Designs on Us. Conservatives on Darwin vs. ID.

NRO ^ | 8/3/05 | David Klinghoffer

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

The New Republic recently published a survey of conservative journalists on the question of “Intelligent Design” (ID), the controversial critique of Darwinian evolution which argues that living creatures did not arise by an unaided, purely material process of evolution through random genetic variation but rather through the design of an intelligence transcending the material universe. To my surprise, it turned out that almost all those surveyed, including several NR editors and contributors, were doubters not of Darwinism but of Intelligent Design.

I realize with some trepidation that I am treading on the views of many of my old NR friends and colleagues, notably John Derbyshire who has written eloquently on the subject, but herewith a dissent on behalf of doubting Darwin.

A majority of biologists reject ID. But a minority of scientists, who are no fools, suggests that it is Darwinism that fails to explain the complexity of organisms. I don’t intend to wade into the details of the debate, but rather to ask how a layman like me, or Derbyshire, can hope to venture a responsible opinion. The question is not merely theoretical. The teaching of Darwinian evolution in public schools is being challenged before local and state school boards across the country.

Some say that, for non-experts, the smartest thing would be to accede to the viewpoint of the majority of scientists. But wait. The point I want to draw out here is that Darwinism, in particular evolutionary psychology, itself undercuts the claim that ID may be safely dismissed.

Charles Darwin’s insight holds that people are simply animals and that, like all animals, we got to be the way we are because our ancestors beat out the evolutionary competition and survived to pass on their genes. Evolutionary psychology extends this idea. There are some behaviors that increase the chances that a given person will be able to pass on his genetic information. One, for instance, might be murder, often committed against rivals who given the appearance of seeking to diminish the odds of our raising viable offspring that will carry our DNA. A classic illustration is the crime of passion, where the angry husband shoots the sexual rival who has been having an affair with his wife.

From this perspective, a main evolutionary-psychological impulse that drives males in particular is the drive to fight off rivals. For rivals threaten to reduce our access to reproductive assets — namely, women — by lowering our status in a social hierarchy. In certain neighborhoods, all it takes is a disrespectful look or word, a “diss,” especially in front of women, to get a man killed.

In evolutionary psychology, as in common sense, it is apparent that males highly value whatever source of status or prestige they have managed to secure. We value status so much that some are willing to kill over it. Others are willing at least to wound, if only with words.

One prominent evolutionary psychologist, Harvard’s Steven Pinker, has written frankly about rivalry in academia, and the use of cutting rhetoric in the defense of established ideas: “Their champions are not always averse to helping the ideas along with tactics of verbal dominance, among them intimidation (‘Clearly…’), threat (‘It would be unscientific to…’), authority (‘As Popper showed…’), insult (‘This work lacks the necessary rigor for…’), and belittling (‘Few people today seriously believe that…’).”

I bring this up because Intelligent Design aggressively challenges the status of many professionals currently laboring in secular academia. And because one of the hallmarks of the defense of Darwinism is precisely the kind of rhetorical displays of intimidation, threat, authority, and insult that Pinker describes.

For instance in a section on the website of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, entitled “Q&A on Evolution and Intelligent Design,” you will find numerous statements as if lifted almost verbatim from Pinker’s examples — ridiculing ID as “non-scientific,” an idea whose “advocates have yet to contribute in a scientifically rigorous manner,” who “may use the language of science, but [who] do not use its methodology.”

When you consider that ID theoreticians have published their findings in peer-reviewed scientific journals, in formidable academic presses such as those of Cambridge University and the University of Chicago, such denunciations start to sound like a worried defense of status more than a disinterested search for truth.

If the Darwinian establishment is vexed, that’s understandable. A century and a half ago, the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species with its materialistic implications signaled the overturning of Western society’s traditional matrix for the granting of status: namely religion. From Darwin forward, intellectual prestige was bestowed not by religious institutions but by secular ones, the universities.

It has remained so until today. Now, with many parents and school-board members signaling their impatience with the answers given by secular academia to ultimate questions — like, where did we humans come from — the secular hierarchy would be foolish not to be concerned. It would be perfectly in keeping with their own Darwinist views — about how men especially will fight to defend their source of status — to expect secularists to struggle violently against any challenge that may be raised against Darwinism, no matter where the truth of the matter may actually lie. Being the animals that we are, we are programmed through our genes to do just that.

