Future of Conservatism: Darwin or Design? [Human Events goes with ID]

Human Events ^ | 12 December 2005 | Casey Luskin

[PatrickHenry]

Occasionally a social issue becomes so ubiquitous that almost everyone wants to talk about it -- even well-meaning but uninformed pundits. For example, Charles Krauthammer preaches that religious conservatives should stop being so darn, well, religious, and should accept his whitewashed version of religion-friendly Darwinism.¹ George Will prophesies that disagreements over Darwin could destroy the future of conservatism.² Both agree that intelligent design is not science.

It is not evident that either of these critics has read much by the design theorists they rebuke. They appear to have gotten most of their information about intelligent design from other critics of the theory, scholars bent on not only distorting the main arguments of intelligent design but also sometimes seeking to deny the academic freedom of design theorists.

In 2001, Iowa State University astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez’s research on galactic habitable zones appeared on the cover of Scientific American. Dr. Gonzalez’s research demonstrates that our universe, galaxy, and solar system were intelligently designed for advanced life. Although Gonzalez does not teach intelligent design in his classes, he nevertheless believes that “[t]he methods [of intelligent design] are scientific, and they don't start with a religious assumption.” But a faculty adviser to the campus atheist club circulated a petition condemning Gonzalez’s scientific views as merely “religious faith.” Attacks such as these should be familiar to the conservative minorities on many university campuses; however, the response to intelligent design has shifted from mere private intolerance to public witch hunts. Gonzalez is up for tenure next year and clearly is being targeted because of his scientific views.

The University of Idaho, in Moscow, Idaho, is home to Scott Minnich, a soft-spoken microbiologist who runs a lab studying the bacterial flagellum, a microscopic rotary engine that he and other scientists believe was intelligently designed -- see "What Is Intelligent Design.") Earlier this year Dr. Minnich testified in favor of intelligent design at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial over the teaching of intelligent design. Apparently threatened by Dr. Minnich’s views, the university president, Tim White, issued an edict proclaiming that “teaching of views that differ from evolution ... is inappropriate in our life, earth, and physical science courses or curricula.” As Gonzaga University law professor David DeWolf asked in an editorial, “Which Moscow is this?” It’s the Moscow where Minnich’s career advancement is in now jeopardized because of his scientific views.

Scientists like Gonzalez and Minnich deserve not only to be understood, but also their cause should be defended. Conservative champions of intellectual freedom should be horrified by the witch hunts of academics seeking to limit academic freedom to investigate or objectively teach intelligent design. Krauthammer’s and Will’s attacks only add fuel to the fire.

By calling evolution “brilliant,” “elegant,” and “divine,” Krauthammer’s defense of Darwin is grounded in emotional arguments and the mirage that a Neo-Darwinism that is thoroughly friendly towards Western theism. While there is no denying the possibility of belief in God and Darwinism, the descriptions of evolution offered by top Darwinists differ greatly from Krauthammer’s sanitized version. For example, Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins explains that “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” In addition, Krauthammer’s understanding is in direct opposition to the portrayal of evolution in biology textbooks. Says Douglas Futuyma in the textbook Evolutionary Biology:

“By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”³

Thus when Krauthammer thrashes the Kansas State Board of Education for calling Neo-Darwinian evolution “undirected,” it seems that it is Kansas -- not Krauthammer -- who has been reading the actual textbooks.

Moreover, by preaching Darwinism, Krauthammer is courting the historical enemies of some of his own conservative causes. Krauthammer once argued that human beings should not be subjected to medical experimentation because of their inherent dignity: “Civilization hangs on the Kantian principle that human beings are to be treated as ends and not means.”⁴ About 10 years before Krauthammer penned those words, the American Eugenics Society changed its name to the euphemistic “Society for the Study of Social Biology.” This “new” field of sociobiology, has been heavily promoted by the prominent Harvard sociobiologist E.O. Wilson. In an article titled, “The consequences of Charles Darwin's ‘one long argument,’” Wilson writes in the latest issue of Harvard Magazine:

