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.

[AndrewC]

Ted's classification is more properly Hippopotamus amphibius.

Let the people choose. He looks porcine to me.

[Stultis]

But the metaphysical naturalists take the problem one step further into absurdity: For they claim that the "natural" is ultimately completely reduceable to the material.

Naturalism (even "metaphysical" naturalism) hasn't been materialistic for centuries. Get over your shallow "new age" strawmen.

Jeepers. Talk about "stacking the deck!" And then having the temerity to call it a "method!"

Jeepers. Talk about equivocation. The folks you're criticizing consistently distinguish between "metaphysical" (or philosophical) naturalism and "methodological" naturalism.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Let the people choose. He looks porcine to me."

I think we may be picking nits. :)

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Let the people decide! :) "“And we all know what needs to be done…you re-elect old Kennedy to the Senate. We’re gonna start on the 96 campaign and re-elect Bill Clinton as our (garbled).” Garbled is properly translated as *Hippo Hurricane Hollar!!! Gobble Gobble Gobble!!!!!*

[b_sharp]

"I'll guess that you agree that morality or immorality if you will can be both advantageous or disadvantageous. That would seem self evident. So the why must be directed at should morality have been selected out. I can offer you any number of examples along the line of the strong sacrificing themselves for the weak in opposition to natural selection.

Go for it.

"You assert that morality was selected for. Presumably you have some proof other than sociobiologic hypotheses or evolutionary psychobabble?

Comparitive studies of the social structure of other social animals, primarily apes. Dawkin's concept of the 'Selfish Gene' goes a long way towards explaining why we observe altruistic behavior in other animals and humans.

"Certainly. Winnowing of the gene pool by immoral acts of man. Expanding the gene pool by moral acts of man providing and caring for those who would be naturally selected out. Unintelligent design and intelligent design.

Those that do not protect their family can be sure their particular gene set will not survive for long. Those that protect their family have a much better chance of passing on their genes. In most cases this protection will encompass the entire social group. Kin selection is a complex and involved theory that explains among other things: altruistic actions, sibling bonds, sexual promiscuity, and variant degrees of estrus signaling in different ape species.

(At least somebody does ;))

As far as backing up my assertions goes, if I suggest readings to you will you read them?

For starters, try here

[PatrickHenry]

Out for the evening, placemarker.

[Matchett-PI]

"Galileo and Foscarini rightly urged that the Bible is intended to teach men to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."

Galileo cited Cardinal Baronius (1598) for the statement, "The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." (Drake, p. 186; Rohr, p. 13 )

"...Ironically, the traditional beliefs that Galileo opposed ultimately belonged to Aristotle, not to biblical exegesis. Pagan philosophy had become interwoven with traditional Catholic teachings during the time of Augustine. Therefore, the Church's dogmatic retention of tradition was the major seat of controversy, not the Bible. It may also be noted that Pope Urban VIII was himself sympathetic to Galileo but was not willing to stand against the tide of controversy. In reality, the majority of persecution seemed to come from intellectual scientists whose monopoly of educational authority had been threatened. During Galileo's time, education was primarily dominated by Jesuit and Dominican priests.

One of the most important aspects of Galileo's "threat" to education is that he published his writings in Italian, rather than Latin, which was the official language of scholarship. Galileo was attempting to have his ideas accepted by common people, hoping that they would eventually filter into the educational institutions. Thus, Galileo was regarded as an enemy of the established scientific authorities and experienced the full weight of their influence and persecution.

In many ways, the historic controversy of creation vs. evolution has been similar to Galileo's conflict, only with a reversal of roles.

In the sixteenth century, Christian theism was the prevailing philosophy and the Catholic Church dominated the educational system. Those, like Galileo, who dedicated themselves to diligently search for truth found themselves at the unmerciful hands of the authorities whose theories they threatened.

