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]

There are certainly a number of arbitrary claims made by astrology, especially today when it is associated more with mysticism. My point is that astronomy is historically rooted in astrology. We don't dismiss the study of medicine as "silly" because the ancients once used medicine while associating it with various gods, do we? Every scientific discipline would do well to revisit it's roots, if not to avoid re-inventing the wheel, at least to appreciate where their discipline has been before.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Do you consider it wholly unscientific to associate the behavior of women during certain times of the month with the position of the moon?

[js1138]

I agree entirely with post 704.

[Fester Chugabrew]

And is just as much evidence for unintelligent design as it is for intelligent design.

No it is not. The evidence for unintelligent design, as I have stated, would be the absence of organized matter and the absence of predicatable laws governing the same. The two are highly distinct in nature.

[RightWingAtheist]

Yes.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The evidence for unintelligent design, as I have stated, would be the absence of organized matter and the absence of predicatable laws governing the same."

That's not true. I already stated that the test of my theory is the existence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws. If we find that, then my theory has been verified. If we don't, then it has been falsified. You don't get to say what my theory tests for a priori.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Natural selection is observable. Mutations and genetic recombination are observable. The fossil record is observable. The genetic code is observable. Speciation has been observed.

Of course these things are observable. They are intelligently designed. The capacity to be observed would be additional evidence for intelligent design. Thank you for pointing that out. Of course, most of the claims of evolution are by indirect observation - certainly a legitimate form of observation, but not as reliable as direct observation, such as was practiced by astrologers in times of old.

[antiRepublicrat]

I've heard supporters say that the designer isn't necessarily god - it could be aliens.

I doubt there are many of you who think the Raelians are credible.

[Dimensio]

People keep forgetting that Fester Chugabrew has previously stated that he starts with the assumption that he is correct, and concludes that any observations must be in line with his correctness. He has openly admitted previously that he holds a position that is completely non-falsifiable, yet refuses to accept that non-falsifiable explanations are fundamentally worthless.

[Fester Chugabrew]

When an object is intelligently designed, it by necessicity entails the organization of matter for the purpose of having it perform consistently and according to the purpose the designer intended. One might find an argument for unintelligent design in the works of certain modern artists, but even these, though they may attempt to demonstrate unintelligent design, nevertheless fail, for by their attempts to denote the unintelligent, they have by default engaged an element of design.

If you are attempting to convince someone of the sensibility of your arguments it does little good to posit a fake theory that makes a mockery of conventional meanings and has no basis in reality. The presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws is a reality, and it is best explained by intelligent design.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Of course these things are observable. They are intelligently designed."

?? Natural selection is by definition, NOT intelligent design. What evidence is there that mutations, genetic recombination, the fossil record, and speciation are intelligently designed? None. You are defining EVERYTHING CONCIEVABLE as being intelligent design, a priori. This is absurd. How can a grown man make such a ludicrous statement? BTW, before you said these things weren't observable. Try to be consistent. :)

"Of course, most of the claims of evolution are by indirect observation - certainly a legitimate form of observation, but not as reliable as direct observation, such as was practiced by astrologers in times of old."

This is farcical. The only thing the ancient astrologers recorded was the movement of the planets and stars. They NEVER directly observed the alleged *forces* that were supposed to affect people's lives because of the movements of the stars and planets. They never INDIRECTLY observed these *forces* either. They are as observable as your alleged designer.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"When an object is intelligently designed, it by necessicity entails the organization of matter for the purpose of having it perform consistently and according to the purpose the designer intended."

Only if you assume a designer a priori.

"If you are attempting to convince someone of the sensibility of your arguments it does little good to posit a fake theory that makes a mockery of conventional meanings and has no basis in reality."

Advice you could do good to take yourself.

BTW, my assertion is not a joke, really. As I already said to your earlier, it is just as testable as yours. I am just intellectually honest enough to admit it is outside of science.

"The presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws is a reality, and it is best explained by intelligent design."

Only if you assume intelligent design a priori. Otherwise, either is just as testable and logical.

[Fester Chugabrew]

I find little fault with your assessment of my position insofar as you are absolutely correct that I begin with a set of working assumptions that color my interpretations and explanations, but I question your assumption that my position is not falsifiable. As I said, if science can demonstrate the absence of organized matter along with the absence of predictable laws, it will have a strong case for falsifying the theory of intelligent design.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Third Base!" Alert and Placemarker

[CarolinaGuitarman]

It can be dizzying as the wheel keeps on turning and we keep ending up at the same spot. lol

[Stultis]

Note the absence of any suggestion in the above definiton - the same one evos keep posting- that, in order to be a theory, there must also be evidence that can refute, or falsify it.

The suggestion is not absent. It's right there in "well substantiated". Theories are well substantiated because they're tested, and that they can't be tested except by exploring their relation to relevant data, and unless that relation is determined by substantive demands of the theory on the data: what the data must show (or fail to show) in consequence of the theory being true.

[Fester Chugabrew]

You are defining EVERYTHING CONCEIVABLE as being intelligent design, a priori. This is absurd.

No more absurd than assuming the opposite, a priori. In fact, it is more reasonable. Wherever there is data available for reason and senses to comprehend it is reasonable to assume the data is fashioned in such a way as to make itself accessible to comprehension and evaluation. Hence natural selection, mutations, and the like, are all manifestations of organized matter behaving according to predictable laws. I would expect this in an intelligently designed universe.

I've never doubted the presence of natural selection, mutations, new species, and the like. But I seriously doubt they account for all that is behind the history of the world as we know it. I also doubt their scientific usefulness.

The only thing the ancient astrologers recorded was the movement of the planets and stars.

They directly observed the movements of the planets and the stars, and they directly observed the behavior of people at the same time. They noticed recurring patterns of behavior at certain times of year and recorded that, too, over more than a thousand years of direct observation on the part of thousands of people. I would not be surprised if the foundations of astrology involved as much or more direct observation than Charles Darwin and all who have followed in his footsteps.

[ml1954]

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;

LOL. Kind of sums up what some people preoccupy themselves with.

[PatrickHenry]

I hope you're saving that post so it can be trotted out again. It's probably needed in every thread.

[Stultis]

From the general theory of intelligent design science engages in specific fields of study

You're just verbally identifying the presupposition of the uniformity of natural law as the "general theory of intelligent design." (You could name it "Bob" just as easily.) First it has nothing to do with the (putatively) scientific approach called "intelligent design". Second, as I've already said, if anything it contradicts ID. So far as you philosophically generalize the uniformity of natural law, the result is naturalism. ID is nothing if not a denial of naturalism.