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.

If "the evolution theory is as true as Newton's laws of gravity" - and I assume you have ignorantly mistaken Newton's laws of motion for "laws of gravity" - then, like Newton's laws of motion, it should be replicable by experiment.

You are confusing what the words 'theory' and 'law' mean in a scientific context. Theories and Laws bear equal weight in science. Laws are mathematical equations that show relationships. Theories are used to explain these relationships.

Laws are just likely to be revised as Theories are.

The Theory of Evolution will never graduate into being a law - its just not the way things work. The theory of evolution is one of the strongest theories we have in science. BTW, theory <> hypothesis.

The Theory of Evolution will never graduate into being a law - its just not the way things work.

Yes, I understand all this.

A theory is an explanatory framework for observed phenomena.

The theory of evolution is one of the strongest theories we have in science.

Yet even its defenders admit that it is problematic, and so have come up with such stopgap revisions as punctuated equilibrium.

So called "micro-evolution" is a cop-out by "Creation Scientists" to explain away the observed Evolution process. They claim that since the observed evolution didn't go far enough for their tastes, then it wasn't "real" evolution.

What these observations on evolution prove is that the evolution process works as predicted. The claims that somehow this process would break down at some artificial "species" boundary is silly. Such claims are themselves totally without evidence.

If "Creation Scientists" were actually scientists, they would propose WHY the observed evolution process would break down at some point. Their work would consist of promoting their "species evolutionary limit" theories, rather than merely trying do prove that the few hundred words in Genesis are the complete and litteral description of early life on earth.

The new "List-O-Links," posted as a public service, so that each new thread doesn't have to start at ground zero:

The scientific method. Essential definitions of "theory" "hypothesis" etc.
The scientific method. Another site. Exhaustive discussion.
Is Evolution Science? It is. Here's why.
An Index to Creationist Claims. From Talk.Origins. Exhaustive list.
Understanding Evolution, an evolution website for teachers.
Frequently Encountered Criticisms in Evolution vs. Creationism.
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense. From Scientific American
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use From Answers in Genesis.
Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution. Excellent statement.
The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity," by Kenneth R. Miller. Solid critique of Behe's work.
The Pope's 1996 statement on evolution. Physical evolution is not in conflict with Christianity.
Project Steve From National Center for Science Education, shows the overwhelming number of genuine scientists who support evolution.

The foregoing is just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated Creationism vs. Evolution threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review:
The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 21].

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...

Nice mantra, second only to Sagan's

worthy of de big bahd bagwan.

Then why the panic when school districts wish to remind students that evolution is just a theory?

Because when school districts do this, they are signaling that they are teaching religion, not science. People want their children taught science (like I'm sure you would protest if your children were taught Wicca, or whatever religion you oppose).

There are other posts that speak on the difference between a scientific "law" vs. "theory". These school districts are taking advantage on the common use of these words, not their proper scientific use.

And let's not get into this dumb argument that Evolution IS a religion. I may agree that Environmentalisim is a religion. But like Creation "science", it misues scientific data to fit an agenda.

Yet even its defenders admit that it is problematic, and so have come up with such stopgap revisions as punctuated equilibrium.

That Evolution is "problematic" doesn't mean that it isn't the best description of the observed phenomena. It will not be discredited unless serious quantities of new information are found. Something even the efforts of "Creation Scientists" have not been able to do to any extent.

Because when school districts do this, they are signaling that they are teaching religion, not science.

You are simply wrong here, Narby. Evolution is a theory. Pointing that out is not religion, it's the truth. Science should deal with truth claims scientifically. Rather than admit that evolution is a theory, they run to court to silence the truth rather than support their supposed fact. A bit strange, to be sure. Scientific? Most certainly not.

Anyone who claims evolution is a fact also admits one of two things: He is incapabable of reason or he refuses to reason. Being admittedly unreasonable, therefore, he has relegated himself to the realm of non-reason.

That Evolution is "problematic" doesn't mean that it isn't the best description of the observed phenomena.

True. Nor does it mean that it should be presented as incontrovertible fact.

It will not be discredited unless serious quantities of new information are found.

The main issue is lack of serious quantities of information documenting macroevolution, despite the abundant evidence of microevolution.

Something even the efforts of "Creation Scientists" have not been able to do to any extent.

That's fine. No one here is saying that ID should be taught in schools as incontrovertible fact.

I believe you've purposely ignored the earlier posts on the difference between scientific "theory" and "law"

You can't move evolution from fairy tale to fact by playing word games. Evolutionists have tried to reclassify their worldview as a fact but backed off when the general public reacted to such nonsense. Pretending that it has something to do with law is just another trial balloon.

Just what is the real difference between John Kerry using the courts to silence his critics and evolutionists using the courts to silence theirs?

That Evolution is "problematic" doesn't mean that it isn't the best description of the observed phenomena. --- True. Nor does it mean that it should be presented as incontrovertible fact.

The science of star operation is "problematic". Yet no one should doubt the fact that they are big, hot, far away, and the fact that they exist. Evolution is "problematic" in the same way. Tiny details can be discussed. Scientific "Theories" are by definition larger issues than scientific "laws", and can be refined indefinitly. That doesn't invalidate them.

Evolution is true. It should not invalidate any religion you might have.

It will not be discredited unless serious quantities of new information are found. ---- The main issue is lack of serious quantities of information documenting macroevolution, despite the abundant evidence of microevolution.

Sorry. But there are litteral tons of evidence of what Creationists call "macro evolution". If you wish to ignore it. Well. Whatever. Lead a horse to water....

Something even the efforts of "Creation Scientists" have not been able to do to any extent. --- That's fine. No one here is saying that ID should be taught in schools as incontrovertible fact.

Perhaps not. Just that it be taught. Despite a complete lack of observations of a "creator".

It shouldn't be too long before this thread devolves into a fight about "whether God exists". Which is why the Evolution argument is such a dumb one for religious people to start. The fight itself guarantees that many people who accept God and believe in scientific facts will be forced to choose between them. And any person who is forced to reject God because of the dogma of Creationism is a loss.

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.