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.

[Coyoteman]

You throw around the term Marxism pretty freely, tarring everyone you can. Here are a few definitions from google to ponder:

Marxism is a term used to refer to a hugely diverse set of social, economic, historical, philosophical and cultural theories, only some of them derived from the thought of German philosopher Karl Marx. Broadly speaking, marxist theories focus upon the inequalities of wealth which the capitalist economic system brings, and point to the effects of this exploitative system upon people and cultures. ...

Believes that the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary in the period between ousting Capitalism and the final development of Communism.

A theory of of socialism which states that the oppression of the working class by the "nobility" will eventually lead to a revolt by the workers and the establishment of a classless society.

the philosophical and sociological approach of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and their followers. History is seen as basically a series of class struggles, with classes being defined in terms of their relation to the means of production. He viewed the struggle of workers as a continuation of historical forces that would one day lead to communism. This would occur in three stages. The first stage was capitalism, in which the proletariat (workers) are exploited by capitalists (business owners). ...

a form of socialism and mode of analysis derived from the teachings of Karl Marx (1818–83). Marxism regards capitalism as an inherently unjust system with the capitalists (those who own the means of production) exploiting the proletariat (those who must sell their labour in order to live). It aims to replace capitalism with a fairer system, socialism maturing into communism.

Funny, I don't see evolution mentioned anywhere. Maybe I should go back and find some more definitions. Or maybe you could point some out?

[Pete]

Let me get this straight: do you really believe--or think that evolutionists believe--that people's ideas, opinions, values, morals, etc. are encoded in their genes?

Encoded in their genes? If you mean they are the result of nothing more than progressively mutated chemistry then I will asked, if not chemistry, where?

[DX10]

Thanks.

[Pete]

Evolution and morality coexist because morality developed through evolutionary mechanisms. Why should morality need to be more than an evolutionary advantage to coexist with evolution?

Morality that is nothing more than evolutionary advantage is no morality at all. It is illusion. As the article says,

"Ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed on us by our genes to get us to cooperate.”

[antiRepublicrat]

You seem to be suggesting that we are not hard-wired to do everything for the benefit of society.

We are hard-wired for procreation, and it adaptation. I do not think that genetics has caught up with the capabilities of our brains to make more nuanced values and morals judgements, or the societal structures we've put in place.

For example, "one man, one woman" is the societal norm in most places, but that is definitely not the structure for maximum procreation.

[PreciousLiberty]

Because it's possible to believe in evolution and morals at the same time.

"The only way this can be a consistent worldview is to believe that evolution is the tool of an intelligent creator. Is that your position?"

Nonsense. Many view morality as a mechanism for flawed humans to coexist peacefully, which has *evolved* over time to its present form. Similar basic morals have been developed by many disparate cultures and religions, which would seem to argue against any particular religion or culture being particularly insightful or "chosen", yours included.

[Coyoteman]

So, you don't think a debate would be in order? I would be interested in the tested hypotheses.

Please take a look through PatrickHenry's List-O-Links. When you are up to speed maybe we can discuss things a little better. You could also take a look at some of the past threads on this issue if you have not already done so.

I am not interested in going over the same things time after time, so if you could come up with something new...?

[Physicist]

If you mean they are the result of nothing more than progressively mutated chemistry then I will asked, if not chemistry, where?

You were talking about mutations, which has to do with genetics. Now you're talking about thought, which has to do with neurology. They are two completely separate mechanisms, but you've managed to conflate the two, somehow.

How can anyone take your questions seriously? You really are in a muddle.

[Pete]

The only relevance I see is that evolution endowed us with a strong survival instinct which we should apply at the personal, national, and global level. If this is truly done with "enlightened self interest" we'll see a real golden age dawn.

Don't you see that everything you are talking about is nothing more than a strong survival instinct that we have because of undirected natural selection? Don't you see that?!? You claim we have meaning at the personal, national and global level and then turn right around and in the next breath credit it all to a strong survival instinct via evolution.

On the other hand, I suppose you're hoping for such an event to fulfull your religious beliefs. How sad.

Now even your insults are becoming random. What religion hopes for the complete distruction of the human race? Weird.

[antiRepublicrat]

If Marxism is not a religion then what is it?..

A political philosophy.

[ml1954]

It will be, if articles like this continue. And I will leave the conservative base over it. I refuse to support scientific lies, and that's what ID is.

You won't be alone.

[MRMEAN]

One smarmy creationist lawyer's lie after another. For example, Casey Luskin writes:

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.

But here's what Krauthammer really said:

The school board thinks it is indicting evolution by branding it an "unguided process" with no "discernible direction or goal." This is as ridiculous as indicting Newtonian mechanics for positing an "unguided process" by which Earth is pulled around the sun every year without discernible purpose. What is chemistry if not an "unguided process" of molecular interactions without "purpose"? Or are we to teach children that God is behind every hydrogen atom in electrolysis?

