Intellectuals Who Doubt Darwin

The American Prowler ^ | 11/24/2004 | Hunter Baker

[nickcarraway]

Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing

Edited by William A. Dembski

(ISI Books, 366 pages, $28; $18 paper)

WACO, Texas -- At one time, the debate over Darwin's theory existed as a cartoon in the modern imagination. Thanks to popular portrayals of the Scopes Trial, secularists regularly reviewed the happy image of Clarence Darrow goading William Jennings Bryan into agreeing to be examined as an expert witness on the Bible and then taking him apart on the stand. Because of the legal nature of the proceedings that made evolution such a permanent part of the tapestry of American pop culture, it is fitting that this same section of the tapestry began to unravel due to the sharp tugs of another prominent legal mind, Phillip Johnson.

The publication of his book, Darwin on Trial, now appears to have marked a new milestone in the debate over origins. Prior to Johnson's book, the critics of evolution tended to occupy marginalized sectarian positions and focused largely on contrasting Darwin's ideas with literalist readings of the Genesis account. Johnson's work was different. Here we had a doubter of Darwin willing to come out of the closet, even though his credentials were solid gold establishment in nature. He had attended the finest schools, clerked for Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, taught law as a professor at highly ranked Berkeley, and authored widely-used texts on criminal law. Just as Darrow cross-examined the Bible and Bryan's understanding of it, Johnson cross-examined Darwin and got noticed in the process. He spent much of the last decade debating the issue with various Darwinian bulldogs and holding up his end pretty well.

PHILLIP JOHNSON, AND a number of others, raised enough doubts about the dominant theory to cause a number of intellectuals to take a hard look, particularly at the gap between what can be proven and what is simply asserted to be true. Since that time, authors with more technical backgrounds, like mathematician/philosopher William Dembski and biochemist Michael Behe, have published books providing even more powerful critiques of the neo-Darwinian synthesis based on intelligent design theory. Behe's work has been particularly disturbing to evolution advocates because he seems to have proven that organic machines at the molecular level are irreducibly complex and therefore could not have been the products of natural selection because there never would have been any intermediate working mechanism to select. Now, the two team up as Dembski edits and Behe contributes to a bracing collection of controversial writings titled Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing.

Dembski displays the intellectual doggedness of the group of contributors when he uses his introductory essay to ruthlessly track down and scrutinize the footnotes offered by those who would refute Behe's case. Reference after reference claiming to have decisively defeated Behe turns out to be inadequate to the task. What passes for refutation is instead a collection of question-begging and "just-so stories." Right away, Dembski sets the tone for the book. Nothing will be uncontested. The pro-evolution community will be made to fight for every inch of intellectual real estate without relying on the aura of prestige or the lack of competent critics to bolster their case.

The best way to read the book is by beginning at the end and perusing the profiles of the contributors. There, the reader will be able to select essays from representatives of a variety of disciplines, including mathematics, philosophy, biochemistry, biophysics, chemistry, genetics, law, and medicine. The most enjoyable in terms of sheer brio are the essays by Dembski, Behe, Frank Tipler, Cornelius Hunter, and David Berlinski. Tipler's essay on the process of getting published in a peer-reviewed journal is particularly relevant and rewarding because it deals with one of the biggest strikes against Intelligent Design. ID theorists have had a notoriously difficult time getting their work published in professional journals. Tipler, a professor of mathematical physics at Tulane, crankily and enjoyably explains why.

TOP HONORS, HOWEVER, go to David Berlinski's essay, "The Deniable Darwin," which originally appeared in Commentary. The essay is rhetorically devastating. Berlinski is particularly strong in taking apart Richard Dawkins' celebrated computer simulation of monkeys re-creating a Shakespearean sentence and thereby "proving" the ability of natural selection to generate complex information. The mathematician and logician skillfully points out that Dawkins rigged the game by including the very intelligence in his simulation he disavows as a cause of ordered biological complexity. It's clear that Berlinski hits a sore spot when one reads the letters Commentary received in response to the article. Esteemed Darwinists like Dawkins and Daniel Dennett respond with a mixture of near-hysterical outrage and ridicule. Berlinski's responses are also included. At no point does he seem the slightest bit cowed or overwhelmed by the personalities arrayed against him.

For the reader, the result is simply one of the most rewarding reading experiences available. Berlinski and his critics engage in a tremendous intellectual bloodletting, with Berlinski returning fire magnificently. In a particularly amusing segment, Berlinski, constantly accused of misperception, writes, "For reasons that are obscure to me, both [Mr. Gross] and Daniel Dennett carelessly assume that they are in a position to instruct me on a point of usage in German, my first language." Though his foes repeatedly accuse Berlinski of being a "creationist," the tag has little chance of sticking to a man arguing for little more than agnosticism on the question of origins and who disavows any religious principles aside from the possible exception of hoping to "have a good time all the time." One suspects that the portion of the book occupied by the Berlinski essay and subsequent exchanges will gain wide currency.

