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.

[PatrickHenry]

800

[Senator Bedfellow]

Speaking of "Whole Science", the theory that the lunar cycle has anything to do with a woman's menstrual cycle has a bit of a hole in it, insofar as it's new-agey crystal-gripping junk. The lunar month is 29-1/2 days, versus 28 days for a normal menstrual cycle - the cycles will be constantly drifting in and out of phase with each other.

[Quark2005]

[Astrology predicts PMS] placemarker

[Doctor Stochastic]

It's possible to generate a system that nearly "appears random." That's what Pseudo-Random-Number-Generators do. "Random" is more appropriately applied to a process, not the result of such process.

No written string of numbers is "random"; it merely is. The best one can do is say that a string of numbers obeys certain laws that randomly generated strings do.

Champernowne's number (.12345678910..., as you gave) does have the property that "any string occurs with the proper frequency." Thus (if mapped to a alphabet), it would contain the complete works of Shakespeare, the complete works of Shakespeare with one error, etc. (and the complete text of "Contact.") However, it can be proved (somewhere, I don't have access to review journals) that Champernowne's number does not obey the Law of the Iterated Logarithm. (I don't know how to generate a number that does except by ad hoc post hoc adjustments to the output.)

[Dimensio]

It particularly explains why there is, on a universal scale, the presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws.

It doesn't explain this. It asserts a cause without evidence for the cause. There's a key difference, but because you insist upon lying about the very nature of science you will never acknowledge this.

[Fester Chugabrew]

But we can test the force of gravity. We can indirectly observe it. No such luck with astrology.

Astrology was not interested in the "forces", or if it was, it was a peripheral matter. It was interested in direct observation of both heavenly bodies and human behavior and then correlating the two.

I find it noteworthy that you allow the indirect observation of gravity to suffice as evidence of a force, but do not allow the direct observation of organized matter to suffice as indirect evidence of a designer.

. . . they predicted, as they do today, all sorts of things about love and romance, fortune or misfortune in wealth, the rise and fall of kings. That was the nature of the predictions made. These are all nonsense.

It would not be "nonsense" if they observed recurring patterns on a consistent basis over a large population for hundreds of years. It was the best they had at the time.

That has nothing to do with astrological aspects of their work.

Not if you want to distill astrology into sheer mysticism and superstition. Otherwise the analog clock is one of many tangible benefits of the direct observations of ancient astrologers.

But menstrual cycles occur at all different times of the month.

I always thought they were somehow connected to lunar cycles. I can assure you the menstrual cycle is one of many physical and direct observations discussed by astrologers from ancient times to this day. Did people need to see an astrologer to "know the schedule?" No.

[Doctor Stochastic]

I agree entirely with post 743.

[Dimensio]

I thought this is more meaningful and truthful.

What evidence do you have for either the meaning or truth of your assertion?

[Fester Chugabrew]

Good shot, even if it took two.

[b_sharp]

Some people spin in place simply so they can experience dizziness.

[Fester Chugabrew]

It asserts a cause without evidence for the cause.

The evidence is in the result. How could one assert a cause and evidence of the cause without either pointing to a result or indulging a tautology? You want me to say the Designer is evidence of a designer? Screw that.

Intelligent agent = cause
Organized matter behaving according to predictable laws = result = evidence for cause.

Understand?

[Fester Chugabrew]

But such an observation would not refute an intelligent designer...

Not entirely, no. But it would serve as good evidence.

[b_sharp]

"Speaking of "Whole Science", the theory that the lunar cycle has anything to do with a woman's menstrual cycle has a bit of a hole in it, insofar as it's new-agey crystal-gripping junk. The lunar month is 29-1/2 days, versus 28 days for a normal menstrual cycle - the cycles will be constantly drifting in and out of phase with each other."

If the phase of the moon affected menstruation then all women would experience menstruation at roughly the same time independent of other factors. If that were the case then births would also tend to clump together (note the use of the word 'tend'). What does affect the timing of menstruation are the pheromones released at that time. Women grouped together will tend to eventually have their periods clump together.

[Dimensio]

The evidence is in the result.

The "result" is the initial observation. You're just making up a random cause for the observations and then declaring that the existince of the observations is evidence for your cause. Only an idiot would reason like that and only an idiot would fall for that line of reasoning.

[PatrickHenry]

Women grouped together will tend to eventually have their periods clump together.

I've read that this happens in sorority houses. I imagine that this would be something to consider if one kept a harem.

[Baraonda]

"What evidence do you have for either the meaning or truth of your assertion?"

I can't say a rock or other inaninmate object as evidence since they're, well, inanimate.

I AM the source of the evidence.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Some people spin in place simply so they can experience dizziness.

Other people spin unnecessary words so they can experience temporary relief in the face of organized matter that behaves in accord with predictable laws (as designed from the beginning.)

[Senator Bedfellow]

Women grouped together will tend to eventually have their periods clump together.

Which will still have nothing to do with the lunar cycle, of course.

[Gumlegs]

Gumlegs: How?

By ascribing detail to the "stuff," namely organization and predictbility.

This is so vague as to be meaningless. In any case, I can "ascribe detail" without resorting to ID. It contributes nothing.

Gumlegs: As it happens, I notice the air I breathe because I'm allergic to much of what it carries.

Is it all you think about? How about gravity. You may say it is "natural," but why? Is it because it is really natural, or only because you've lived with it all your life? The distinction between natural and supernatural is arbitrary, moreso than the distinction between species. It is not a scientifc distinction, but a semantic one that depends upon each observer.

Fester, you brought up air, not me. We have an explanation for gravity that is entirely natural. It doesn't depend on "intelligent designers" or angels pushing stray bits of matter to earth. You might want to read up on it before you lump it into the inexplicable.

Your post-modern critique is noted. Not respected, but noted. Were you one of those surprised that Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity," turned out to be a hoax?

Gumlegs: Intelligent design explains nothing, it predicts nothing, and it has nothing to do with science.

As I said, intelligent design predicts organized matter that behaves according to predicatable laws will be found. That is far more than nothing. It fairly well fits everything. Take a single drop of water out of the ocean and descibe all of its attributes. The fact you can see it in the first place is but one small sign that it is designed. It's organization and predictability can be described in great detail.

Explains everything = explains nothing. You can spin this forever, but "organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws will be found" is meaningless. Your own claim, "It fairly well fits with everything" is as damning as it gets insofar as ID's being scientific.

Anything could be predicted with ID. Precambrian humans? The "intelligent designer did it." No precambrian humans? It's that ol' "intelligent designer." A change in allele frequency over time? It's the intelligent designer, for sure. A new generation of pigs sprouting wings (thanks, RussP)? Why, that intelligent designer is at it again. ID's predictive power is nil.

Gumlegs: Can you state something that ID doesn't explain?

Not yet. Can you enumerate something science can do with out making use of either intelligence or design or some combination of the two? I'm not surprised that you can't name something that ID doesn't predict. AFIK, it predicts everything and nothing.

I'm not going to dignify your question with an answer, except to note that you persist in confusing intelligence in humans with supernatural intelligence.

[Dimensio]

I can't say a rock or other inaninmate object as evidence since they're, well, inanimate.

I don't quite see how that relates to anything.

I AM the source of the evidence.

That's great. What is the evidence?