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.

[antiRepublicrat]

I said, and have been saying, that intelligent design is a respectable theory. I've not introduced the word "hypothesis" except in response to others who have introduced it.

You need to introduce that word if you want to break out of the junk science category. You have a vernacular theory, "Life is organized in such a way that it must have been designed by an intelligent designer." You need to do at least the following to gain credibility as science:

• Come up with clearly stated possible conditions where the theory will be shown false
• Generate specific hypotheses to support your theory, remember, hypotheses should be simply stated and concise
• Formulate and perform reproducible tests for these hypotheses
• Publish the results in peer-reviewed journals, and defend them on scientific merits without crying "we're being persecuted"

I'll tell you what you're up against, even in the realm of pure science, no supernatural claimed. The Cold Fusion guys went that far, but their work was destroyed by the scientific community, their tests not reproducible with any amount of predictability. The idea still remains, but is on the fringe of science with not much progress towards the goal of reproducible tests. It's mostly ignored, although will be considered again if anyone can reproduce the tests. The scientific community doesn't mind them still working on it, although it may snicker once in a while, but it won't take the CF researchers seriously again until they come up with something concrete.

And IDers think they can be accepted as science without even having done as much hard research and testing as those working on CF?

"That organized matter behaving according to predicatable laws will be found."

And as I've said, it has been found, but doesn't necessarily have anything to do with ID. The statement does not even require ID in order to be true.

[steve-b]

My mistake. Replace "Galileo" with "Copernicus."

OK; that makes more sense.

[antiRepublicrat]

In what way would you expect science to test for the presence of organized matter that behaves according to predicatable laws?

You have an assumption in the back of your mind when you state "organized matter that behaves according to predicatable laws." The assumption is of a designer. You need to put the designer into the statement, otherwise you've just said "The sky is blue today" well, duh, of course it is (where I am).

Once you've done that part, it is you, the proponent, who needs to design your test, conduct it and publish it so we can try to reproduce it.

[donh]

Libertarian party has no problem with either evolution or an over-affinity for religious fundamentalism. It could use a reality check when it comes to foreign policy and the military.

Eh? The courts, a purely defensive militia, and the police are the only functional arms of government libertarians support. I guess George Washington also needs that same reality check.

[PreciousLiberty]

"The formation of oil deposits (whether it happened according to orthodox theory, Thomas Gold's deep-hydrocarbon theory, or some other mechanism) occurs over a similarly long time scale, but it would be preposterous to assert that understanding it has little to do with day-to-day human experience (at least, if you live in a society that runs on oil and therefore needs people who can figure out where it is likely to be found)."

You interjected a new word, "understanding". My point was that speciation is a slow process and not (often) relevant on human time scales. Influenza is one exception...

By the way, another point to be made that relates to a lot of posts on this thread is that many feel that intelligence has caused the normal evolutionary process to be altered in people. For example, modern medicine has removed the selection pressure from diseases like diabetes. This phenomenon is not limited to humans, for instance chimpanzees have removed selection pressures by learned behaviors like using tools to harvest termites.

It's ironic that the first real cases of "intelligent design" are happening in modern times, as genetic engineering becomes possible. Evolution won't apply to humankind going forward as much as engineering will, IMO. Then there's the coming fusion of man and machine...interesting times without a doubt. ;-)

[Fester Chugabrew]

And as I've said, it has been found, but doesn't necessarily have anything to do with ID.

The word "necessarily" being key. I haven't said anything about "necessity" or even proofs. I am only stating what constitutes a reasonable theory based on the definition usally posted by evos. Intelligent design involves the organization of matter that behaves under predictable laws. The presence of such matter is ubiquitous. Therefore to infer intelligent design as present and operative throughout the universe is to indulge a reasonable explanation, or theory.

[PreciousLiberty]

"And if you live under the illusion that science, in order to be science, must omit any notion of God or the supernatural, then you adhere to a dogma of your own. An unscientific practice at best. Bigotry at worst."

You seem awfully ignorant. Read some of Einstein's writings for instance. There are many famous, respected scientists who are deeply religious. However, science by definition does not address "God" or the "supernatural", at least as long as they are claimed to have traits and capabilities that transcend the physical world.

Science has not made, nor does it seem likely to make, any pronouncements about what existed before the Big Bang, or what caused the Universe to have its particular laws and composition. So, the explanations that "God created the Universe", "the Universe suddenly appeared randomly from nowhere", and "the Universe was created when an extra-universal garbage collector accidentally collected too much garbage and it imploded" are all equally plausible and likely from a strictly scientific standpoint. Science is willing to concede that the unknowable is the province of religion...it seems to be taking quite some time for religion to admit the counterpoint, that the knowable is the province of science.

