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.

[hosepipe]

[ As a parting assertion on the subject: it is underwhelming to you because as you say it is "too esoteric" for you. Prophesy is not meant to be exoteric, it is indeed "hidden in plain view" so that people at large cannot understand by reason alone. It is why Christ spoke in parables: ]

So true.. Its not a bad thing to NOT understand prophesy or the parables either..
Thats as it SHOULD BE..

The sheep MUST BE separated from the goats.. the tares from the wheat, the virgins from the whores.. You are what you are.. its not a matter of what you act like.. You just are what and whom you are.. Everything is perfect.. Just the way its supposed to be.. going as to schedule, on time..

Is GOD cool or WHAT?...

[Fester Chugabrew]

So when someone says that the designer is the Flying Spaghetti Monster, there really is no way, based on physical evidence, to say this is correct or that it isn't correct.

If someone wishes to make up a fictitious name such as the above it will have no effect on the theory. It will neither qualify or disqualify it. It will, however, tend to lower the level of discussion. A flying spaghetti monster has no basis in reality. Intelligent designers do. Understand the difference?

[antiRepublicrat]

Don't you find it a bit strange to be arguing for what ID does or does not require?

No, I'm simply telling you the facts about the ID movement as they have stated them.

One can easily infer the presence of intelligent desingn and use it to support a theory without positing every detail as to the manner and degree of the designer's involvement.

You can most definitely infer that. The personal judgement that everything appears designed is not illogical. However, it isn't science. Science requires that you describe the mechanisms by which your theory produces its results and support that with very specific evidence. I cannot think of one widely accepted scientific theory that does not do that.

[Doctor Stochastic]

A picture of Clara Bow in a pizza?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"If someone wishes to make up a fictitious name such as the above it will have no effect on the theory. It will neither qualify or disqualify it."

How do you know it's fictitious?

"A flying spaghetti monster has no basis in reality. Intelligent designers do. Understand the difference?"

What about an intelligently designing Flying Spaghetti Monster (which is what I said)? How can you be sure that that's not the actual designer if, as you admit, you can't know anything about the characteristics of the designer without divine revelation?

[antiRepublicrat]

I do not espouse the predictive nature of astrology from a scientific standpoint, but I recognize there have been occasions when its predictions have been fulfilled.

Fulfilled predictions of the paranormal are generally as accurate as the average mundane guess. The fact that the guess was made under the guise of the paranormal makes suckers pay attention. Next, you'll be saying that dowsing works.

Remember that an infinite number of rednecks shooting at an infinite number of road signs will eventually produce the works of Shakespeare in braille.

[Right Wing Professor]

The sheep MUST BE separated from the goats.. the tares from the wheat, the virgins from the whores.. You are what you are.. its not a matter of what you act like.. You just are what and whom you are.. Everything is perfect.. Just the way its supposed to be.. going as to schedule, on time..

Indeed. Tout est bien, tout va bien, tout va le mieux qu'il soit possible

[antiRepublicrat]

A picture of Clara Bow in a pizza?

You're wierd.

[hosepipe]

[ Indeed. Tout est bien, tout va bien, tout va le mieux qu'il soit possible ]

I don't speak Moonbat - MoonEagle..

[Fester Chugabrew]

Science requires that you describe the mechanisms by which your theory produces its results and support that with very specific evidence.

That's what good science has been doing all along. All good science takes place within the parameters of intelligent design as it explores and expounds upon orgaized matter that behaves according to predictable laws. All good science fits within the theory of intelligent design. Now, if it should produce an example of disorganized matter that does not behave according to predictable laws, then it may be on the way to disrupting, or weakening, the theory of intelligent design. That evidence has not been forthcoming to date.

Meanwhile, I have yet to see evos put forth any individual who seriously adheres to a flying spaghetti monster as responsible for the organization of matter and the ongoing funcion of the so-called laws of nature. I also note with interest, that not one single example has been given to show science taking place without either intelligence, design, or some combination of the two.

How is that? If intelligent design is so absent and beyond the purview of science, then why can't science provide a single example of the absence of either intelligence or design or some combination of the two?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Doctor Pangloss Alert!

[Right Wing Professor]

I don't speak Moonbat - MoonEagle..

It wasn't an obscure quote, but it's usually translated as "Everything is for the best, in this, the best of all possible worlds."

But if all you've read is the Bible, well, you won't be familiar with it.

[Right Wing Professor]

I thought the 'Pigs' reference was far more obscure!

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I also note with interest, that not one single example has been given to show science taking place without either intelligence, design, or some combination of the two."

The existence of human intelligence and the existence of regularity and matter that acts in predictable ways is not in dispute. Taken alone or together, the two do not necessitate an intelligent designer of the universe.

[Coyoteman]

Meanwhile, I have yet to see evos put forth any individual who seriously adheres to a flying spaghetti monster as responsible for the organization of matter and the ongoing funcion of the so-called laws of nature.

Ah, you miss the point. The person adhering "to a flying spaghetti monster" belief would be an IDer, not an "evo."

[Fester Chugabrew]

The ability to intelligently design something has, to my knowledge, never been ascribed to airborne pasta. The name and specific features of an intelligent designer are not necessary to infer the presence of intelligent design. Again, flying spaghetti monsters have no basis in reality. Intelligent designers do. Apparently you have difficulty acknowledging or understanding the difference.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Whichever. Where's the pasta?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I thought the 'Pigs' reference was far more obscure!"

Not for me. :) I didn't have to google the picture to figure that one out. I did have to google the french phrase to be sure, though I could pick out enough to know it was either Pangloss or Leibniz who was directly quoted.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The name and specific features of an intelligent designer are not necessary to infer the presence of intelligent design. Again, flying spaghetti monsters have no basis in reality. Intelligent designers do. Apparently you have difficulty acknowledging or understanding the difference."

But the FSM IS an intelligent designer. By definition. If, as you admit, we don't know from the physical evidence what attributes the designer has, how can you categorically say that it isn't a FSM.? Gut feeling?

[GOPPachyderm]

All the commonality of the ERV virus DNA sequences in humans, apes, and some monkeys 'prove' is that they all are susceptible to that particular virus. A 'time scale since the last common ancestor' based on gene sequencing is purely a hypothetical construct of evolutionary thought and belief. See the link:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1012wash_post.asp