Posted on 06/27/2007 11:55:52 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Darwinism at AEI
By: Tom Bethell American Spectator July 1, 2007
Early in May, the American Enterprise Institute held a debate about Darwinism, a faith embedded in many debates, whether scientific, religious or political. The recent irruption of atheism can be traced to the Darwinian creed, for the well publicized testimonials of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens all have recourse to Darwinism at various points.
It purports to explain how we got here without any need for God or gods. Darwinism is best seen as 19th century philosophy—materialism—dressed up as science, and directed against a theological argument for the existence of God. (The only one of St. Thomas Aquinas’s “proofs” that resonates with us today is the “argument from design.”) Richard Dawkins famously said that Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection “made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”
Political theory was uppermost at AEI—it is, after all, a public-policy think tank. The question before the house: “Darwinism and Conservatism: Friends or Foes?” The main combatants were Larry Arnhart, a professor of political science at Northern Illinois University, and John West, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle. Also on the podium were John Derbyshire who writes books about mathematics and is the “designated point man” against intelligent design at National Review; and George Gilder, the well known writer who is also with the Discovery Institute.
Arnhart, the author of Darwinian Conservatism (2005), has carved out a nice niche for himself by arguing that conservatives need Darwin. He makes his case by presenting conservative political ideas and arguing that Darwin’s theory of natural selection supports them. Darwinian mechanisms give rise to a “spontaneous order,” he said at one point, contrasting it favorably with the “utopian vision” of liberals.
West argued that the issue is not really amenable to a left-right analysis. He quoted the late novelist Kurt Vonnegut, a self-described secular humanist, who said last year that our bodies are “miracles of design,” and faulted scientists for “pretending that they have the answer as to how we got this way.”
In Darwin’s Conservatives: The Misguided Quest (2006), and in his talk, West rejected the claim that Darwinism supports traditional moral teachings. Darwin’s Descent of Man, published 12 years after The Origin of Species, overflows with arguments embarrassing to conservatives and liberals alike. “Maternal instinct is natural, but so is infanticide,” West writes, describing Darwin’s explicit position. “Care toward family members is natural, but so is euthanasia of the feeble, even if they happen to be one’s parents.”
The truth is that Darwinism is so shapeless that it can be enlisted in support of any cause whatsoever. Steven Hayward, a resident scholar at AEI, made this clear in his admirable introduction. Darwinism has over the years been championed by eugenicists, social Darwinists, racialists, free-market economists, liberals galore, Wilsonian progressives and National Socialists, to give only a partial list. Karl Marx and Herbert Spencer, Communists and libertarians, and almost anyone in between, have at times found Darwinism to their liking. Spencer himself first used the phrase “survival of the fittest,” and Darwin thought it an “admirable” summation of his thesis.
Both selfishness and (with a little mathematical ingenuity) altruism can be given a Darwinian gloss. Any existing psychological trait, from aggression to pacifism, can be deemed adaptive by inventing a just-so story explaining how genes “for” that trait might have arisen. The genes themselves do not have to be identified, nor does the imagined historical scenario have to leave any trace behind.
The underlying problem is that a key Darwinian term is not defined. Darwinism supposedly explains how organisms become more “fit,” or better adapted to their environment. But fitness is not and cannot be defined except in terms of existence. If an animal exists, it is “fit” (otherwise it wouldn’t exist). It is not possible to specify all the useful parts of that animal in order to give an exhaustive causal account of fitness. If an organism possesses features that appear on the surface to be inconvenient—such as the peacock’s tail or the top-heavy antlers of a stag—the existence of stags and peacocks proves that these animals are in fact fit.
So the Darwinian theory is not falsifiable by any observation. It “explains” everything, and therefore nothing. It barely qualifies as a scientific theory for that reason. The impact of Darwinism on any and all political groups can be argued any way you want and it’s not very illuminating for that reason. So the AEI discussion frequently veered off into related areas.
Inevitably, the subject of intelligent design came up. The National Review’s John Derbyshire right away sought to conflate it with creationism. Someone in the front row reminded him that there were no creationists present. Derbyshire replied that a judge had equated intelligent design with creationism and that was good enough for him.
There is considerable confusion about the relationship between the two so let me try to elucidate. Creationists for the most part say: “When it comes to origins, we take our guidance from the Bible. What others say about natural selection, shared ancestry and so on is of little importance to us. We already have our faith and our Book and we are sticking to it.” It is separatist in spirit. “You scientists can do your thing, just let us do ours, which is study Genesis and pray.”