In a wonderful irony, the only intellectual framework in which people can genuinely be expected to pursue truth dispassionately, even if that truth undermines our sense of personal prestige, happens to be the religious framework, in which people aren’t animals at all but rather beings created in the image of God.

In the case of ID versus Darwin, this observation may not tell us which side to embrace. It should signal, however, that when secularists insist that real science must lead to the view that life and intelligence arose through chance genetic events, we needn’t accept that view as gospel. I’ve offered a reason to doubt the Darwinian establishment, not necessarily to reject it. When laymen, including conservative journalists, follow the scientific majority on a question like this, rather than the dissenting minority, they should at least be aware that they are following guides who, while claiming to be disinterested, are anything but that.

[Oztrich Boy]

The first and second laws of Thermodynamics (basically life comes only from life and everything winds down like a clock - going from order to disorder) blow the theory of evolution out of the water

And you know meecrob about the laws of Thermodynamics

[Always Right]

Not many scientists at all believe in Intelligent Design. I seriously doubt you can claim one tenth of one percent of the world's credentialled biologists.

I would bet large sums of money it is much higher than that. Very large sums of money.

And it's not as if offers any intellectual content. You can't learn anything by studying it. "It's too complicated. I'll never understand it. Therefore it can't have evolved." That's not going to teach you much.

That is a total misrepresentation of anything I have said. However there is a lot more we don't know about the origin of life than what we do know. Just because someone believes in ID doesn't mean they are going to stop searching, that is kind of a bigoted point of view. It is different viewpoints that advance science. The most important discovery could easily come from someone who is trying to disprove the idea the life started from thin air.

[Clemenza]

Any rational human being sees more truth in evolution than the fraud that is ID. The former is based on reason, the latter on emotion.

[Oztrich Boy]

LOL, proclaiming a bit of judgment now are you????

It's PH's list. He get to use it how and when he sees fit. Anything else is COMMUNISM!

[Just mythoughts]

Ah, but right after Genesis 1:1 there is that word And, no time given, yet something happened, that word "was" is not correct, rightly translated should be became.

The earth became void and without form, it was not created that way, Isaiah 45:18 is a witness as to what word is correct.

".....He created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabitated:...."

Those words "in vain" are the same as used in Genesis 1:2 without form.

Something happened upon this earth before man in the flesh was ever formed, the event is what brought about the creating man in the flesh, and as we are told in Ecclesiastes 1:11 There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of thing that are to come with those that shall come after.

No memory installed in the flesh man of former things, yet the Word is filled with things that occured before man was created in the flesh.


Peter tells us the length of a Lord's day and it is not a 24/7 hour day. There is absolutely nothing in Genesis other than the word day to suggest a 24/7 day, yet along comes Peter and finds it necessary to point out that a day with the Lord is as a thousand years..... He was pointing to the days of creation as he says there was an age that WAS and an age that now IS and one yet to come.

IIPeter 3:

Note that Peter starts this chapter up with 'This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance;

Interesting Peter is using what to stir up pure minds by way of "remembrance???

Here Peter outright says that the world that WAS, being overflowed with water, perished: Not one word about Noah, the ark or those souls saved, just that word perished.

[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . but if he says that the laws of thermodynamics make evolution and other kinds of self-ordering processes impossible, he's still wrong.

As I understand it, the second law applies in both a positive and negative sense. Regardless, we operate intelligently in an orderly universe under generally constant physical laws that are nevertheless yet to be fully understood. Most observers would agree that where there is order, forces were brought to bear in causing it, and where there is no energy brought to bear on a thing, it will not organize itself.

Meanwhile your blustering, acerbic tone is a continual source of amusemument, but it does nothing to substatiate your notions or those of your pals. Frankly, with all the emotion you invest in debating the subject I am inclined to believe you kiss Darwin's bust both eve and morn.

As long as you fail to recognize the difference between reasonable conjecture and certifiable fact you will continue to cut off whatever legs you might otherwise enjoy in propping up a weak philosophy that has somehow gained the status of "scientific." Apparently both scientists and the general public are beginning to realize as much.

