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.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

I have no problem with the religious who honestly consider ID as a hypothesis.

...Like I said, I'm willing to let ID survive or die on its own scientific merits.

Then you have no problem with me.

ID starts with the presupposition that the supernatural exists.

If the intelligent design hypothesis started with any presupposition, then I would not be attracted to it. But it simply says: that certain features of the universe and life are best explained by intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.

Neither "natural" nor "supernatural" are raised in the hypothesis.

IOW, "intelligent cause" includes both phenomenon (intelligence as an emergent property of self-organizing complexity and fractal intelligence) as well as agency (such as God, collective consciousness, aliens, Gaia, etc.)

If the selection of mates is found to be the best explanation for certain features in life, then the hypothesis is vindicated.

No doubt some who are counting on the "intelligent cause" being an agency would be disappointed, but that is all the hypothesis says. It is what it is.

[betty boop]

The most obvious "cut" is whether one sees the "natural" as a subset of the "supernatural" or whether one sees it as an either/or. The majority of Christians, including virtually all Catholics, see the "natural" as a subset of the "supernatural" or transcedent, i.e. God created "all that there is" both spiritual and physical and He alone is transcedent (and yet immanent).... And then there are those on this forum who see "natural" and "supernatural" as mutually exclusive -- the more science discovers natural causation, the less the supernatural can “be”. This false dichotomy leads to much of the crevo warfare around here, IMHO.

I applaud your astute analysis, Alam-Girl; and support the conclusion you draw: "when science discovers a physical causation, then it can be asserted it was not spiritually caused -- but it cannot be asserted that the supernatural or transcendent does not exist or is not relevant to the existence of the physical cause itself. "

Indeed, there is no either/or issue involved here. This is a point, however, that apparently is difficult for "physicalists" (or naturalists or materialists -- however a person prefers to be termed in the matter) to grasp. But it is THE point.

Thanks so much for your excellent essay/post, A-G!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for your affirmation and encouragements!!!

Indeed, there is no either/or issue involved here. This is a point, however, that apparently is difficult for "physicalists" (or naturalists or materialists -- however a person prefers to be termed in the matter) to grasp. But it is THE point.

So very true. Perhaps if we keep at this long enough we'll find a way to make it clear?

[hosepipe]

[ I applaud your astute analysis, Alamo-Girl; and support the conclusion you draw: "when science discovers a physical causation, then it can be asserted it was not spiritually caused -- but it cannot be asserted that the supernatural or transcendent does not exist or is not relevant to the existence of the physical cause itself. " ]

Me too.. language(whatever dialect) can divide us more than bring us together.. but brought together only until the next "issue" comes up..

Gee, I sure will be glad when human language becomes obsolete.. and we can KNOW whats in each others spirit.. Dialects within dialects within dialects are hard to keep up with.. Even when on the same page we might be in different BOOKS.. But I get ahead of myself.. There I've done it again..

[betty boop]

Perhaps if we keep at this long enough we'll find a way to make it clear?

I dunno, A-G. In certain cases, that might be impossible. :^)

But maybe we could try this. It has been alleged (in the article at the top) that on the materialist/physicalist/naturalist view, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between a Karl Marx and a Mother Theresa. And indeed, in terms of this theory (or doctrine -- maybe dogma would be an even better word), there is no difference: Both K. Marx and Mother Theresa are alike in being astronomically complex bundles of very smart chemicals.

So what? Human existence has a physical basis. But that physical basis does not and cannot account for the very real, observable differences between two human beings.

The chemicals cannot tell you that Mother Theresa all her life served Life; and that Marx, a self-described atheist, didn't have very much to say about Life at all. But every time his dogma was tried -- and there have been many attempts to instantiate it in various forms -- human beings died by the millions, and the planet was otherwise laid waste.

The person who refuses to be concerned about such human differences suggests to me that he is suffering from what Cicero called aspernatio rationes, the "contempt for reason." Indeed, such "refuseniks" strike me as being totally irrational ... engaged in a flight from reality.

And yet we see their products. I have particularly in mind the work of Steven Pinker, Richard Lewontin, and Peter Singer. But I'm sure the list could be extended. But yoyu get my drift.

Thanks so much for your wonderful essays today, dear A-G!

[Right Wing Professor]

But maybe we could try this. It has been alleged (in the article at the top) that on the materialist/physicalist/naturalist view, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between a Karl Marx and a Mother Theresa. And indeed, in terms of this theory (or doctrine -- maybe dogma would be an even better word), there is no difference: Both K. Marx and Mother Theresa are alike in being astronomically complex bundles of very smart chemicals.

This has been rebutted so many times by so many people I can think of no intellectually honest reason for you to reassert it.

[js1138]

This has been rebutted so many times by so many people I can think of no intellectually honest reason for you to reassert it.

I think you answered your own implied question.

Not to rub it in, but the appeal to consequences is such an obvious fallacy that one wonders how a person who has pretenses to philosophy would even consider using it.

