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.

[RussP]

"This is a ludicrous example. Nobody says that a single-celled organism is going to evolve into a vertebrate without countless intermediate steps. In nature it took over half a billion years. To demand that a scientist produce this, and to say that the failure to do so is somehow a validation of ID is astoundingly dishonest. The failure to produce a vertebrate from a single-celled organism is in NO way evidence for a designer."

You are missing the point, but evolutionists are masters of missing the point. The point is that I provided a prediction that, if false, would discredit ID theory. The claim was that such a prediction could not be made or has not been made. You're "moving the goalposts," as they say.

And isn't it convenient that evolutionists have a loophole because providing any actual direct evidence for evolution would "take too long."

[RussP]

Circular reasoning at its best!

[PreciousLiberty]

"Ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed on us by our genes to get us to cooperate."

I'm afraid Wilson was rather dysphemistic in his wording. Let's try and translate this sentence using less loaded words and see how horrendous it looks.

"Ethics as we understand it is a system developed through evolution, experience and thought to enhance our survival chances."

Works for me.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You are missing the point, but evolutionists are masters of missing the point. The point is that I provided a prediction that, if false, would discredit ID theory."

No, you didn't. If a scientist COULD produce what you put as the test, a single-celled organism evolving into a vertebrate, it would still in NO WAY invalidate ID.

All the ID'er would have to say is either,

1) Since the organism evolved through the intervention of an intelligent designer (humans), this is an example of ID

2) The intelligent designer could have intervened in the lab to direct the evolution of this organism.

The example is also ludicrous though because it is IMPOSSIBLE to evolve a single-celled organism into a vertebrate in anything close to the lifetime of any individual. You can spend a thousand years and not expect to come any noticeably closer. Your example is a cartoon version of how evolution works.

"And isn't it convenient that evolutionists have a loophole because providing any actual direct evidence for evolution would "take too long."

This is incredibly dishonest. Speciation has been observed in the lab. For you to move the goalposts and ONLY allow as evidence for evolution the evolution of entire kingdoms or orders is horse manure.

[RussP]

"Ethics as we understand it is a system developed through evolution, experience and thought to enhance our survival chances."

But what if I am only interested in my own well-being and don't care about my "species." What is my incentive to be ethical? Yes, I obviously have an incentive to *appear* ethical to others, but what is my incentive to *really* be ethical when no one is looking? None. Zip.

Think about it.

[antiRepublicrat]

Here's a prediction that, if proved false, would discredit ID theory: No scientist will ever reproduce Neo-Darwinian evolution from a single-celled organism to a vertibrate, nor will such macroevolution ever be directly observed in nature.

All of these proposed falsifications have one thing in common: they are attacks on evolution. A scientific theory cannot just be a series of jabs at an existing theory, it must be a theory in itself, with its own criteria for falsifiability. The only one I can think of is "The Creator comes down and tells us he's letting evolution run by itself." Even observed macro-evolution in the lab could be claimed to have been caused by a creator, so that one won't work.

The reason your criteria are as they are is that ID consists only of an attack on evolution, nothing more. Scientific attacks on accepted scientific theories are a good thing, as they help to weed out bad theories and alter good but flawed ones. However a set of attacks is not in itself a theory.

[MRMEAN]

The evolutionists claim that any notion of ID is "unscientific" and "outside the domain of science," then later they claim that ID has been thoroughly refuted by science.

The "notion" of "Intelligent Design" is indeed unscientific and outside the domain of the NATURAL sciences, including biology, Geology, and Astronomy, because it assumes a SUPERNATURAL agent; which cannot be investigated by the methods of natural science. "Intelligent Design" is well within the domain of theological science.

I have not actually seen anybody "claim that ID has been thoroughly refuted by science," what scientists say is that Intelligent Design cannot even conceptually be refuted by science, and therefor it is not a scientific theory. No matter what evidence scientists have for evolution; Intelligent Design theorists can claim: "The Intelligent Designer did it that way for His own reasons."

Various advocates of Intelligent Design have made various, and some specific claims that this or that molecular or cellular structure was "irreducible complex" and could not have evolvolved by natural Darwinian variation and selection; and those specific claims have been refuted; and claims that life could not be the result of natural processes because of a notion of "specified complexity" have been demolished. So the various claims by Intelligent Design theory have been in fact refuted; but scientists do not claim to have, or conceptually be able to, "refute" the general notion of Intelligent Design.

[bobdsmith]

Scientific explainations have to put their asses on the line and risk being destroyed. If they can't do that then they are not science. That is the main reason why scientific explainations must be potentially falsifiable.

For example the explaination that every one million years all the animals on Earth get up and do a dance would be falsified if we don't see that happen in the next one million years. But that is playing safe. The explaination is not on the firing line.

Your example of bacteria to vertebrate evolving in the lab being a falsification of ID is equally playing safe.

Contrast that with one of many criteria for falsifing evolution: Finding a modern mammal fossil in cambrian strata. This puts evolution directly on the firing line. Such an example could be found at any day. ID has nothing like this.