I think ID should only be taught in science class if Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is given equal time, and the reason why is fully explained.

[Thatcherite]

Those gentlemen must have been extremely insightful to criticise the theories of someone who hadn't even been born yet.

They must have possessed the same time machine that allowed Darwin to get all his ideas from Haeckel's drawings (which apparently happened according to a frequent creationist poster here)

[antiRepublicrat]

Intelligent design involves the organization of matter that behaves under predictable laws.

So can other things. You need to nail it down to ID being the cause, otherwise you're just making obvious general statements.

Therefore to infer intelligent design as present and operative throughout the universe is to indulge a reasonable explanation, or theory.

Only in the vernacular definition of theory, as in your personal guess or belief. I can respect the statement in that category, but not as science.

[Thatcherite]

How can an evolutionist be anything but a nihilist and maintain a consistent worldview?

Classic projection.

Pete apparently believes that he'd lose his moral sense and turn into an insensate psychopath or perhaps some kind of despairing nihilist if he weren't a Christian. Let's all hope for his sake and/or ours that he doesn't get a crisis of faith.

[antiRepublicrat]

I think ID should only be taught in science class if Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is given equal time, and the reason why is fully explained.

Heathen infidel blasphemer! Everybody knows the Invisible Pink Unicorn (PBUHH) created the universe. Reject your pagan pasta god or be cleaning out Her stables for eternity!

[Thatcherite]

I have yet another theory. It is that the entire universe is a construct of my over-wrought imagination. Someone asked what my theory predicts, and I said, "That organized matter behaving according to predicatable [sic] laws will be found."

[cornelis]

If tomorrow it were shown that there are no eternal consequences

An interesting wager and I'm not entirely sure about how to proceed as I'm unclear about the nature of the interrogation. Ethics is rather a complex of many elements, and your scenario will require more details before it can get a good answer. Some things that are missing are, kinds of virute, and kinds of consequences. Also, the nature of temporality and eternity will have to be settled. Does your question assume that there is nothing eternal?

[PreciousLiberty]

Everybody knows the Invisible Pink Unicorn (PBUHH) created the universe.

Heretic! You will be forever boiled in a giant vat of the holy garlic-pepper-sausage sauce!

(It's my personal favorite.) :^)

[js1138]

Of course, Galileo produced some pretty convincing evidence that the moons of Jupiter orbited Jupiter. This upset the assumption that everything orbited the earth.

One of the main differences between Galileo and Copernicus.

Evidence.

[Senator Bedfellow]

Quite. My theory is that my cat created the universe and everything in it yesterday. This theory predicts that the sky is blue.

Ah, so it is. Obviously, my theory is correct.

Of course, what's missing from all this is an explanation of how and why that particular prediction is a necessary consequence of my cat-creation theory being correct. In the case of the Big Bang, the theory was that the universe expanded in such-and-such a way. Well, the prediction from that specific event was that there should be some leftover radiation as a consequence of the specific mechanism by which the universe expanded. Notice that there is some sort of logical connection between the theory and the prediction - the prediction is not a complete non sequitur in relation to the theory. Asserting that Big Bang theory predicts that my dryer will have lint in it doesn't work, because there's no reason to accept that dryer lint is a necessary consequence of the Big Bang.

Or if you think it is a necessary consequence, it's incumbent upon you to explain how and why that consequence necessarily results from your theory - simply asserting that it does is meaningless. Ya gotta put some chips on the table if you want to play the game.

[cornelis]

Our experience is, that as knowledge and understanding of our universe grows, so the domain of the supernatural shrinks.

zero-sum fallacy

[Fester Chugabrew]

You need to nail it down to ID being the cause, otherwise you're just making obvious general statements.

No more than evos need to nail down some other cause. The theory of evolutioon is a general statement supporting the evidence at hand. It makes "obvious general statements" in view of the givens with which its proponents operate.

[Senator Bedfellow]

Assume for a moment that death is akin to snuffing out a candle - once your bodily functions cease, you are no more. Will you behave yourself prior to that event, or not?

[Fester Chugabrew]

When ID produces a hypothesis that suggests research, it will qualify as science. Science is an activity, not a list of facts.

Please enumerate the activities science can engage without the presence of intelligence, design, or any combination of the two.