“Evolution in a pure Darwinian world has no goal or purpose: the exclusive driving force is random mutations sorted out by natural selection from one generation to the next. … However elevated in power over the rest of life, however exalted in self-image, we were descended from animals by the same blind force that created those animals. …”⁵

This view of “scientific humanism” implies that our alleged undirected evolutionary origin makes us fundamentally undifferentiated from animals. Thus Wilson elsewhere explains that under Neo-Darwinism, “[m]orality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. … [E]thics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed on us by our genes to get us to cooperate.”⁶

There is no doubt that Darwinists can be extremely moral people. But E.O. Wilson’s brave new world seems very different from visions of religion and morality-friendly Darwinian sugerplums dancing about in Krauthammer’s head.

Incredibly, Krauthammer also suggests that teaching about intelligent design heaps “ridicule to religion.” It’s time for a reality check. Every major Western religion holds that life was designed by intelligence. The Dalai Lama recently affirmed that design is a philosophical truth in Buddhism. How could it possibly denigrate religion to suggest that design is scientifically correct?

At least George Will provides a more pragmatic critique. The largest float in Will’s parade of horribles is the fear that the debate over Darwin threatens to split a political coalition between social and fiscal conservatives. There is no need to accept Will’s false dichotomy. Fiscal conservatives need support from social conservatives at least as much as social conservatives need support from them. But in both cases, the focus should be human freedom, the common patrimony of Western civilization that is unintelligible under Wilson’s scientific humanism. If social conservatives were to have their way, support for Will’s fiscal causes would not suffer.

The debate over biological origins will only threaten conservative coalitions if critics like Will and Krauthammer force a split. But in doing so, they will weaken a coalition between conservatives and the public at large.

Poll data show that teaching the full range of scientific evidence, which both supports and challenges Neo-Darwinism, is an overwhelmingly popular political position. A 2001 Zogby poll found that more than 70% of American adults favor teaching the scientific controversy about Darwinism.⁷ This is consistent with other polls which show only about 10% of Americans believe that life is the result of purely “undirected” evolutionary processes.⁸ If George Will thinks that ultimate political ends should be used to force someone’s hand, then I call his bluff: design proponents are more than comfortable to lay our cards of scientific evidence (see "What Is Intelligent Design") and popular support out on the table.

But ultimately it’s not about the poll data, it’s about the scientific data. Regardless of whether critics like Krauthammer have informed themselves on this issue, and no matter how loudly critics like Will tout that “evolution is a fact,” there is still digital code in our cells and irreducibly complex rotary engines at the micromolecular level.

At the end of the day, the earth still turns, and the living cell shows evidence of design.

---

¹ See Charles Krauthammer, “Phony Theory, False Conflict,” Washington Post, Friday, November 18, 2005, pg. A23.
² See George Will, “Grand Old Spenders,” Washington Post, Thursday, November 17, 2005; Page A31.
³ Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (1998, 3rd Ed., Sinauer Associates), pg. 5.
⁴ Quoted in Pammela Winnick “A Jealous God,” pg. 74; Charles Krauthammer “The Using of Baby Fae,” Time, Dec 3, 1984.
⁵ Edward O. Wilson, "Intelligent Evolution: The consequences of Charles Darwin's ‘one long argument’" Harvard Magazine, Nov-December, 2005.
⁶ Michael Ruse and E. O. Wilson "The Evolution of Ethics" in Religion and the Natural Sciences, the Range of Engagement, (Harcourt Brace, 1993).
⁷ See http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/ZogbyFinalReport.pdf
⁸ See Table 2.2 from Karl W. Giberson & Donald A Yerxa, Species of Origins America’s Search for a Creation Story (Rowman & Littlefield 2002) at page 54.

Mr. Luskin is an attorney and published scientist working with the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Wash.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Yet another inference instead of the "concrete examples" that we were promised.

It is true that I must infer you to be an intelligent designer, and a real one at that. That is more than I can say about any pasta critter. Understand the difference, or are you not a concrete being?

[highball]

Do you really believe that I guided evolution? I'm flattered, but you've got the wrong fella.

You still have not provided the "concrete examples" of an Intelligent Designer. Rhetorical flourishes are keen, but hardly a substitute.