That was a deal as far as the Darwinians were concerned. The creationists could be ignored.
Intelligent Design is not like that. It is aggressive and therefore potentially dangerous. It says to the Darwinians: “You don’t have the evidence to support your claims. Your lab results and fossils don’t support your theory. Organisms are way too complex to have arisen by chance. Take all the time you want, it won’t be enough. Even though we don’t know how it happened, these critters must have been designed somehow.”
It takes the war to the enemy, in other words. So it can’t easily be ignored. It is informed by science, not religion. That is why it has made Darwinians angry, and why they try to identify it with creationism. They have also imposed a rigid orthodoxy upon all whose hiring, credentialing and promotion they can control. They are not interested in any debate. Discovery Institute people told me that last year a group of graduate students from prestigious universities wanted to learn more about intelligent design. A conference was arranged in which these young people showed up and wore name tags with pseudonyms and all papers were collected up at the end. The students were afraid that their identities would be leaked to their professors. That’s the intellectual climate surrounding this issue today. There are parallels with the Soviet dissidents in the 1970s, who had to communicate by samizdat.
In the question period, I asked Derbyshire if he could think of any observation that would count as falsifying Darwinism. He said: “I think miraculous creation would do it. The miraculous appearance of an entirely new species.”
That answer at least points us in a useful direction. Pursue it, and we might be able to clarify the Darwinian conundrum. The point is that in Darwinism a philosophical assumption, rarely explicit, circumscribes the “scientific” conclusions that are permitted. The assumption is this: Only naturalistic explanations can be allowed within biology. Naturalism implies the exclusion of mind, intelligence, or absolutely anything except atoms and molecules in motion. Nothing else exists. Everything must be explained in terms of physics and chemistry and anything beyond that will be derided as “creationism.” Good Darwinians are not allowed by their own rules even to entertain the possibility that intelligence was involved in the origin or development of life. No research is needed to come to that conclusion. It is axiomatic within the theory.
Derbyshire responded: “Scientists embrace naturalism because science is a naturalistic pursuit. A working scientist is by definition naturalistic.”
That is incorrect. From scraps of unearthed rubble, archeologists infer design when no trace of the designer remains. A scientist investigating how automobiles are made goes to a factory and learns that the assembly-line originated in plans and blueprints, which in turn originated in the minds of men.
Ah yes, the mind! But that, too, consists of nothing but atoms and molecules in motion, no? Which brings us to the Inner Sanctum of the materialist dogma: Mind itself is nothing but matter. Free will is an illusion, and so on. (Darwin accepted these propositions, noting “the general delusion about free will.”)
There is no reason in the world to accept the materialist faith, but once you do, then something very much like Darwinism has to be true. Life exists—we got here somehow, along with billions of other organisms. So how did it happen? Must have been that animals self assembled a little bit at a time, in a long chain of accidental survivals.
The scientists Derbyshire talks to at Cold Spring Harbor Lab say there is no controversy about Darwinism and so he counseled that “we can only defer to that consensus.” Because every observation they ever make seems to corroborate the Darwinian tautology, most scientists probably do believe that the theory is universally true. But as the philosopher of science Karl Popper saw, the same was true of Freudianism. For good Freudians, everything seems to confirm the theory because it is protected against falsification by its own logic. Likewise Darwinism. “To say that a species now living is adapted to its environment is, in fact, almost tautological,” Popper wrote. “There is hardly any possibility of testing a theory as feeble as this.”
Derbyshire displayed a distressing willingness to slander those he disagrees with. He said of the Intelligent Designers: “You don’t do any science. You go around the country on your expense accounts, which is one of the things I kick them about. You don’t do any research.” (Discovery Institute president Bruce Chapman says this is just plain false and lists several ID researchers.)
Derbyshire even accused Michael Behe of Lehigh University of recommending to a hypothetical student with a research proposal that he not carry it out.
Derbyshire recalled that he said to Behe: "If a graduate student came to you and said: 'You know, I've got this great idea for a possible evolutionary pathway for the bacterial flagellum. I think I could figure it out and I've got an idea for some experiments that would test this. Would you recommend me to go along with that?' And Michael said no. Which left me stunned. This is obscurantist."
George Gilder interrupted. Where was this encounter?
Derbyshire: "At National Review. At that meeting we had."
