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]

The question you were asked is a logical fallacy, called a Complex Question.

I thought it was called "Petitio Principii" or some such. Either way, I'm not sure how it applies to the assertion that intelligent design works well as a theory due to the extensive presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws. Of course the evidence is indirect. Most of the evidence science enjoys is indirect. Anyway, maybe you could point out to me what this has to do with my spouse?

[Fester Chugabrew]

So you're willing to re-define the words "concrete example" as well as "science".

Nope. I've worked with, and remained faithful to, the common definition of both. Maybe you could assist in the discussion by describing what happens when an object is intelligently designed and implemented.

[jwalsh07]

Fester, the only answer to the question "When did you stop beating your wife?" is another question as impolite as that might be.

And that question is "When did you stop raping little boys?" It puts everbody on an equal footing.

[Right Wing Professor]

"Scientists who utterly reject evolution may be one of our fastest - growing controversial minorities. Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science." Just a few examples: Jonathan Wells, Stephen C. Meyers, William Lane Craig and others

Wells is a Moonie whose rejection of evolution is a result of his devotion to the Unification Church and his conviction that the Reverend Sun-Myung Moon is the second coming of the Messiah. Stephen Meyer is a hiistorian/philosopher. William Lane Craig is a theologian.

So you're one for three, and the one is a cultist.

[Right Wing Professor]

. The essence of altruism is selflessness, even to the point of being "harmful to itself" (see defintion #2). Reciprocity, you scratch my back if I scratch yours, is the antithesis of altruism hence the term "reciprocal altruism" is sociobabble.

It's a well established term in animal behavior, nothing to do with sociobabble. It means engaging in behavior that is immediately neutral or harmful in exchange for reciprocal behavior that is beneficial.

You think a killdeer that puts her life in danger to draw predators away from her chicks does so because she was raised Catholic?

[jwalsh07]

It's a well established term in animal behavior, nothing to do with sociobabble. It means engaging in behavior that is immediately neutral or harmful in exchange for reciprocal behavior that is beneficial.

No, it's not well established, it is controversial. And easy to see why, the contradiction in terms must be unpalatable for all but the most devoted reductionists.

Kin selection is much better established which is what you are referring to below but I'd be happy to discuss that with you as well.

You think a killdeer that puts her life in danger to draw predators away from her chicks does so because she was raised Catholic?

Certainly not but when the killdeer jumps in the ice to save another killdeers chicks, you can get back to me because then I will suspect the killdeer did have some training by Catholic parents.

[antiRepublicrat]

t I intervened because you were having too much fun at his expense.

Spoil sport. You're too nice. :)

[antiRepublicrat]

I thought it was called "Petitio Principii" or some such.

Logical fallacies have latin names. Those used to structured debate generally learn them by those names. You've probably heard of the more common ones, like ad hominem. Petitio Principii is also known as "begging the question" or "circular reasoning." It is related to "complex question" as both are logical fallacies of presumption. "Loaded question" is also related.

, I'm not sure how it applies to the assertion that intelligent design works well as a theory

Because your statements supporting organized matter (indeed, everything) being the result of a designer presume the designer, and even the designing itself. Thus, it is a fallacy of presumption. I had hoped that you'd see the obvious connection with the wife-beating question (it presumes without evidence that you beat your wife) as Alamo Girl did, and probably everybody else, but they were mean/nice enough to let me continue. Obviously I was wrong.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Because your statements supporting organized matter (indeed, everything) being the result of a designer presume the designer, and even the designing itself.

Of course they do, much as a result presumes a cause, and a cause presumes a result. Circular reasoning would say in effect "there is a designer because there is a designer." Linear reasoning says "there is a designer because there are designed things." Insert the theory of evolution into the same framework, and see what presumptions are also assumed true. The theory of evolution is not discarded as a non-theory on that account, nor should it be.

[b_sharp]

Build a categorical syllogism out of his propositions and it looks even more ridiculous.

Here is a non-rigorous form
1. Humans create order.
2. Humans are intelligent agents
3. Therefore only intelligent agents create order

[Right Wing Professor]

No, it's not well established, it is controversial. And easy to see why, the contradiction in terms must be unpalatable for all but the most devoted reductionists.~

Do we rely on your authority as an animal behaviorist, here, or do you have some actual evidence?

Cleaner fish engage in reciprocal altruism. So do vampire bats, chimpanzees, etc. These are all well-established examples that don't involve kin. All you have against are your own peculiar prejudices

[jwalsh07]

LOL, I speak for myself prof. Appealing to authority always gets demerits from you authorities.

A novel approach thinking for oneself, eh?

[Right Wing Professor]

OK, so you have no evidence, just your own opinion.

That makes me the fool for wasting my time.

[jwalsh07]

No, you're a fool for arguing that altruism does not have a selfless dimension.

Let's keep things in order here Prof.

Evidence for "kin selection" = 40,000,000 aborted babies. Good evidence?

[Oztrich Boy]

Stephen Meyer is a hiistorian/philosopher.

So ID/Creationiwm hasn't yet broken the Steve barrier?

[Right Wing Professor]

So ID/Creationiwm hasn't yet broken the Steve barrier?

Come to think of it, it may not have. I can't think of a creationist Steve.

[Oztrich Boy]

Flying spaghetti monsters have no basis in reality that I am aware of.

There is no difference between reality and unreality.

[Oztrich Boy]

I can't think of a creationist Steve.

There is

[js1138]

placemarker

[GOPPachyderm]

The Steve barrier being that more people support your position? Majority, like might, doesn't make right.

Obviously listing more scientists won't influence your position. You guys don't even allow someone with a viewpoint that doesn't match your own a seat at the table.

My position remains that there are many scientists who don't share your certitude that the evolution explains the origin of life on this planet.