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.

[RussP]

"The statistical calculation is based on the chance of it occuring naturally. That's easy enough to do with toy examples like card ordering where there are no natural processes in operation. But when it comes to life there are abundant natural processes working which complicates statistical calculations to such a point that they cannot be applied accurately."

Here we go again. The point is not how hard or easy it is to apply statistical inference to human origins. The point is that evolutionists have rejected such application *a priori*. Read this friggin' thread. According to the evolutionist "logic," the question of whether intelligence had to be involved in ordering the deck of cards is not even a valid question! That's nonsense.

And please, let's not get into a lot of irrelevant debate about cards. The deck of cards is just one of an infinite number of possible examples. And the fact that cards are known to be created by humans is irrelevant to the main point. If you don't like that example, here's another one. Imagine walking along the beach and seeing a series of geometric shapes in the sand. Let's say it's a circle, square, and triangle, all repeated 50 times. According to evolutionist "logic", the question of whether the shapes were put there by an intelligent being is not even a valid question! Baloney!

[caffe]

Try reading all the conflicting theories and evolving theories evolutionists continue to make. Then perhaps you can talk about I.D. Also, try reading Behe's book. I don't think the Dover Trial was a scientific lecture series but rather the usual suspects attempting to silent any scientist who might actually dare to assert irreducible complexity. How dare anyone use scientific research and facts to discredit our philosophy!

[antiRepublicrat]

You make a good argument for the position that the source of morality is something other than the evolution

Morality comes from society. We had to develop morality in order to live in larger groups. We also had to develop airplanes to fly, but I don't try to pen that on evolution either.

[bobdsmith]

I believe basic morality is instinctive, just as the urge to feed, mate and stay warm is instinctive. I believe this is a product of the structure of our chemistry and structure of the brains. Therefore in my opinion basic morality is a product of evolution.

[Ichneumon]

[I could come up with countless more situations where morality hurts your chance to reproduce and therefore pass on those beneficial "morality genes."]

You make a good argument for the position that the source of morality is something other than the evolution

No, he makes a good argument that *some* forms of morality are non-adaptive. He has not made any argument at all that they *all* are, as you imply when you write of "the" source of morality, as if there's only one possible source instead of many.

- a notion at which your Darwinian brothers would scoff.

This is incorrect. The "Darwinian brothers" (whatever the hell that is) are well aware that many aspects of human culture and individual behavior are not directly the result of genetic imperatives. Humans are quite capable of choosing beliefs and behaviors which are anti-survival -- suicide bombers being a classic example.

[bobdsmith]

Imagine walking along the beach and seeing a series of geometric shapes in the sand. Let's say it's a circle, square, and triangle, all repeated 50 times. According to evolutionist "logic", the question of whether the shapes were put there by an intelligent being is not even a valid question! Baloney!

It would be a valid question. I am not aware of anyone in this thread claiming otherwise.

[Constantine XIII]

LOL, a very wise man. :D

[jennyp]

Expect more panicky predictions of imminent triumph to come from the ID PR machine. They have no choice, now that this fact is becoming known:

The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research.

"They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned.

"From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said.

While intelligent design has hit obstacles among scientists, it has also failed to find a warm embrace at many evangelical Christian colleges. Even at conservative schools, scholars and theologians who were initially excited about intelligent design say they have come to find its arguments unconvincing. They, too, have been greatly swayed by the scientists at their own institutions and elsewhere who have examined intelligent design and found it insufficiently substantiated in comparison to evolution.

"It can function as one of those ambiguous signs in the world that point to an intelligent creator and help support the faith of the faithful, but it just doesn't have the compelling or explanatory power to have much of an impact on the academy," said Frank D. Macchia, a professor of Christian theology at Vanguard University, in Costa Mesa, Calif., which is affiliated with the Assemblies of God, the nation's largest Pentecostal denomination.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Try reading all the conflicting theories and evolving theories evolutionists continue to make. Then perhaps you can talk about I.D.

There aren't any. Howevere, there are significant disagreements on details.

Also, try reading Behe's book.

Done. But Behe has already contradicted much of that. What kind of science requires NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. As Behe claimed in his testimony, under oath, in the Dover trial.

I'm going to guess that you didn't follow the trial and you don't know what ID is either.

[js1138]

"1. Discovery Institute's science education policy has been consistent and clear. We strongly believe that teaching about intelligent design is constitutionally permissible, but we think mandatory inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula is ill-advised. Instead, we recommend that schools require only that the scientific evidence for and against neo-Darwinism be taught, while not infringing on the academic freedom of teachers to present appropriate information about intelligent design if they choose."

"2. Discovery Institute repeatedly advised the Dover School Board and Thomas More that the board's intelligent design policy enacted in the fall of 2004 was problematic and should be replaced. The Dover Board and Thomas More chose to reject Discovery Institute's advice."

[Constantine XIII]

Boy, it must be great to be so smart. :P

[RussP]

"You know humans exist, and that they have the ability to order the cards. You know the 'order' corresponds to the way humans order cards."