Gilder, who was there, questioned whether Derbyshire had given us a correct account.
Derbyshire: "No, it was a plain no. I'm sorry."
(The curious can listen to the “audio” of the whole conference on the AEI website.)
I sent Behe an email. Could he verify this account? No, he could not. “John Derbyshire is imagining things,” he wrote back. “I would never have said such a thing. I welcome experiments into evolutionary pathways. It has been my experience that the more we know, and the more experimental work is done, the less and less plausible Darwinian mechanisms become.”
Chapman, also present, recalls no such exchange with Behe.
Incidentally, Behe’s new book, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism is now out, it reports on new intelligent design research, but I have only started to read it.
I have left Gilder to the end. As always, it was intriguing to hear him grope his way through ideas that he was discovering even as he spoke. “The word comes first,” he said at one point. “The information precedes the proteins.” He has been studying information theory for years, and one of his conclusions is that the information carried by a channel must be distinct and separate from the channel itself. DNA—a string of nucleotides—does not explain how the information (needed to construct proteins) got into that DNA in the first place. That, we know nothing about.
He flailed at the “materialist superstition.” He castigated the idea that thought and speech, “originating in human minds, can be reduced to various secretions of the brain.” Emphasizing the hopeless fluidity of Darwinism, Gilder joked that Arnhart has found himself “a beautiful Darwinism, a James Dobson Darwinism, a supply-side Darwinism.” If it’s true, it’s also “trivial.” It fits neatly inside any and every box. Like Freudianism, it’s a philosophy—a worldview disguised as a science.
The groups track record? (Ignoring my own advice upthread)
If a socialist starts by saying he's not like all the other socialists do you take his word for it?
You mean the court case where the judge simply cut and pasted the ACLU’s brief into his decision (mistakes and all)? For someone who is on a conservative forum, you sure have a leftist track record.
Only that it has become the "catch all" constitutional authority . I know that HUD, EPA, DEA, FDA, HEW, and OSHA are all established using claims of authority under the Commerce Clause.
Clarence Thomas has noted that "The substantial effects test is no test at all. It is a blank check".
Who said anything about private research institutions? I said individual research institutions (which typically means universities). They will decide who will teach what. As for our public schools, that would be left up to whoever has authority over curriculum (in some cases it’s the state, in other cases it’s the local school boards). And by the same token, all of the above would be free not to teach ID as well. It would be left up to each individual institution.
==It’s just too bad there’s a sucker born every minute, as demonstrated by the success of such sales pitches.
Were you looking in the mirror when you said that? Imagine the irony!
Got it. You don’t anticipate any issues with scenarios like the researchers coming back and saying “we can’t find any evidence of ID”?
Nope. The IDers who get hired won’t have that problem at all.
What if the institutions don't necessarily hire IDers to do the research?
==Clarence Thomas has noted that “The substantial effects test is no test at all. It is a blank check”.
Thank God for Clarence Thomas. If only we could get one or two more like him on the bench! Unfortunately, the liberal supreme’s will hold on for dear life until suitable replacements can be brought in.
==What if the institutions don’t necessarily hire IDers to do the research?
Then that institution will be left behind by the institutions that do.
A very familiar posting style.......
If you say so. Personally I'm having a hard time with the idea that the majority of the people believe in and want to be taught ID, and we need a constitutional amendment to make that happen. If they already do and want to believe in ID, they will regardless of what's being taught in the schools.
More than likely looking in the mirror simply reminded you of yourself.
The point is, they should have a right to research and teach it as the only real alternative to Darwinian naturalism. The other alternative is to ban both from all publicly funded institutions. Or better yet, ban all funding of science not essential to the federal government’s constitutional mandate and let the free market take over.
DI’s Plagiarism Allegations Against Jones Get Even LamerThe Discovery Institute’s attempt to call Judge Jones a plagiarist for his decision in Kitzmiller was a publicity stunt, and it flopped. Nobody fell for it because it was easy to confirm the fact that judges follow proposed findings of fact all the time—that this is a routine and even a praiseworthy practice—and that the DI’s “statistics” were essentially invented...
[snip]
ppssssttt! You are not fooling anyone and you never did.
“...As recently as yesterday I asked several posters — people who are obviously educated and capable of reason — to provide evidence or concrete examples backing up their assertions. They chose rather to stop posting to me. “
I would suggest that the simple fact that you failed to receive a response does not constitute some sort of tacit admission that your arguments are unassailable.