Krauthammer criticized the school board for indicting evolution by branding it an "unguided process," Krauthammer didn't "thrash" the school board for "calling" evolution unguided--Luskin wants the rubes to think that Krauthammer doesn't understand that evolutionary variation is "unguided" but anybody who bothers to go back and read Krauthammer’s column would see that he does and is making the point that it is absurd to criticize evolutionary theory by calling it "unguided," because:

This is as ridiculous as indicting Newtonian mechanics for positing an "unguided process" by which Earth is pulled around the sun every year without discernible purpose. What is chemistry if not an "unguided process" of molecular interactions without "purpose"? Or are we to teach children that God is behind every hydrogen atom in electrolysis?

Luskin is counting on readers not bothering to go back and read Krauthammer's original column and discovering that Krauthammer is said exactly the opposite of what Luskin wants the reader to think Krauthhammer said. This is so dishonest that it is shameful that Human Events did not require Luskin to correct this before publication; or at least put in a footnote clarifying exactly what Krauthammer actually said.

[Junior]

Several years ago on the Johnny Carson show and in Time Magazine Dr. Carl Sagan stated unequivocally that evolution was no longer a theory, but a fact, and that he would be willing to debate anyone on the matter.

I call BS on this. Sagan knew that theories never become facts. Theories are the frameworks that explain facts. It is a fact that populations of organisms change over time. The theory of evolution explains that change.

[Flint Hills]

Basic morality, at least with regard to theft, assault, fraud , lies, etc. is common throughout human cultures, regardless of any particular faith. Any claims that morality descends solely from the Judeo/Christian God is laughable.

G-d designed evolution.

God is chuckling...

[Just mythoughts]

P I N G!!!!!

[PreciousLiberty]

"OK, here's a prediction which, "if false, will discredit the idea." No macroevolution will ever be observed in the lab (or even in nature, for that matter)."

First of all, your "prediction" is not a prediction made by ID which is experimentally verifiable - it is a negative prediction about evolution regarding an event that might take thousands to millions of years to observe (other than the numerous obvious examples trapped in the fossil record, which you apparently discount). By the way this "prediction" is scientifically worthless, since you could always wait longer for the event to occur. Bad experiment.

How about trying for a truly ID based prediction, such as 'if ID is correct, we will observe X, Y and Z about flagella, which would not be the case under the evolutionary theory.'

THAT would be a scientific, testable ID prediction. I've not seen any so far, nor do I expect to.

[b_sharp]

If you want a debate, I suggest you ask at either the talk.origins usenet forum or Panda's Thumb blog. It would have to be a written debate rather than a verbal debate to enable full explanations of the science behind the ToE to counter the typical 30 second sound bites creationists use in place of science.

"The theory is not observable;

Except both in the lab and in nature.

"it is not demonstrable in the laboratory;

The effects of allele variation and selection have both been observed in the lab.

" and it is not falsifiable.

Find a mammal fossil in Precambrian strata.

"In the opinion of many it violates the second law of thermodynamics,

Of course the 'many' are not well versed in both the 2LoT and biology. In fact they are probably not well versed in either.

"the mathematical law of population statistics,

The 'law' of population statistics? Make sure any calculations you are basing this on are recent.

" and certainly the biological law of biogenesis.

I assume you mean 'life only comes from life'. This is in regard to highly complex life. Abiogenesis is researching a sequence from simple non-life to simple life. Besides, at this point evolution has little to do with abiogenesis. Until research into abiogenesis can develop something that is subject to imperfect replication and selection, the mechanisms of ToE cannot be applied.

"However, I would leave these and arguments concerning irreducible complexity etc. to the debate rather than this thread."

Try a written debate. Far to easy for verbal debates to be determined by crowd demographics and baseless unscientific one liners.

[DX10]

Been lurking for quite a while. I would just prefer to have the experts discuss this subject in a formal setting rather than just back and forth on this thread with no particular results. If I ask you how natural selection produced valves in the venous system but not in in the arterial system, and you reply, what does that get us? Later.

[RussP]

I'm getting very tired of all the semantic quibbling and obfuscation around this issue.

Here's a prediction that, if proved false, would discredit ID theory: No scientist will ever reproduce Neo-Darwinian evolution from a single-celled organism to a vertibrate, nor will such macroevolution ever be directly observed in nature.

OK, there you have it. Now, you can quibble that scientists simply don't have enough time to wait for such macroevolution to happen, but that is a completely different issue than whether this is a prediction that, if falsified, would discredit ID theory. If a scientist ever reproduced such neo-Darwinian macroevolution, it would clearly discredit ID theory. And by the way, reproducibility is one of the cornerstones of a scientific theory, but that's another matter.

I used an example of macroevolution from single-celled organism to vertibrate, but you can choose many other examples, such as amphibian to mammal.

So are you guys going to finally wake up and quit making ridiculous claims about ID theory? Ya, that'll be the day!

[donh]

So, if you or a champion of your choosing would consider such a debate just let me know.

How will you ever get a wider audience than you have right here, where you have all the time in the world to frame your responses? Here's your big chance--argue away.

Let me suggest to you, however, that you try some material that hasn't been under the gun here already, countless times. None of which I saw in your original entry.

And, I am new, so flame away.

The level of courtesy you offer, will probably be about the level of couresy you will receive.

And, if someone will let me know what all the abbreviations mean I would appreciate

What abbreviations?