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]

You can't present a rational justification for asserting that this intelligent agent is the best explanation.

Sure I can. It's the presence of organized matter behaving according to predictable laws, which presence is ubiquitous throughout the known universe. To falsify this rational observation all one need do is provide examples of disorganized matter that does not behave accordiong to predictable laws. What is intelligent design but taking matter, organizing it, and establishing rules by which it operates? It is hardly unreasonable to extrapolate the greater intelligence from examples of lesser intelligence, just as it is not unreasonable to infer, or extrapolate biological history from amoeba to man based on a brief glimpse at biological history.

[Right Wing Professor]

The troll will be full for weeks.

Haven't you guys learned anything yet?

[Right Wing Professor]

I wouldn't expect you to see such things, it is not your speciality.

So it was badly wrong, but it's way too esoteric for me to understand anyway. LOL! Sorry, but if you intended this to be a demonstration of prephesy, it was underwhelming.

But still, it's a relief to see you admit that some fields do require the acquisition of some prior understanding.

[antiRepublicrat]

Umm, it's just you, pulling one out.

To me, ID is a group of people just pulling one out.

Gravity operates consistently because it too, is intelligently designed.

Gravity operates because of the Intelligent Puller. You see things drop; therefore there must be an Intelligent Puller to make them do so.

You can't recognize your own circular logic?

[Fester Chugabrew]

You assign a name to the intelligent designer and specify its activity in jest. As such you really do not contribute to the discussion, much as those who posit the spaghetti monter theory as some kind of serious refutation of, or analogical equivalence to, the theory of intelligent design.

[Liberal Classic]

Some people say objects respond to the force of gravity because angels are pushing on them. I say this is bunk. My theory is that angels warp the curvature of spacetime around massive objects, causing them to move in non-euclidian paths. I'm also working on a theory of quantisation of angelic energy into discrete packets. Wanna subscribe?

[Fester Chugabrew]

That monkey progeny is a shrewd bunch. We need more of them in congress, laboratories, and universities. They clearly represent the best hope for science and humanity.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"It would be better if you read about the subject - a brief history - before making sweeping comments such as the above. You may have a gut feeling about it, but that's all."

Astrology has NEVER been able to accurately predict behavior, or events, or the price of beef. I have read about early science, and the interplay between astrology and astronomy. That doesn't make the astrological aspects any more scientific.

"You forgot to include design. You also forgot to provide an example of science that could be practiced without intelligence, design, or some combination of the two."

You forgot to read my post. I said that the ONLY intelligence needed for science is HUMAN. I never said that intelligence was not required for the practice of science. I never said that matter acting according to regular, predictable laws did not exist. I DO deny that that necessitates an *intelligent designer*. The claim that the regularity of the world could just *be* is EQUALLY consistent with the observed world as the claim that an intelligent designer created everything. Neither is a scientific claim, since there is no way, with just the evidence before us, to tell which is right.


And what good is saying that the world is made by an *intelligent designer*, if, by your own admission, the only thing we can know about said designer through the physical evidence, is that the world is regular? Anything else we can know about the *designer* can only be known through revelation from this designer. I can look at the world and see the regularity and try to understand that regularity without EVER contemplating whether this regularity comes from the nature of the universe or from the actions of a designer. The question is moot. My investigation of the universe will go on exactly the same no matter which philosophical position I choose.

[Gumlegs]

Gumlegs: I'm not going to dignify your question with an answer . . .

Hehe. That is because you, like your cheerleaders, do not have one.

I have cheerleaders? Maybe I should chat up the redhead with the nice pom-poms. But I digress. Your mind reading abilities are right up there with your grasp of basic scientific concepts.

You cannot give one single example of how science can take place without intelligence, design, or some combination of the two.

No, Fester, the problem with your ridiculous pseudo-point has been pointed out dozens of times. Your argument is nothing more than "If any design exists anywhere under any circumstances, then everything, everywhere must have been designed regardless of the circumstances." Grade school children can spot the problem with this sort of proposition, but you can't.

Your inability to grasp the concept is entirely your own failing.

[antiRepublicrat]

It's the presence of organized matter behaving according to predictable laws, which presence is ubiquitous throughout the known universe. To falsify this rational observation all one need do is provide examples of disorganized matter that does not behave accordiong to predictable laws.

