 'science' of cooking, the 'science' of warfare, and so on.

Notice that the entire learning process is completely Dependant upon {A} observing something. {A} is where your so-called "science" based upon evolutionary theory falls apart. No one was there at the beginning of the world and universe. So no one observed anything. This means that your 'science' is not factual at all......its a myth. When the basis of the 'science' is nothing but speculation {myth}, the rest of the tenets, dogma, etc., will suffer from flaws as well.

There is an interesting critique of the National Geographic article at:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2292&program=CSC%20-%20Views%20and%20News&callingPage=discoMainPage

By the way, I looked up the author of the NG piece and it appears that he doesn't have any college degree - he's a writer, period.

You know the deal:

No scientists question Darwin, because
Anyone who questions Darwin is not a scientist, because
No scientists question Darwin, because
Anyone who questions Darwin is not a scientist, because
No scientists question Darwin, because...

(Rinse, repeat ad inf.)

Dan

"Notice that the entire learning process is completely Dependant upon {A} observing something. {A} is where your so-called "science" based upon evolutionary theory falls apart. No one was there at the beginning of the world and universe. So no one observed anything. This means that your 'science' is not factual at all......its a myth. When the basis of the 'science' is nothing but speculation {myth}, the rest of the tenets, dogma, etc., will suffer from flaws as well."

And by this statement, you prove that you are just as clueless as all the other biblical creationists I have ever seen or read about as to what science is and how it works.

To put it simply---no one has ever "observed" an atom, an electron, a neutron, a molecule of water, a molecule of DNA, or any number of other standard items of science, yet we know without question that they exist, because their existence can be inferred from existing evidence, and from the fact that postulating their "existence" can be used to predict the outcome of experiments in different areas of science. The evidence for evolution is just as strong, and it has also successfully predicted a number of effects later observed in biology, microbiology, and now, molecular biology.

Thanks for posting this, Lindykim. The last few lines pretty much sum up what I've been arguing on FR for years:

No one is allowed to question any tenet of the dogmatic darwinian fairy tale. Darwinism is that fragile!

That's just an amazing sentence.

The vast majority of attacks by Creationists on science is where they take "questions" brought up in a scientific study on this or that detail of evolution, and hype it up to look like evolution has been disproven. Evolution is "questioned" all the time, and it stands up just fine.

there have been observations of evolution

There has never, ever been an observed case of macro-evolution (the evolution of one distinct type of animal into another, like a cat into a dog). As the article points out, seeing micro-evolution (the growth of finches' beaks) does not prove macro-evolution. Those who think otherwise are sorely lacking in scientific acumen.

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.