But that's okay. You have a choir, and you have cheerleaders. Enjoy yourself.

[Just mythoughts]

"It's PH's list. He get to use it how and when he sees fit. Anything else is COMMUNISM!"


You one of his incredibles?

Communism is a religion under that old religion called "we are gods", it denies the Creator as well.

[Ichneumon]

I would bet large sums of money it is much higher than that. Very large sums of money.

How much money, and how much higher? I may well take you up on that bet. Also, make sure you define "Intelligent Design" unambiguously.

[Ichneumon]

Meanwhile your blustering, acerbic tone is a continual source of amusemument,

Thank you, I attempt to be entertaining as well as informative.

but it does nothing to substatiate your notions or those of your pals.

Where on Earth did you get the silly notion that I might ever have attempted to substantiate anything by my "tone"? You provide me a lot of "amusemument [sic]" as well. No, what *does* "substantiate my notions" is the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution, including the *small* taste I provided in post #76. Is there some reason you chose to address my "tone" and *not* the evidence?

Frankly, with all the emotion you invest in debating the subject I am inclined to believe you kiss Darwin's bust both eve and morn.

I'm sorry, what was that you were saying about "blustering, acerbic tone"? I bow before the master.

As long as you fail to recognize the difference between reasonable conjecture and certifiable fact

Please identify any post where you imagine I have ever confused the two.

you will continue to cut off whatever legs you might otherwise enjoy in propping up a weak philosophy that has somehow gained the status of "scientific."

Let me know when the buzzwords end and the actual argument, rebuttal, refutation, or evidence begins.

Apparently both scientists and the general public are beginning to realize as much.

Apparently you engage in wishful thinking, *and* believe the creationists' chest-beating press releases.

But that's okay. You have a choir, and you have cheerleaders.

*And* I have vast mountains of evidence! Which you sort of "forgot" to even attempt to address, since you were so intent on just sneering at me, in the hopes that might help your case.

Enjoy yourself.

I do, thanks! Part of my enjoyment is watching how lame creationists get when they don't know how to actually dierctly address the evidence, and don't have any of their own to present. They end up saying hilariously petulant things like, "you kiss Darwin's bust both eve and morn." It's more fun than the circus.

[Alas Babylon!]

Just how many times does this falicy need to be explained on FR?

One billion, six hundred and seventy-three million, two hundred and forty-six thousand, five hundred and one.

Seriously, all you people arguing evolution versus ID, creationism, etc, are simply not having an effect on the other party. No one will change anyone's mind on this issue. Why are you even bothering with these threads?

Still, I always like to see a good fight. That's why I'm here. ;-)

[VadeRetro]

I would bet large sums of money it is much higher than that. [One tenth of one percent.] Very large sums of money.

Your perception and/or depiction of reality is much of the issue here. Sometimes I think all ID-ists are raving nutcases. Sometimes I think they're all pathological liars. Mostly, I think it doesn't matter which it is. They don't get too much right where it counts.

That is a total misrepresentation of anything I have said.

I was describing the intellectual content of ID. You need a new screenname.

However there is a lot more we don't know about the origin of life than what we do know.

That's ID. "Teach the ignorance!"

ID is a shoving under the rug of things we do know. Seriously, a group of scientists publishes a study, and on the announcement the War Room at the prestigious Discovery Institute issues a press release in rebuttal to the study and its findings. It instantly becomes clear that the writer of said press release had no idea of the design of said study. But the main point is that real science is learing the unknown. ID is unlearning the known. This is bad, especially since ID appears to be allowed to lie in this holy quest.

[beavus]

You cannot believe either Law of Thermodynamics (1st or 2nd) and embrace the Theory of Evolution.

Sigh.

[beavus]

The purpose of Creationism is to destroy and discredit the Conservative Movement.

Interesting thought, but it isn't a conspiracy. People in this day and age actually do believe such nonsense.

It is discrediting, but sadly conservatism comes by it honestly.

[narby]

Seriously, all you people arguing evolution versus ID, creationism, etc, are simply not having an effect on the other party. No one will change anyone's mind on this issue. Why are you even bothering with these threads?

