Survival of the Evolution Debate: Why Darwin is still a lightning rod.

WHAT IS IT ABOUT EVEN the slightest dissent from Darwin's theory of natural selection that drives liberal elites (and even some conservative elites) bonkers? In the 1920s, in the days of the Scopes trial, it was the fact that anyone could believe the story of Genesis in a literal way that offended the delicate sensibilities of our cultural mavens. Then in the 1970s it was something called "creation science" that drove them apoplectic. Today it is the heresy of "intelligent design" that they seek to extirpate root and branch. To paraphrase H.L. Mencken, liberals are haunted by the specter that someone, somewhere harbors doubts about Darwin's theory.

But in truth most people nowadays do believe evolution's basics--which is to say that species evolve--and most people believe that natural selection explains part of the change or adaptation. Where there is doubt or disagreement, as there always has been, is over whether natural selection explains everything. Despite what you might think from reading the New York Times, there is nothing indecent or philistine about this question, a question Darwin himself considered of the utmost importance. As he commented in On the Origin of Species, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Enter in the 1990s the intelligent design movement, also known simply as ID, an interconnected group of biochemists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science who argue that certain forms of biological complexity, what they call "irreducible complexity," cannot in fact come into being by Darwin's "numerous, successive, slight modifications" but require instead an intelligent designer. Some scientists with first-rate credentials, namely Michael J. Behe and William Dembski, are the driving intellectual force behind the theory of intelligent design. Relying in particular on recent discoveries in biochemistry and mathematical physics, they argue that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection cannot explain the existence of some complex biological systems. That is to say, the emergence of these systems is neither mathematically nor biochemically plausible without some intelligent designer in the background. For example, according to the biochemist Behe, we haven't a clue how certain highly complex biological systems at the cellular level, such as the mechanism of blood clotting, could have emerged via natural selection. "All parts must function in synchrony or the system breaks down," he explains.

In making such claims the IDers are putting old wine in a new bottle. Some version of the design thesis is to be found in the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas and, perhaps most famously, in the writings of William Paley. The 18th-century English theologian argued that when we find a watch we infer a watchmaker; so too when we discover evidence of design in nature we properly infer a Maker or Creator. The basic point is that one can make a legitimate, rational inference from the orderliness and regularity of the cosmos to some sort of intelligent first mover. And it's important to point out that this inference was thought, up until recent times, to stand on its own merits, requiring no assistance from Divine Revelation.

In rejecting this inference, Darwin himself was hardly a path breaker, though clearly his assault on the inference was one of the most powerful ever made. For example, before him, the philosopher David Hume unleashed an influential critique of the notion of what he called an "intelligent cause"--a notion he viewed as utterly useless and uncertain. In sum: This is a venerable debate, indeed, and one that has never been settled.

But is this really a scientific debate, a question that science in the strict or modern sense of the term can solve? Here's where things get tricky. It is the contention of many IDers that their case for intelligent design is science, and that it should thus be taught as a part of the science curriculum in the public schools. Similarly, it is the mantra of the Discovery Institute, a think tank dedicated to furthering the cause of intelligent design, that the controversy between intelligent design and natural selection should be a part of any science curriculum. Even President Bush has weighed in on the matter, declaring that "both sides ought to be properly taught."

ID's liberal critics disagree, calling intelligent design a cover for religion, and in late December, in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover, a federal judge reached the same conclusion. At issue was the constitutionality of including in the science curriculum the reading of the following statement: "Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. . . . With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind."

Though this statement might seem innocuous enough, Judge John Jones III, an appointee of George W. Bush, concluded that "the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity," and thus to teach their theories runs afoul of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. Certainly, the Discovery Institute has made clear its goal "to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

What is one to make of this latest skirmish in our nation's culture wars? Often overlooked is the fact that one does not have to be a card-carrying liberal to have qualms about the modern-day rendition of intelligent design, and that there is much more to this story than either Orthodox Darwinians or IDers are willing to admit.

The philosopher Robert George of Princeton argues that IDers have, to be sure, performed a useful service in their critical program. They have better than most shown how natural selection comes up short as a universal meta-explanation. And they have also highlighted how many of today's popularizers of Darwinism, for example biologists Richard Dawkins and the late Stephen Jay Gould, have misused Darwinian theory as a battering-ram against religion. Dawkins, for one, famously stated that "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist," and that "if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane."

Well, if the point of Darwinism is to refute the existence of God, as these popularizers tend to claim, then it too would have to be excluded from the science curriculum. The Supreme Court, after all, has ruled that the state must remain neutral between religion and irreligion. In their more heated polemics, Darwin's popularizers paint themselves into this intellectual corner.

However that may be, George raises serious questions about the constructive aspect of the IDers' program, the point at which they attempt to replace natural selection with intelligent design. As George points out, there's nothing wrong with making an inference from biological complexity to an intelligent designer, an inference that is perfectly rational, even if it is not "scientific" per se. Aquinas, after all, was a great rationalist. "It is important for IDers to avoid buying into an imperialistic understanding of science, which says that if it's not the scientific method it's not rational," he comments. What's needed is not a "scientific" refutation of Darwin, but a philosophic understanding of what Darwinian theory says, and what it does not say.

