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.

[donh]

It is testable: it specifically predicts against certain observations-observations that would falsify it. If we could demonstrate the origin of life through natural processes then Paley's theory would be falsified.

No it wouldn't. It just lowers the subjectively determined odds. God, or something, might have designed it regardless of anything we can detect--just as is the case with the actual existence of an ether for light to travel through, or the earth being the center of the universe.

[js1138]

We're not alone. We seem to have C.S. Lewis on our side.

[b_sharp]

"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.

I thought the point was to show ID is falsifiable. If scientists succeeded it would just show that evolution was correct (not that ID is false) and possible in this particular instance. ID could still be considered for other circumstances. ID needs to be generally falsifiable, or at least all of its hypotheses need to be falsifiable individually.

[b_sharp]

"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.

You have yet to refute anything.

[Ichneumon]

["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.

No, we wouldn't, because we would not be prone to make such an illogical and incorrect statement.

Are you denying that?

Indeed, for exactly the same reason that showing that a ball can roll down a hill naturally in no way disproves that a particular ball might have been rolled down the hill by intent by someone.

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?

That is correct.

If so, you are either incredibly naive, or you are just a bald-faced liar.

I'm sorry, but your childish outburst does nothing to help your position. Quite the contrary.

You might want to learn more about this topic before you attempt to critique it again. You get so much wrong, jump to unsupported conclusions, and frequently substitute your frustrated outbursts for actual argument or evidence.

[aNYCguy]

Why do the atheist/evos care what is taught? Or care about anything for that matter?

Theists assign axiomatic value to a deity or deities; atheists assign axiomatic value to something else, such as a moral code. Value flows from the axiom.

There's little difference between the two methods of creating value. This is not difficult to understand.

[donh]

It was not a simple conflict between science and religion, as usually portrayed. Rather it was a conflict between Copernican science and Aristotelian science

Aristotalian scientists did not burn Bruno, or imprison Galileo and ban his books. A Papacy anxious not to let the rest of its flock entertain the idea that the earth wasn't the center of the universe, and the church not therefore the darling central focus of God's concerns, did.

[Antonello]

Not addressed to you in particular. Just something that popped up on another thread: Who said this?

"I have therefore no difficulty accepting, say, the view of those scholars who tell that the account of Creation in Genesis is derived from earlier Semetic stories which were Pagan and mythical."

I believe that is a quote from Reflections on the Psalms, by C.S. Lewis.

[edsheppa]

First, happiness, effectiveness and prosperity only exist under the evolutionary illusion. They can be nothing more than natural selections. To assign meaning to them is erroneous.

That is really quite stupid.

[Ichneumon]

["I didn't misrepresent them. The reason they opposed manditory teaching of ID, and the reason they skipped the trial is they have no scientific research to present."]

Your denial of reality is utterly Orwellian.

Since you failed to make a case for your slur, and instead just ranted at js1138 without identifying exactly what "reality" he is allegedly denying, I'd say that you just lost this discussion.

You guys really scare me sometimes.

Just how old are you?

[js1138]

You get the prize. It was posted today on another thread. I wonder if it will cause some people on this thread to declare Lewis to be an atheist communist.

[Right Wing Professor]

The creationists were almost universally united in declaring us commies, fascists, atheists, homos, trolls from DU, etc.

WERE?

(/Elsie mode)

[VadeRetro]

You always know what you're going to get from the un-Discovery bunch. Might as well be gore3000 back again every time with the same discredited stuff.

[Senator Bedfellow]

Yeah, you remember - way back in the dim mists of time? About yesterday or so? :)

[PatrickHenry]

WERE?

Yes, last time I paid any attention to their posts. Life has been much more pleasant around here since I took my tagline seriously.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

There's even better stuff:

"...for we have good reason to believe that animals existed long before men...For long centuries God perfected the animal form which was to become the vehicle of humanity and the image of Himself...[Eventually,] God caused a new kind of consciousness to descend upon this organism" (PP,pp. 137,77).

"...but he (man) remains still a primate and an animal" (RP, pp. 115, 129);

"If...you mean simply that man is physically descended from animals, I have no objection" (PP, p. 72)

Seems that C.S. Lewis guy didn't get the creationist memo.

[aNYCguy]

OK, here's a prediction which, "if false, will discredit the idea." No macroevolution will ever be observed in the lab (or even in nature, for that matter).

Funny man. The prediction of your supposed theory is that something will not happen?

Okay. I have a "theory" that pigs fly. Here's my prediction which, if false, will discredit the idea: "No human will ever be observed in the lab to grow three arms and fly into outer space while speaking in tongues." If this event is observed, my theory will be falsified.

And there you have it! According to your interesting new take on the scientific method, my theory has falsification criteria. Your nobel prize awaits for this useful methodological breakthrough.

[edsheppa]

OK, here's a prediction which, "if false, will discredit the idea." No macroevolution will ever be observed in the lab (or even in nature, for that matter).

No it wouldn't. In the first place, you have presented no argument from design that would prelude macroevolution. The absence of macroevolution is therefore not a prediction of ID. (But how could it be, ID doesn't have any predictions.)

In the second place, why is that ID proponents on this board are so ignorant of ID, far more so that evos? And I guess so ignorant they can't read either. On this thread and numerous others, Behe, Denton and others have been quoted as accepting common descent, the epitome or macroevolutionary.

Hmmmm, maybe they're just too stupid to understand your argument? Nope, you're wrong - ID and macroevolution could both be true.

[Physicist]

But that is exactly the evolutionist's position.

Not at all, it's just your unaccountable misconception of the evolutionists position.

You seem to be saying that evolution may be responsible for the matter and energy but the matter and energy patterns are formed outside of Darwinian evolution through experience and thought.

That's hopelessly confused. There are matter and energy. There are also the patterns in which matter and energy are arranged (hence meaning, information). A SPECIFIC SUBSET of these patterns arise through Darwinian evolution; the rest don't. Darwinian evolution certainly is NOT responsible for the existence of matter and energy.

How can an evolutionist be anything but a nihilist and maintain a consistent worldview?

I told you before that I have values, whether the universe does or not. "Evolution"--by which you mean materialism--refers to the universe's lack of values. Nihilism refers to a person's lack of values. Why should nihilism follow from materialism? Magnets prefer a north-south orientation, even though the magnetic force itself is rotationally symmetric.

(Of course, the correct answer is "Why should a nihilist care about maintaining a consistent worldview?":)

Well, that's not really an answer, but I can't resist the observation that very few theists I've met have a consistent worldview.

[js1138]

My life has been easier since I installed BlueSkipper^® software.