To demonstrate, at least to the lurkers, that there is not any kind of conservative agreement with ID. Should the Republicans decide to publicly embrace ID, it will drive many good conservatives away from the party.

There is not any kind of agreement on ID, or more specifically, with a young earth six day creation among even Christians. Let alone conservatives.

[beavus]

Most of these processes result in losses that cannot and will never be regained in the form of stored energy to be used again. This points directly to the idea that something / Someone had to have provided the Original Sources of potential, usable energy. Next, the idea that a plan is needed to assemble a usable device points to a designer. For biological life, this points to a Designer. Raw, inorganic matter, regardless of how much it is irradiated with the sun or heat from a thermal vent, does nothing to cause autoorganization of the matter into the building blocks of life, and then, into the numerous proteins and cells that comprise a living being.

Thank you, God, for planning and constructing those quartz crystals I found in the cave last year.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to misunderstand thermodynamics. But apparently it is sufficient.

[PatrickHenry]

It's PH's list. He get to use it how and when he sees fit. Anything else is COMMUNISM!

If ping lists didn't involve making judgments, then they'd be like gravity or something, and they'd operate by themselves.

[Just mythoughts]

"If ping lists didn't involve making judgments, then they'd be like gravity or something, and they'd operate by themselves."

LOL, there has to be some kind of theory in there somewhere.

[fish hawk]

It matters not how many pages of stuff you put up on the screen to impress us all. (no one is going to read it all anyway). You still can't PROVE that a fish became an amphibian or an amphibian became a mammal or an ape became a man. If you have absolute proof of that please call the Smithsonian or a major university, they will be interested in the new material. Other than that, you have faith in evolution and I have faith in God. You keep your faith and I'll keep mine.

[beavus]

Since they are both theories, how does it really matter?

One explains observations within the changing context of the observable world. The other gives a fixed predetermined and unlikely explanation to any possible past, present, or future observations.

ID is a fixed belief impervious to any conceivable evidence to the contrary.

[Polybius]

The first and second laws of Thermodynamics (basically life comes only from life and everything winds down like a clock - going from order to disorder) blow the theory of evolution out of the water. All scientists that I have heard of or read about fully endorse both laws. Can they not see the hypocrisy???

Regardless of whether or not God created Adam and Eve or whether or not you evolved from lower life forms, that particular Thermodynamics argument that keeps getting repeated does not apply.

Why?

Because the Laws of Thermodynamics apply to CLOSED systems.

What the heck is a "closed" system?

It is a system that is totally isolated from the rest of the universe with nothing coming into or out of the system.

Two rats in a box that is hermetically sealed and perfectly insulated and in total darkness would be an example of a closed system.

After a million years, those two rats would have died of starvation and totally disintegrated into atoms. Disorder (entropy) would have increased.

The Earth, however, is NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM.

Every day, the Earth is bombarded with a immense amount of solar energy.

It takes energy to make order out of disorder and the Sun provides that energy to the Earth.

With solar energy, plants take carbon dioxide and turn it into complex sugars and starches by the process of photosynthesis.

Animals consume several times their body weight of such food (energy sources) throughout their lives to make themselves more complex.

Over a million years, those two rats released into a virgin forest with solar energy will have produced billions of tons of rat progeny over the centuries.

However, that solar energy comes at an entropy cost at it's source.

The Sun can produce that solar energy only by consuming 4 million metric tons of matter every second.

In other words, the "Entropy Price" that the Laws of Thermodynamics demands to keep you "organized" is paid for by the Sun.

The price to keep you "organized and complex" has also been paid by carcasses of the hundreds of chickens, pigs, cows and fish and the hundreds of bushels of fruits, grains and other plant life that you have eaten an "disorganized" through your life. They were the "delivery vehicles" that brought you what was left over of the original amount solar energy left after they tranformed it into the type of energy (sugars, fats, proteins, etc.) that your body can use and after they took their share.

Once you die and you can no longer take in energy, you will then no longer be able to keep entropy at bay and maintain your complexity. You then will succumb to the disorganization of Entropy.

Dust to dust.

Until then, enjoy your complexity.

Remember who paid the Entropy Price for it.