Stephen Barr, a theoretical physicist at the Bartol Research Institute of the University of Delaware, and a frequent contributor to the journal First Things on matters of science and culture, also believes that some IDers have strayed beyond the confines of science strictly understood. As he comments, "The design hypothesis is a perfectly reasonable one, but it is an explanation outside of natural science." Like George, he believes some IDers have erred in trying to shoehorn the design thesis into science curriculums. In doing so, moreover, they make a mistake similar to that of Darwin's popularizers, claiming more for their theory than the science itself allows. "There are dogmatists on both sides of the debate," Barr observes.

The former head of the President's Council on Bioethics, Leon Kass, has also been following this debate. A physician and Harvard-trained biochemist, Kass credits IDers for drawing attention to various difficulties in orthodox Darwinian theory, as well as for understanding the human stakes involved in such questions. And he believes IDers are generally right in raising the question of causality--a question that should in fact be at the center of a true science of nature. In other words, these are genuinely important questions. "But the IDers' assertion that the only possible answer is a Designer-God is not warranted. There is simply no evidence in support of this proposition."

It seems pretty clear that ID, as a public teaching, is going to meet the same fate as creation science. This modern update of an older understanding will not soon be taught as part of the science curriculum in our public schools. And this may be a good thing, in so far as it isn't really "science" anyway. What's unfortunate is that the ideology of Darwinism--that is, the mistaken notion that Darwin defeated God--not only reigns culturally supreme, but also apparently increasingly has the legal backing of the state.

The policy question 80 years ago, in the famous Scopes trial, was whether a public school teacher ought to be allowed to teach students about Darwin's theory of evolution. The question of today is nearly the opposite--whether anything other than orthodox Darwinism will be taught in the public schools. This marks not so much enlightenment's progress as a narrowing of our intellectual horizons.

We know it happened from the fossil record.

And we know the Empire State Building was designed likewise. From the edifice itself which evidences a designer and design as well as the designer notebooks and blueprints themselves.

So too the fossil record -- it shows the evolution of a designer's design. Chance is sorely pressed beyond any reason to explain large jumps in the record. And changes both lage and small may indeed be evidence of an active designer, just as a chnage in construction techniques or materials between the tenth floor and the twelveth may indicate evolution of the designer's design as the building was built.

I consider a Darwinised ICHTHUS to be real hate speech. It is an obvious attempt to insult, ridicule, and inflame a particular group of people. Very bad form.

While feminists and race baiters pioneered hypersensitivity, Christians have been catching up wonderfully. I guess, as feminists once claimed dirty jokes were the equivalent of rape, you could argue seeing a Darwin fish is the equivalent of martyrdom.

Or, alternatively, you could get a grip.

"Get a life. Its a joke. Remember them?"

Go into a synagoge and ask the folks their if they would like a pork sandwich and then tell them you are joking.

Or, attend a NAACP meeting and use the "N" word and tell them your just joking.

Some things are "hate" disguised as humor. Just because something is funny, doesn't make it acceptable.

"Or, alternatively, you could get a grip."

Or you could be mature enough to know this sort of things just inflames and starts fights.

It is the equivalent of yelling fire in a theater. Why intentionally provoke a group of people? I think Islam is nonsense, but I would NEVER deface one of their religious symbols to make a point - it wouldn't change one Muslims mind and it could start an unnecessary altercation. Besides, the Darwin fish sends a message that Darwin is your deity. I thought that wasn't so with the "pure" scientist? Professor, you know that such things are bad form, just as a Christian getting in your face and trying to provoke is.

"WHAT IS IT ABOUT EVEN the slightest dissent from Darwin's theory of natural selection that drives liberal elites (and even some conservative elites) bonkers?" ( from the article)

To All:

What drives liberals nuts is that something other than atheistic worldview might be present to children in government schools.

Solution: Get rid of the government schools!

If universal K-12 education were privatized this entire cat fight over evolution/intelligent design would evaporate like dew on a hot summer's morning.

Remember, please, that the education of children and youth can never be neutral in content or consequences. It WILL have political, cultural, and religious consequences!

Government schools are compulsory for those with no other option. Government schools are a price-fixed monopoly that guarantees that private options will be scarce or non-existent. Government schools can and do use the threat of police force to ensure their customers ( students) will fill their schools. They use the threat of police force to ensure that they have a constant flow of money. And,,,,,,all this force is directed at young children who will be politically, culturally, and religiously influenced by their government school. How can this be constitutional on either a federal or state level? .....Got me!

If anything, the publication standards in Einstein's day were much stricter than they are now [I'm speaking from experience here] - so much rubbish gets published that the reliability of published scientific information is now much less than it used to be. Reviewing "peers" now are third-raters, since everyone more prominent has more important things to do. In Einstein's day the journals were staffed with very solid first- and second-rate scientists who had to decide on the publication. In my field, if you take a German language article from 1905, its experimental part is like gold standard. Ditto for the Brits - up to about 1940s-50s.