[cornelis]

not only because I see it but because by it I see everything else

That's beautiful.

[cornelis]

The chemicals cannot tell you

What an amazing thing that from milk, consistently, there grows a baby with blood, and tears, and voice, and sight!

But you're right, those fossil stamps, they really are terribly mute about the outer and the inner beauties of this world. When a science thinks that the historian lives in another world, then science has become too big.

[hosepipe]

[ The person who refuses to be concerned about such human differences suggests to me that he is suffering from what Cicero called aspernatio rationes, the "contempt for reason." Indeed, such "refuseniks" strike me as being totally irrational ... engaged in a flight from reality. ]

Sounds like a pretty rational diagnosis to me..

Could the human mind could be like a car engine.. Timed correctly the engine runs at peak efficiency.. but when the timing is off plus or minus top dead center.. it backfires.. or starts hard.. or has less power.. and other things..

Some car owners have owned "refuseniks".. The car is just not healthy.. If the human person is just mechanical (as some you quoted suggest) it could be a self-fulling prophesy.. denying the very thing that makes them human, their spirit.. The human spirit is Super-DNA or beyond DNA or even RNA.. even as God is SuperNatural..

Does that make sense?.. I know what I mean.. d;-)

[hosepipe]

[ What an amazing thing that from milk, consistently, there grows a baby with blood, and tears, and voice, and sight! ]

From a person of few words.. cornelis, you say a lot..

[bondserv]

As for myself, I'd prefer to stay and fight and NOT let these moronic/ignorant/clowns take over this valuable website.

You've got a tough row to hoe. A majority of republicans believe that Jesus Christ is the Creator of the universe.

Gospel of John Chapter 1 verse 3
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Jesus also said (red letters indicate words of Christ):

Gospel of Mark Chapter 10 verse 6
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

[Right Wing Professor]

Not to rub it in, but the appeal to consequences is such an obvious fallacy that one wonders how a person who has pretenses to philosophy would even consider using it.

Also the fallacy of composition. Nobody contests that a pound of iron and a pound or air are both made up of almost the same number of protons, neutrons, and electrons, and controlled by precisely the same forces. Still, the effects of a pound of air and a pound of iron travelling at 50 m.p.h. towards one's head are quite different. People who advance the fallacy of composition maybe need to explore the difference in a more convincing way.

[js1138]

So what do you suppose a dime's worth of Karl Marx or a dime's worth of Mother Theresa would get you, in grams?

[Right Wing Professor]

So what do you suppose a dime's worth of Karl Marx or a dime's worth of Mother Theresa would get you, in grams?

It might be an interesting auction, given that both seem to be associated with movements that place a high value on relics.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for your encouragements! I, too, look forward to the point when language is obsolete.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for your excellent essay-post!

But maybe we could try this. It has been alleged (in the article at the top) that on the materialist/physicalist/naturalist view, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between a Karl Marx and a Mother Theresa. And indeed, in terms of this theory (or doctrine -- maybe dogma would be an even better word), there is no difference: Both K. Marx and Mother Theresa are alike in being astronomically complex bundles of very smart chemicals.

I see your remarks have met with the predictable disdain - which indicates to me the correspondents reject self-organizing complexity among other things. That is bizarre on the face since self-organizing complexity is a widely accepted model.

In that model the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, new features emerge (such as intelligence in biological life) such that new language is necessary to describe the whole. The same can be said of things made, new language is necessary to describe the thing.

For example, Mother Theresa is greater than the sum of the biochemicals which made up her body much like an automobile is greater than the sum of the parts of which it was made, etc.

Moreover, in the case of Mother Theresa - or the automobile, a particular snowflake or hurricane or whatever - the sum of her "worldline" or consciousness or soul or spirit accrue to her autonomous being as compared to other autonomous biological beings made of the same biochemicals. Likewise a particular car is a unique autonomous entity on its worldline compared to other cars, even of the same make and model, etc.

And yet it is asserted that your point has been "debunked" and you stand accused of "dishonesty". How sad.

Perhaps we should once again research the concepts and models of autonomy, complexity, semiosis, information (successful communication) and intelligence in biological life?

[hosepipe]

[ Thank you so very much for your encouragements! I, too, look forward to the point when language is obsolete. ]

Quite a new and obscure concept, language being obsolete.. Heres to a future prospective project to make this not an obscure or iconoclastic concept.. Cause its it has legggggs. Maybe Boopie will be enticed.. Boopie is not only cute but very competent.. d;-)

Pipe

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOLOL! Indeed, betty boop is exceedingly competent and precious!

[hosepipe]

[ Moreover, in the case of Mother Theresa - or the automobile, a particular snowflake or hurricane or whatever - the sum of her "worldline" or consciousness or soul or spirit accrue to her autonomous being as compared to other autonomous biological beings made of the same biochemicals. Likewise a particular car is a unique autonomous entity on its worldline compared to other cars, even of the same make and model, etc. ]

Wow.. you're on a roll girl.. heavy stuff.. Your spirit is quite ugh!.. infinite..