[Fester Chugabrew]

You didn't answer the question.

Sure I did. My answer even caused you to rob PH of a big prime. Shame on on you.

[antiRepublicrat]

Sure I did.

No you didn't. I asked you whether you stopped. It's a simple yes or no answer.

My answer even caused you to rob PH of a big prime.

1000 isn't a prime. highball got the last biggest prime.

[Fester Chugabrew]

I take your correspondence with me to be evidence that you are concrete example of an intelligent designer.

[Fester Chugabrew]

If I didn't answer, then why did you respond to my reply?

[antiRepublicrat]

If I didn't answer, then why did you respond to my reply?

I'm just trying to get you to honestly answer a question. Have you stopped beating your wife? Or are you afraid of answering?

[Fester Chugabrew]

It's a simple yes or no answer.

It can be answered with a simple yes or no, or it can be answered in a way from which the inquirer can easily deduce the yes or no. I'll answer your question in the way I choose. If you are not satisfied or do not understand my answer then you'll just have to lose some sleep tonight. Hint: count spaghetti monsters to overcome your sleeplessness.

[Alamo-Girl]

The question you were asked is a logical fallacy, called a Complex Question. It is two questions and cannot be answered as if a single question.

[GOPPachyderm]

It is at all possible that not everyone agrees with your construct of the scientific evidence? My proposition is that there are scientists who have alternate theories.

"You guys never learn, do you?" Well, I admit I have a lot to learn and I enjoy reading and discussion.

[antiRepublicrat]

It can be answered with a simple yes or no, or it can be answered in a way from which the inquirer can easily deduce the yes or no. I'll answer your question in the way I choose.

No you can't. The question has exactly two and only two possible answers: yes and no. So, have you stopped beating your wife yet?

[antiRepublicrat]

The question you were asked is a logical fallacy, called a Complex Question. It is two questions and cannot be answered as if a single question.

Hey, you're spoiling my fun. No room for self-realization, or did you just give up on him finally seeing the light?

[Alamo-Girl]

Hey, you're spoiling my fun.

I figured you knew it was a Complex Question when you asked - but I intervened because you were having too much fun at his expense.

[RunningWolf]

You didn't answer the question. I asked you whether you've stopped beating your wife, not whether you ever started.

Well I'll answer it for him. The best case against this cult of csomo-evo cultism is to see its products right here and those are the pseudo intellectual atheist goofballs that glom onto it.

Wolf

[Right Wing Professor]

My proposition is that there are scientists who have alternate theories.

Well, if you call Ken Ham a scientist...

[longshadow]

quadruple digit post # placemarker

[jwalsh07]

So you agree, given definition 2, there is no problem with the idea of reciprocal altruism?

LOL, hardly.

Now, given that we need to keep tabs on the behavior of others in order to be able to engage in reciprocal altruism without being continually cheated; and we need to be able to convince others we ourselves should be trusted, what is the problem with the idea that we should have evolved innate senses of cheating, fairness, trustworthiness, shame, and loyalty? And, since the most important kind of reciprocal altruism is between a spouse and his/her partner, jealousy and fidelity?

You don't get it yet Professor. The essence of altruism is selflessness, even to the point of being "harmful to itself" (see defintion #2). Reciprocity, you scratch my back if I scratch yours, is the antithesis of altruism hence the term "reciprocal altruism" is sociobabble.

I'm not claiming these supersede, or are alternatives to, those we may add or justify using a system of ethics; just that we should recognize what we all start off with as human beings.

Phew, I thought I lost you there for a while. Welcome back!

[highball]

I take your correspondence with me to be evidence that you are concrete example of an intelligent designer.

So you're willing to re-define the words "concrete example" as well as "science".

[GOPPachyderm]

Oh come on, I'm sure you know that there are many scientists who are at least skeptical evolution

I quote Larry Hatfield from "Science Digest":

"Scientists who utterly reject evolution may be one of our fastest - growing controversial minorities. Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science." Just a few examples: Jonathan Wells, Stephen C. Meyers, William Lane Craig and others

[rwfromkansas]

bump for the fireworks