I think you have just made my point.

Scientific theories today which go against the status quo are sidelined. Then everybody points out that the theories can't be good, since they haven't been published in peer-reviewed journals. Einstein would probably have met the same fate if today's peer reviewers were reviewing his articles in his day.

Wrong. Einstein was against the status quo of his time - but he made sense on the terms of science, and thus his work was not sidelined, but accepted, even if at first grudgingly. ID does not make any sense except as theological exercise - and thus is rightly swept out with a broom from science classes. Theology is not science, unless one uses the word "science" to include "library science" and the like into it. Theology is a religious discipline, and that's where ID belongs. There ought to be a song with a refrain "don't bible at me in public school!"

Okay, I'll bite...If we got rid of all government schools tomorrow, where would the children go? How would working single mothers educate their children? What about families where both parents work? How about families where neither of the parents feels competent to teach anything beyond the basics.

I guess I've seen this statement here so many times, I'd just like to know what you envision as an alternative.

Why intentionally provoke a group of people? I think Islam is nonsense, but I would NEVER deface one of their religious symbols to make a point - it wouldn't change one Muslims mind and it could start an unnecessary altercation. Besides, the Darwin fish sends a message that Darwin is your deity. I thought that wasn't so with the "pure" scientist? Professor, you know that such things are bad form, just as a Christian getting in your face and trying to provoke is.

Because debate often employs satire and even ridicule. As a former Christian, I don't find the Darwin fish offensive, and I didn't even when I was a Catholic. It's rather gentle humor, and not at all bad form. Describing kids in public school as the descendants of rats and cockroaches, now, that's bad form.

Nor do I believe religious symbols deserve any special protection that other symbols do not deserve.

If I'd seen you object to the frequent posting here of the old lithograph with Darwin on a monkey body, I'd grant that you're at least consistently humorless.

As some on other threads deny ever saying fact instead of theory, I will once again point out the arrogance inherent in the religious nature of Darwinist absolutism.

It would cause less confusion if we simply said that common descent is a fact; natural selection is an ovserved fact and also a theory to explain common descent.

This isn't arrogance; it is just the way things are. The major advocates of ID would agree with this statement, even though they deny that the theory of natural selection is completely adequate.

I'm not sure you understand why I think viruses aren't alive.

I know why you think viruses are not alive. I just think it's a semantic game. The line between life and nonlife is arbitrary unless you know the history of the object in question. We do not know the history of viruses.

Exactly. And no one has been able to refute ONE of Darwin's postulates. There is no heir to Darwin in the natural sciences. Einstein's theory of relativity has largely superseded Newton's mechanics but no one has been able to produce an explanation for natural behavior that is as succinct and elegant as Darwin's. It is a theory that has been repeatedly validated by scientific testing and observation. The same can't be said of ID. I don't think the debate is about science but about philosophy. There are different legitimate ways to understand the origin of the world and of life upon it. Darwin doesn't address the question and I deny the premise of dogmatics like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould to the effect evolution equates to the falsity of religion. It does no such thing. Yet at the same time its foolhardy to deny the obvious before our senses, that Nature operates in accordance with natural laws that have been in existence long before human beings arrived upon the earth.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

The line between life and nonlife is arbitrary unless you know the history of the object in question. We do not know the history of viruses.

For that matter, we don't know the history of humans either. I don't think a definition of "life" is useful that requires knowledge of infinite ancestry. A rock isn't alive, a person is, and I don't have to know where they came from (back to antiquity) to be able to make this determination.

I am not completely disagreeing with you about Einstien's motives for his comment or his own subscription as to what God means or doesn't mean. I think he just left open the possibility of the more broad-ranged notion of God some of us here are trying to explain we might embrace. We are baffled to the extent of the milititanism those such as Dawkins engage in when painting anyone who disagrees with them as "ignorant, stupid, or insane.". It smacks of Soviet style minimizing.

As to your following post, all while admitting to my limited understanding, quantam physics seems to have turned things upside down and leaves open wonderous questions which might always be beyond our understanding.

There's this slightly cheesy but interesting movie out there at Blockbuster called What The Bleep Do We Know? that deals with those like myself asking questions of both science and theology. The trailer is on the web. I recommend it to everyone.

Darwin doesn't address the question and I deny the premise of dogmatics like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould to the effect evolution equates to the falsity of religion. It does no such thing. Yet at the same time its foolhardy to deny the obvious before our senses, that Nature operates in accordance with natural laws that have been in existence long before human beings arrived upon the earth.

Your post eloquently states what I have been trying to touch upon in some of my posts. Thank you. Dawkins comes across as sounding as if his (very impressive) grasp of his field knows no bounds. He sounds like the Alec Baldwin character in that movie "I am God!" simply becuase he had great surgical skill. I wonder how the human shortcoming of hubris will evolve on a social level in the millenia to come?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.