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.

[b_sharp]

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

Depending on whether you wanted children or did not want children, it could either be a curse or a blessing (dependent on the size of the harem of course).

[Fester Chugabrew]

You're just making up a random cause for the observations . . .

No. I am inferring an intelligent cause for the observations. It stands to reason that an intelligent cause will produce intelligible results, i.e. organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws. Your introduction of the word "idiot" to the discourse is inflammatory and uncalled for.

[b_sharp]

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

My point exactly. I was just adding to your arsenal.

[Senator Bedfellow]

As I was yours. Of course, this is all because we're the same person, you understand. Or because we've coordinated this over coffee, donuts, and AIM - the paranoia seems to vary from day to day :)

[Fester Chugabrew]

We have an explanation for gravity that is entirely natural. It doesn't depend on "intelligent designers."

Do you consider the words "entirely natural" to be scientific in nature? I consider them to be an arbitrary semantic distinction, the reality of which depends upon the one who employs them, and little more. Fact is, science does not yet know what causes gravity, so bag it for a better day.

[Gumlegs]

Gumlegs: Behe denied this. Under oath.

That's his prerogative. He may actually mean what he says, and he may be right. But I'm curious as to the nature of the oath he swore in the first place. Do you have a copy of the oath he took? Maybe we could take a look at it.

Fester, grow up. It's the same oath everyone in this country takes before testifying in court. Are you now going to theorize that he had his fingers crossed?

[b_sharp]

You don't happen to remember where we left our cell phone do you? I need to contact one of our other me/us/them about the conspiracy meeting.

[Senator Bedfellow]

Whenever I lose your cell phone around the house, you usually call myself and listen for the ring. I think. Or is that you?

[Doctor Stochastic]

Projection!

[Pietro]

"Interesting how different Republican factions are lining up"

That's because all of the interesting, lively and important debates in America are happening w/i the conservative movement. Liberalism is brain dead and completely incapable of engaging public debate.

I like it.

[Fester Chugabrew]

I'm not going to dignify your question with an answer . . .

Hehe. That is because you, like your cheerleaders, do not have one. You cannot give one single example of how science can take place without intelligence, design, or some combination of the two.

[b_sharp]

Yes. No! Us don't know. The wife will know. They know everything doesn't she.

[Fester Chugabrew]

It's the same oath everyone in this country takes before testifying in court.

How do you know? Have you heard all the oaths taken by everyone in this country?

[Baraonda]

"That's great. What is the evidence?"

I am gratified to be able to answer your questions.

I am the evidence.

[antiRepublicrat]

Fact is, science does not yet know what causes gravity, so bag it for a better day.

I know! I know! It's the Intelligent Puller! That's much better than General Relativity or Quantum Theory, so we can forget those. After all, they don't explain everything, but Intelligent Puller Theory does.

You don't believe? Drop a book. You saw it drop. Therefore, the Intelligent Puller must have pulled it towards the ground.

[antiRepublicrat]

It's the same oath everyone in this country takes before testifying in court. Are you now going to theorize that he had his fingers crossed?

Alan Bonsell apparently did. You know you're in trouble when the judge takes over the questioning and calls you on your perjury.

[Virginia-American]

Thanks.

I'd never heard of the Law of the Iterated Logarithm; don't know much about random walk theory.

[Fester Chugabrew]

I agree 50% with post 807 (4x) and thereby render post 704 null and void.

[Senator Bedfellow]

We hope so - someone should :)

[Fester Chugabrew]

Based on the ensuing discussion it leaves one wondering why, throughout history, the two have been so closely associated. All I know is that direct observation has, throughout history, resulted in a popular association between the two. Chalk one up against direct observation.