In the Andromeda galaxy, there's s small disc of stars closely orbiting a supermassive black hole. All of our predictable laws state that cluster should be torn apart by the black hole's gravitational force, but there they are, just orbiting. It doesn't make sense. It's impossible.

Personally, I think the Intelligent Puller just decided to give that star cluster a break.

OTOH, from this observation scientists figure they've finally settled the issue that black holes exist, that they aren't explained by other hypotheses. Yes, the existence of black holes, something you thought was a given, was debated among scientists until recently. There were other ideas as to what could be causing the phenomena we saw. Science requires a lot more direct and specific evidence than ID is capable of providing (not just "It looks like it so it must be").

[Fester Chugabrew]

Astrology has NEVER been able to accurately predict behavior, or events, or the price of beef.

Astrology has engaged in more direct observation and recording of events than Charles Darwin and all of his followers combined, and they still don't get it right. It is not wise to use the word "never" in this case. And what makes you think astrology has ever been interested in predicting the price of beef?

[PatrickHenry]

The troll will be full for weeks. Haven't you guys learned anything yet?

This started out as a good thread, but it's degenerated into the world's dumbest dialog. I'm out.

[antiRepublicrat]

You assign a name to the intelligent designer and specify its activity in jest. As such you really do not contribute to the discussion, much as those who posit the spaghetti monter theory as some kind of serious refutation of, or analogical equivalence to, the theory of intelligent design.

Such things are designed to trigger a realization in the extremely dense of exactly how absurd their ID arguments are by showing them exactly ID, but with a different supernatural entity attached. It also serves to expose those who say ID isn't about religion, but about the concept of design. You know they're just creationists in scientist clothing if they reject Flying Spaghetti Monsterism but accept ID.

If such grade-school level, in-your-face examples don't work on the extremely dense, then there is simply no hope of their comprehension.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Hehe. Once science explains it, the laws will suddenly be "predictable," and what was once "supernatural" will become "natural." Why would science would so doggedly entertain arbitrary semantic distinctions unless it was intent on fabricating a dogma of its own?

[Gumlegs]

Well stated.

[antiRepublicrat]

The troll will be full for weeks.

You know how people go to the park to relax and feed the pigeons? Same thing.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Astrology has engaged in more direct observation and recording of events than Charles Darwin and all of his followers combined, and they still don't get it right."

Horse Manure. Provide this evidence astrologers collected. Provide the predictions they made, and how many came true. As we've said before, you were much more coherent when you used to argue YEC; why you made an about face into postmodernist ID *theories* is beyond me.

"It is not wise to use the word "never" in this case. And what makes you think astrology has ever been interested in predicting the price of beef?"

Now your being even more than your usual level of dense. The price of beef quote was a figure of speech. It meant that astrologers have not, and CAN NOT, accurately predict anything, because the basis of their system is poppycock. The stars and planets DO NOT affect human behavior, or world events like wars and famines, or whether you will meet your soul-mate. BTW, Darwin DID get it right. :)

[Fester Chugabrew]

If such grade-school level, in-your-face examples don't work . . .

I heartily concur as to the "grade school level" of the argument. It in no way addresses the fundamental fact that intelligent design involves the organization of matter, which in turn is set loose to act according to the rules the designer intends.

[antiRepublicrat]

Once science explains it, the laws will suddenly be "predictable," and what was once "supernatural" will become "natural."

Much of the history of science is finding natural explanations for what had been assumed until then to be supernatural. Eventually, maybe even your designer will become science, once it is understood under scientific principles. But I don't know any religious people who want that, as to go with Douglas Adams, proof denies faith.

Yes, we will likely find the reason for the orbit of those stars. Science is not afraid to say "We don't know, but we're working on it." IDers and other creationists are afraid to say that. They need their answers now, even if they are shallow and overly simplistic.

[Fester Chugabrew]

The stars and planets DO NOT affect human behavior . . .

Is that the requirement for directly observing them and recording their motions? I am arguing that astrology has an ample supply of direct observation of the heavenly bodies, as well as an ample supply of direct observation of human behavior. Whether they are accurate in making predictions (which on occasion they have been, if only due to dumb luck) or correlations between the two I do not know. My point is that they probably have more direct observation under their belts than all of Charlie's friends combined.

The scientific nature of astrology is a matter of ongoing debate. My assessment is that it contains a significant amount of raw knowledge, but is not to be trusted for any predictive capacity other than the motions of heavenly bodies which astronomy also confirms. Even astronomy lacks predictive powers.