For far too long, the apologists for Darwin have relied on a strategy of portraying challengers as simple-minded religious zealots. The publication of Uncommon Dissent and many more books like it, will severely undermine the success of such portrayals. During the past decade, it has become far too obvious that there are such things as intellectuals who doubt Darwin and that their ranks are growing. The dull repetition of polemical charges in place of open inquiry, debate, and exchange may continue, but with fewer and fewer honest souls ready to listen.

Hunter Baker is a Ph.D. student at Baylor University and contributes to the Reform Club.

[unspun]

Okay. Please state the Law of Gravity, rather than engaging in semantic evasion.

But you regard too lowly the semantics involved, methinks. I am not a scientist. I am a bit of a semticist. It is in the ontology and epistemology that Evolutionists overstate their cases and it is there I will discuss it.

[unspun]

I never claimed it was a fact. It is more than "just a theory", however, which is the bad argument made by many creationists.

If it isn't just a theory and it isn't a just fact, then perhaps a new epistemological term should be invented, just for Evolution.

Thanks for your apt rely A-G. I hope to address it an any others, soon.

[StJacques]

"There is nothing in evolutionary theory that requires perfection in adaptation. Adequacy is sufficient. . . ."

This is true, since survival and propagation of the species is the driving force behind evolutionary theory.

". . . Change does not automatically imply a direction."

This is also true as it relates to the work of the evolutionary biologist I discussed since simply stating that the several new species of grasses which evolved from the common ancestor all make greater use of the energy available to them does not mean that they evolved in that direction because they needed to make greater use of the energy available to them. That would commit the "False Cause" post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. However; that having been said, there is still a question that must be answered. Why is it that across multiple ecological systems the common result of evolutionary change in the development of new species of grasses is that they make greater use of the energy available to them? The evolutionary biologist I referred to hypothesizes that, given the extinction of other species that made less efficient use of energy, that this may constitute a "directional path" [my term] for evolutionary development, a hypothesis that he believed should be tested further. He never stated that it "proved" that evolutionary development proceeded in this fashion.

At a more abstract level, the entire discussion I related about the evolution of grasses sought to separate two points about the Theory of Evolution. The first is that the evidence for the evolution of new species is so overwhelming that it approaches facticity and there is really no serious debate over this point within the scientific community. The second is that there is a serious debate over the engine of evolutionary change. The work of the evolutionary biologist I referenced earlier was one such example. There were others, the only one of which I remember had to do with some kind of tree frog in Panama whose male members sometimes display very bright coloring. One zoologist who studied these frogs for years concluded that there was no competitive advantage for the species gained by this coloring as a defense mechanism or camoflauge or otherwise. He hypothesized that the bright coloring predominates among males because it seems to make them more attractive to females and that the trait was not selected naturally to ensure the survival of the species.

[StJacques]

I glanced at the eye article briefly and I'll have to read it later. I've got to work today, but I'll see if it raises any questions I feel the need to comment upon.

[unspun]

Rather, theories are the end points of science.

Well then... just present a collection of experiments which demonstrate the evolutionary process in action and subject it to a battery of tests which would attempt to falsify it while demonstrating that it yet stands, and then... you will have the scientific theory of evolution.

[unspun]

A better formulation for today might be autonomous self-organizing biological complexity + natural selection> species - but it shouldn't be called the theory of evolution since the first formulation fails.

Yes, ma'am.

"Self organizing" is the kicker, ain't it?

"The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD." Proverbs 16:33

And that, when it comes to the generation of life itself, and of the kinds, begs the question: "So, how have the lots been cast?"

[StJacques]

""Self organizing" is the kicker, ain't it?"

"Self-organizing" seems to imply consciousness acting to organize the development of a species. If so, then the principle places "being" over "becoming" and is therefore metaphysical rather than scientific. No explanation or discounting of evolution that follows from this line of reasoning can be accepted as scientifically valid. As an exercise in metaphysics it may work, but not as an exercise in science.

[StJacques]

"Well then... just present a collection of experiments which demonstrate the evolutionary process in action and subject it to a battery of tests which would attempt to falsify it while demonstrating that it yet stands, and then... you will have the scientific theory of evolution.

Deal.

At the single cell level it's already been done with bacteria and tests of their resistance to antibiotics, in which new strains, and with distinct genetic signatures, that have mutated out of the old have emerged. In fact not only has the emergence of evolved antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria been documented, the "experimental stage" has gone one step further. Scientists trying to test whether the evolved antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria would need the presence of the antibiotic in order to flourish have introduced the "resistance genes" into what are called "naive bacteria," meaning those of the pre-evolved ancestral strain. This was their conclusion when commenting upon evidence that suggested the resistant strains would need the presence of the antibiotic:

". . . But there is an important caveat: These studies have put resistant genes into naive bacteria, which have no evolutionary history of association with the resistance genes. An important question, therefore, is whether bacteria can overcome the cost of resistance by evolving adaptations that counteract the harmful side effects of resistance genes. . . ."