In the twentieth century, however, the philosophy of naturalism has become dominant, and science occupies the position of influence. Again, we note that the majority (regardless of whether it is right or wrong) will persecute those who dare to dispute their "traditional" theories; today the questionable theory of evolution is being challenged. The lesson to be learned from Galileo, it appears, is not that the Church held too tightly to biblical truths; but rather that it did not hold tightly enough. It allowed Greek philosophy to influence its theology and held to tradition rather than to the teachings of the Bible. We must hold strongly to Biblical doctrine which has been achieved through sure methods of exegesis. We must never be satisfied with dogmas built upon philosophic traditions.

The Bible is the only infallible, inspired revelation of God. Motivated by a love for the Creator and His word, the believer must carefully weigh his every thought against the standard of the Bible. Those ideas which oppose sound biblical teachings must be abandoned. This is the Believer's goal. Had this been achieved during the days of Galileo, a peaceful and reasonable solution would have helped to strip the Catholic Church of traditional, non-Christian philosophies which proved to hinder its effectiveness." MORE

[Coyoteman]

The Bible is the only infallible...

Tell me about the global flood and why it is necessary to twist geology, sedimentology, archaeology and half a dozen other sciences all out of shape to try to make it fit with observed fact and established theory.

[Matchett-PI]

You'll have to question someone who embraces YEC if you want that answered. I don't subscribe to it, myself.

[Coyoteman]

You'll have to question someone who embraces YEC if you want that answered. I don't subscribe to it, myself.

Fair enough. We'll cross sabers on some other issue down thread. ;-)

[Stultis]

To further clarify:

The contention is that methodological naturalism does NOT implication philosophical naturalism. The former does not assert that only natural factors exist, but rather assumes that only natural factors are relevant for the restricted purpose of doing science.

You are entitled to argue that this distinction is flawed, or disingenuous, or whatever, but you're not entitled to pretend through equivocation that it has not been made.

[AndrewC]

You're confusing things. We know primitive whales and hippos are closely related.

[Oztrich Boy]

I haven't read Hitchings, Gish, or Morris. I have read other critics of evolutionary orthodoxy: Johnson, Wells, Behe, Cremo & Thompson, and Milton. So, it seems our Venn diagrams don't intersect.

If you read Milton, you read Hitchings, Gish, snd Morris. Because those were the people he cribbed from.

[Matchett-PI]

"Fair enough. We'll cross sabers on some other issue down thread. ;-)"

You shoulda clicked on my screenname and went to my profile page first - you'd have known better than to ask me that question. :)

[Coyoteman]

You shoulda clicked on my screenname and went to my profile page first - you'd have known better than to ask me that question. :)

Way too much stuff (its late and I haven't shaved). Do you have a cliff notes version?

I was responding to your "The Bible is the only infallible..." comment in a previous post. Based on my studies, I do not think the global flood is an example of infallibility.

I may have to answer tomorrow.

[aNYCguy]

I wouldn't go so far. There are a few "impossible observations" that serve as criteria for evolution; the theory predicts that precambrian rabbit fossils will never be observed, for one.

You're right, and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. There are several layers of negation in play here, so I should clarify.

"Theory X predicts that Y will be observed, and would be falsified if Z is observed" is the model, and I like your precambrian rabbits example. But what RussP was offering was "Theory X predicts that what everyone agrees is impossible will not be observed." Poof, there's a prediction, and falsifiability!

As Dimensio has pointed out, my general statement was too general.

[aNYCguy]

Though Dr. Gene Ray has been widely dismissed as a crank, the fact remains: That Earth nor human equal entity, and Male/female = zero existence, as in 2 opposite hemispheres has never been disproven.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your encouragements!

God help us to regain a Free Republic..

Amen!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank God.. Jesus started a family not a religion..

Indeed. Amen!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your excellent post!

But the metaphysical naturalists take the problem one step further into absurdity: For they claim that the "natural" is ultimately completely reduceable to the material.

Truly, the bottom line of metaphysical naturalism is "matter in all its motions" which is particularly bizarre IMHO considering we are still searching for the Higgs field/boson and, even if it is detected or made - the remaining 95% of the critical density of the universe is yet to be detected or made.