That’s a cheap way to claim ground in a debate - especially in a free and open forum such as this, where people routinely need to come and go in order to attend to their jobs, homes, and families. I, for example, was hard pressed to spend as much time debating with you over there in the “Can America Survive” thread as I did given that I’ve children and an infant to care for.
Speaking of which...
Something I have wondered is if Bird Flu is a major worry on these threads. Has the topic ever come up on one of the daily or hourly C/E debates?
The ACLU is the legal arm of the Church of Darwin, of which Judge Jones is a member and puppet...and he has been (and continues to be) rewarded handsomely for his efforts:
Here is Judge John E. Jones III receiving an honorary doctorate just six months after rendering his decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover (check out Dickinson College’s reasons for conferring the degree). How many honorary doctorates has the Judge racked up since then? (I’m told four, but I have yet to confirm that.) Not bad for someone who went from head of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board to towering intellect of American jurisprudence...
Reasons given for Dickenson College's conferring of the honorary degree:
The Conferring of Honorary Degrees
John E. Jones III '77
Citation Presented by James M. Hoefler, Professor of Political Science
Conferring of the degree by William G. Durden, President
Judge John E. Jones III ; Dickinson College Class of 1977. You are the author of the opinion in Kitzmiller vs. Dover School District . This case was the first direct challenge brought in United States federal courts against a public school district that required the presentation of Intelligent Design as an alternative to Darwin 's theory of evolution . You concluded that intelligent design was a form of creationism , and as such, the school board policy requiring its presentation violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Your decision led to a number of interesting developments, including:
Articles in Harpers and the New Yorker , where you were described as a rugged 1940s movie star, a cross between William Holden and Robert Mitchum.
Listing as one of Time magazine's 100 most influential people in the world for 2006. In Time's words, you are one of those people who matter most; one of those people who define our times.
More recently, Paramount Pictures began work on a movie about the Dover School Board case in which your role as presiding judge will be featured. (We understand you prefer Tom Hanks for the Judge Jones role.)
And, if all this attention were not enough, you were singled out by Wired Magazine as one of the 10 sexiest geeks of 2005 !
What a wild ride it's been for you, Judge Jones. And something tells me it's not over.
Our speaker today traces the origins of his life to Schuylkill County, anthracite coal country about 70 miles northeast of here. He was born and evolved in Pottsville , Pennsylvania before arriving at Dickinson College in 1973, where he became:
* a member of the Raven's Claw;
* a brother in Alpha Chi Rho; and a major in that most intelligently designed of all disciplines: political science.
After Dickinson , Judge Jones migrated down the street to the Dickinson School of Law, graduated with a law degree in 1980, and set his scopes on courtroom advocacy. During a 22-year career as a trial lawyer, Judge Jones represented thousands of clients from all walks of life and all across the state. He also served as solicitor for several municipalities, as state attorney for the D.A.R.E. program, and worked for 12 years as a part-time assistant public defender in Schuylkill County .
In 1995, Judge Jones was nominated by then-Governor Tom Ridge to chair the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, which he did for seven years. This is one of many times in the judge's professional life where his political science training came in to play. Just the other day a colleague told me that Judge Jones told him: "Yeah, my 4 years at Dickinson gave me lots of experience for that liquor control board job."
Judge Jones was appointed to the federal bench by President Bush early in 2002 and was confirmed by the U.S. Senate later that year. It was in this new role where our speaker truly came into his own in by presiding over the Dover Intelligent Design dispute-a court case of biblical proportions. (Yes, I said biblical -after all, believe it or not, the trial lasted 40 days and 40 nights. . . .)
As Noel Potter, emeritus professor of geology put it: Judge Jones is my hero of the moment. You are a hero indeed, Judge Jones, because if Professor Potter said it, it must be true.
And so it is for your heroic opinions, and for a lifetime of achievement and dedicated service to the community, both inside the courtroom and out, that we take this opportunity to honor you, today.
Mr. President, it is my pleasure and honor to present to you Judge John E. Jones III, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and Dickinson Class of 1977, for the Honorary Degree of Doctor of Law and Public Service.
****************************
John E. Jones III , upon the recommendation of the Faculty to the Board of Trustees, and by its mandamus, I confer upon you the Degree of Doctor of Liberal Arts, with the rights, privileges, and distinction thereunto appertaining, in token of which I present you with this diploma and cause you to be invested with the hood of Dickinson College appropriate to your degree.
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.