It's no longer a question of whether evolution can be created in the laboratory and documented, it's already gone beyond that to testing how the biological "costs" of adaptations created through mutations may impact their further survival and/or continued evolution.

You can read this study at the following link:

http://www.im.microbios.org/04december98/06%20Lenski.pdf

At the multi-cellular level speciation has been created in the laboratory and observed in several instances, especially with varieties of flies and other insects. You can review those experiments at the following link:

Observed Instances of Speciation in Plants and Animals

Please pay attention to the chromosomal differences of the resulting offspring in plants and the resulting sterility of the pairing of offspring in animals with their "ancestor species" coupled with their successful assortative mating with other offspring.

[Junior]

Actually, the correct statement is - Irreducible Complexity, the enigma that evolution cannot possibly answer.

And what is "irreducible complexity?" It's nothing more than a creationist saying, "I can't figure out how this evolved, so therefore it had to be created." In other words, it's an argument from personal ignorance.

[longshadow]

I don't see a "G".

Oh; it's there alright -- he just set it equal to 1.

;-)

[Hegewisch Dupa]

"Irreducible complexity" is a far more complex idea than what you decided to label it for, but it is more fun to reduce its complexity down to something you can mock. And just because some creationist clown mis-uses a tool doesn't mean the tool is useless.

[Junior]

Okay, then, what is "irreducible complexity?" How does it not boil down to, "I can't figure it out, therefore it's a miracle?"

Remember, a lot of things creationists thought irreducibly complex (the eye, the flagellum, etc.) have since fallen to explanations for their evolutions -- as have been pointed out numerous times on these threads.

[Hegewisch Dupa]

When I read Behe, what I got out of it was that irreducible complexity better boils down to "We can't figure it out with existing theories, we need to study more/a new theory/whatever - we need more, and improtantly, better answers." Creationists using it as an signpost pointing their way are silly. Conversely, scientist frightened by discussion of the idea (which they are too many), are doing their chosen craft an injustice.

For the love of God, what am I doing here? I know better to even post on a creation/evolution thread. So what do I go and do? Try my best to piss off both sides. Not smart, to say the least....

[StJacques]

Just an observation on my part, but the terms "Irreducible" and "Complexity" are direct opposites of each other. That which is irreducible can have no constituent parts and that which exhibits complexity must have reducible parts.

The term seems to suggest "A" and "Not A" simultaneously. It is, to quote that great philosopher Mr. Spock, "illogical."

[StJacques]

". . . For the love of God, what am I doing here? I know better to even post on a creation/evolution thread. So what do I go and do? Try my best to piss off both sides. Not smart, to say the least...."

This is a very astute observation on your part. It is the best evidence yet that you are evolving into a more highly-intelligent form of life.

[unspun]

The experiments you cite don't seem to include the consideration of randomness.

[unspun]

No explanation or discounting of evolution that follows from this line of reasoning can be accepted as scientifically valid. As an exercise in metaphysics it may work, but not as an exercise in science.

By means of metaphysics we may know all of science.

By means of science we may not know all of metaphysics.

What does that say to you?

See "subsume."

It is not science that can tell us of origins, nor of what creativity may or may not be applied. Therefore, science cannot tell us just how it was that species have come about.

_________________________
Heartlander acknowldegement.

[G Larry]

Cause what "evolution has to say about how species arise" doesn't pass the laugh test.

Its largely unscientific and speculative.
It extrapolates adaptation within a species as "proof" of the leap to a "new" species.

The "examples" in your prior post don't cut it.
I'm not interested in "monsters".
I want to see the before and after.
What did the "non-seal" mother of the seal look like?
Which of the whales was first a seal?
Where are the examples if there was something in between?

Don't give me the "If you don't have a clue..." crap.
What are the answers?

[VadeRetro]

Cause what "evolution has to say about how species arise" doesn't pass the laugh test.

Let's reproduce the question to which the preceding purports to be an answer.

You asked this:

Did the "land whale" 'With legs' give birth to a sea whale without legs?

That's a funny thing not to know. Thus, my question:

If you don't have a clue what evolution has to say about how species arise, how do you know it's false?

That done, NOW let's look again at your answer.

Cause what "evolution has to say about how species arise" doesn't pass the laugh test.

Good heavens! You might as well have said, "Because it's false." That can't be much of an answer, especially since to all appearances you genuinely don't know beans about what you're talking about.

You're begging the question here. Something is seriously lacking in your discourse. Do you know how to answer a question by actually reading the question and answering it?

You go on with more questions which further cement the notion that you are unfamiliar not only with what the evidence is for the evolution of whales, but how in general evolution says things happen.

Do you know by what mechanism evolutionary change happens? If you do know that, what's your excuse for asking such ignorant questions? Again--and let's try for some honesty this time--if you don't know that, how do you know it's false?

[G Larry]

>Do you know by what mechanism evolutionary change happens?<

Yes.
It doesn't.

Yes, I know several of the theories that have been advanced. None of them hold water.