Also notice that evolution's tests reflect it's own explainatory power. In this case it is based on the history of modern mammals as explained by evolution.

On the otherhand the tests you have come up with for ID so far have been based on evolution. So does ID have any explainatory power of it's own? or is it actually just a collection of whines about evolution?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Dr. Gonzalez’s research demonstrates that our universe, galaxy, and solar system were intelligently designed for advanced life.

That's why all the intelligent folks on Venus and Mars are hiding from us. /sarcasm

I think Casey could use a brush up on the issues.

[RussP]

"No, you didn't. If a scientist COULD produce what you put as the test, a single-celled organism evolving into a vertebrate, it would still in NO WAY invalidate ID."

The point is that *evolutionists* would claim it discredits ID theory. Are you denying that? Are you claiming that if macroevolution (you specify the extent of macroevolution) were observed in the lab, evolutionists would *not* claim that it invalidates ID theory? If so, you are either incredibly naive, or you are just a bald-faced liar.

[Right Wing Professor]

Short of a direct proclamation by God himself, what would it take to "disprove" purely naturalistic evolution (with no intelligent design

Find a rabbit in a Cambrian stratum. Or find a mammal with genes from two well-separated lineages.

If I handed you a deck of cards in perfect numerical order, would you refuse to believe they were ordered by an intelligent being unless I showed you a video of someone doing so?

Poor analogy. Genomes don't look like they're in perfect numerical order. They have broken genes, bits of ancient retroviruses, and close, tree-like relationships with other organisms. Everything about them screams evolution; nothing looks designed, unless the designer was drunk or insane.

[longshadow]

attack of the recycled trolls placemarker

[js1138]

So does ID have any explainatory power of it's own? or is it actually just a collection of whines about evolution?

Well, Duh.

[RussP]

This gets very tiring when people reply with posts repeating points that I have already addressed and refuted in this very thread. I just don't have time to repeat my posts for every individual.

[Senator Bedfellow]

For you to move the goalposts and ONLY allow as evidence for evolution the evolution of entire kingdoms or orders is horse manure.

Yes, but look at it from the opposite side of the fence - if you allow only impossible-to-obtain evidence to cause you to re-evaluate your worldview, your worldview is in absolutely no danger of ever being challenged. It's positively bulletproof, safe from all those nasty ideas and facts out there that might disturb the comfort of knowing that you've got it all figured out. If you're worried about seeing nasty things, the safest way to avoid ever seeing anything nasty is to put your own eyes out.

Some may consider whether the "cure" is worse than the disease, but there is a certain logic there - the sleeper does not wish to awaken, and so will not be disturbed.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The point is that *evolutionists* would claim it discredits ID theory."

No, we wouldn't, and don't. There IS NO WAY to falsify ID; it's not a scientific theory. Since we ALREADY HAVE observed speciation in the lab, and evolutionists don't say that ID is refuted, your argument falls to pieces.

"Are you claiming that if macroevolution (you specify the extent of macroevolution) were observed in the lab, evolutionists would *not* claim that it invalidates ID theory? If so, you are either incredibly naive, or you are just a bald-faced liar."

And you are a very poor debater. :)

[Pete]

Human morality is a product of human thought and cultural development, irrespective of whether or not humans evolved, and irrespective of whether that evolution resulted from random mutation plus selection.

How did human thought escape the influence of evolution? Where did it come from?

Of course! It's like any other product of the human intellect, like a song, or a play, or a screwdriver, or a gun, or a model made from Play-Doh. These things serve human purposes, which may or may not pertain to human survival.

Are you claiming that human intelligence is anything other than "matter-based"?

[donh]

This gets very tiring when people reply with posts repeating points that I have already addressed and refuted in this very thread. I just don't have time to repeat my posts for every individual.

Than keep a list so you can say "see thread such&such, post #???"

[antiRepublicrat]

Is morality anything more than evolutionary advantage?

I can think of several instances where morality is to the detriment of evolutionary advantage. I've already mentioned one man, one woman. Then there's Christ, obviously a great man, a leader, someone who is extremely valuable to society, but he could have lived and reproduced had he not done the moral thing of trying to save everyone. Is becoming a priest moral? That definitely hurts reproduction. A man in WWII harbors Jews from the Nazis, an extremely moral act, and is executed for it. The immoral act of initially reporting the Jews would have allowed his genes to carry on, but the moral act stopped them cold.

I could come up with countless more situations where morality hurts your chance to reproduce and therefore pass on those beneficial "morality genes."

[b_sharp]

"Morality that is nothing more than evolutionary advantage is no morality at all. It is illusion. As the article says,

"Ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed on us by our genes to get us to cooperate.”

I fail to see how this improves your original point but I'll address it anyway.

Our morals are indeed the result of selection against non-cooperative members of our ape progenitor populations. These ethics were developed in populations of less than 100 members, generally around 40. This number comes from observation of large chimp populations, Optimum Group Size and Dunbar's number

Once humans developed larger populations and the ability to preserve thoughts, it became necessary and possible to formalize ethical conduct. Since religion was the most effective means to ensure compliance it was inevitable that these ethics be included in religious texts.