"In the case of ID, we don't know the identity or nature of the designer; we don't know by what means such a designer could implement the design; and we don't know what form the design would take. Three strikes, you're out."

Oh, but you somehow *know* that no intelligence could possibly exist that designed living organisms?

You cannot possibly "know" that. You can *assume* that, but you cannot "know" it. If you assume it, then any conclusion you base on it is only as valid as your assumption.

If you are honest enough with yourself to realize that you *don't* know that, then your argument falls apart. One fatal blow to the cranium, you're out.

[DX10]

No intention at presenting anything favorable or light. As far as discussing the facts there is plenty of that going on. I simply would like to see a debate by qualified professionals.

[Right Wing Professor]

According to evolutionist "logic", the question of whether the shapes were put there by an intelligent being is not even a valid question! Baloney!

Yes, you're right. What you said is baloney.

We know people draw shapes in the sand. We know how they do it. We know of no alternative natural processes that create such shapes. In the case of the shapes, we could look for human footprints nearby, human skin cells in the grooves, and evidence of known human muscular ranges, etc., in the shapes.

In contrast, we know of no other organisms that design organisms, we have no idea how such a design might be implemented, and we do know of natural processes that cause organisms to change and develop. And, of course, there's no way to test the 'design', such as it is, for action by an intelligent organism, because we refuse to identify that organism.

As I said, analogy is the weakest form of argument. And you're coming up with some truly awful analogies.

[Pete]

No. I sincerely believe that all human thought is the result of the material workings of the physical brain. But to claim that such meaning is an intrinsic, inheritable property of the matter is as foolish as asserting that tomorrow's New York Times lies latent in a jar of ink.

I agree. But that is exactly the evolutionist's position.

There is matter and energy, and there is (as you seem to have forgotten) the pattern in which the matter and energy are arranged. I've seen no evidence that anything more is necessary to explain the human mind.

A specific pattern of matter and energy is still matter and energy. I don't see how that saves you from the fate of the materialist.

You seem to be saying that evolution may be responsible for the matter and energy but the matter and energy patterns are formed outside of Darwinian evolution through experience and thought. Even if I bought this argument, which I don't, it still doesn't address the illusion of purpose, which was my original question - How can an evolutionist be anything but a nihilist and maintain a consistent worldview?

(Of course, the correct answer is "Why should a nihilist care about maintaining a consistent worldview?":)

[Ok, now I am done.]

[Right Wing Professor]

Oh, but you somehow *know* that no intelligence could possibly exist that designed living organisms?

We have no positive evidence of such an entity. We have positive evidence humans exist.

If you are honest enough with yourself to realize that you *don't* know that, then your argument falls apart. One fatal blow to the cranium, you're out.

Easy, now, I'm not Professor Mirecki.

[caffe]

Of course, there are other posts referencing Dover but that will do. Now, go back and contrast what Discovery Institute states and how you totally misrepresented them.

[Pete]

We had to develop morality in order to live in larger groups.

Or, "We had to develop morality in order to live in larger groups to survive and those that didn't have this inclination, didn't survive".

Sounds like evolution to me.

[js1138]

I didn't misrepresent them. The reason they opposed manditory teaching of ID, and the reason they skipped the trial is they have no scientific research to present.

They would have been rubbished at the trial, and they know it.

[donh]

You make a good argument for the position that the source of morality is something other than the evolution - a notion at which your Darwinian brothers would scoff.

This argument invariably becomes hopelessly muddled because it seems to always conflate several arguments at once:

Why are humans inclined to have moral sentiments?
Why should they foster these inclinations?
Can they, in fact, be effectively fostered?
What is a good set of morals to foster?

I'll answer the first one, because I'm more interested in it:

Humans are, on the whole, remarkably moral because morality paid huge genetic dividends when we were insular tribes trying to survive on the african veldt. This is a well-researched subject usually subsumed under the rubric "red queen". Look it up, it's not very hard to understand if you are at all mathematically inclined. I can summarize: engaging in an altruistic act to save your entire extended family or tribe puts your genes into the future far better than saving yourself possibly could.

In the long run, if humans have one, the inclination to moral sentiments probably will die out in humans, because it doesn't generalize well to larger, more mobile populations than those that fostered it. No bang for the genetic buck in sacrificing yourself for grand ideas in a world where you could marry someone half a world away.

You may find this spritually unsatisfactory, but, as has been pointed out endlessly on these threads, the fact that you find the social results of a scientific claim unpleasant is not a scientific argument against its validity.

Morality is obviously a very good idea for those who favor continuing to have a decent civilization, and a smart, long-range thinking civilization would be wise to bend the natural, but particular, inclination toward morality in its citizens to its whole advantage. We call this moral education, generally. You would seem to want to claim this to be a hopeless task, unless a big juju from the sky gave us our morality. A scientific evaluation of the history of that idea's effect on the behavior of humans toward others who do not share their particular beliefs would suggest that that is a pile of kaka.