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]

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

Subtle dig... i.e. defamation of my character..

Bet you thought I would'nt notice that... Are you dull in in/on other subjects too.. The dig says more about your character than it does mine.. The sheep goats thing didn't reference you.. A sheep would not protest a goat would, however..

[Right Wing Professor]

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?

ROFL!

[Right Wing Professor]

Subtle dig... i.e. defamation of my character..

Poor baby!

The sheep goats thing didn't reference you..

Uh huh. Sure.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Taken alone or together, the two do not necessitate . . .

Who's talking about "necessities?" I'm talking about what fits a reasonable theory, a tentative way of explaing the massive presence of organized matter the behaves according to predictable laws. If you want to provide evidence that weakens the theory, then supply an example of disorganized matter that is not subject to any established laws.

[Right Wing Professor]

Already answered by Ichneumon earlier in the thread.

You guys never learn, do you?

[Right Wing Professor]

Sorry; should have pinged you.

[hosepipe]

[ The sheep goats thing didn't reference you.. Uh huh. Sure.]

Ugh I hate these Evo debates so childish.. ok lets get it goin..

DID NOT!...

[antiRepublicrat]

All good science takes place within the parameters of intelligent design

Maybe, but intelligent design doesn't take place within the parameters of good science. You can't put a box within its container.

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.

The problem is that in debate the one advocating a position (here, you) takes on the burden of proof. We do not have to disprove ID by meeting your requirements, we just have to let it die itself due to a lack of compelling evidence. If this were a structured debate, you'd have been thrown out long ago.

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.

Who believes it doesn't matter. What matters is that Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is word-for-word identical to the stated tenets of ID. They are the same argument and rely on the same evidence (or lack thereof). Therefore, if you wish to scientifically discredit Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, you must logically discredit ID.

My objections to Flying Spaghetti Monsterism are purely religious, as the IPU (PBUHH) hates garlic.

[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . how can you categorically say that it isn't a FSM?

I'm not into categorical declarations. In my experience all references to FSMs are imaginary, and intelligent designers are not. Perhaps you've come across an FSM. Good for you. But it will not assist in supplying evidence to weaken the theory of intelligent design.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Who's talking about "necessities?" I'm talking about what fits a reasonable theory, a tentative way of explaing the massive presence of organized matter the behaves according to predictable laws."

You are. A *tentative way of explaining* things is NOT a scientific theory. Being *reasonable* isn't enough. You need testability.

"If you want to provide evidence that weakens the theory, then supply an example of disorganized matter that is not subject to any established laws."

That won't weaken the claim. An omnipotent, omniscient deity can do anything, even have *disorganized matter that is not subject to any established laws". You have already said that EVERY CONSEIVABLE OBSERVATION is in line with your claim. How can ANYTHING weaken a theory that is correct in every conceivable situation?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" In my experience all references to FSMs are imaginary, and intelligent designers are not."

You have personally experienced the intelligent designer? Was it in tomato or clam sauce?

"I'm not into categorical declarations."

They would force you to precisely define your terms.

[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . intelligent design doesn't take place within the parameters of good science.

Oh really? How so? Have you ever known a hypothesis to be created apart from intelligent design? Or a theory? Or an explanation of so-called natural phenomenon?

The problem is that in debate the one advocating a position (here, you) takes on the burden of proof.

Theories do not require proof. Neither does science. Theories require evidence to be sure. In this case it is massive amounts of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws. An intelligent designer can easily, and reasonably, be inferred and set forth as explanatory of the same.

What matters is that Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is word-for-word identical to the stated tenets of ID.,/I>

No it is not. Surely you know what "word for word" means. Flying spaghetti monsters have no basis in reality that I am aware of. Intelligent designers do.

[MEGoody]

If I have to 'bend' to the will of evolutionists to be called a conservative, then don't call me a conservative. Won't change my views.

[Fester Chugabrew]

You might want to read back through the thread and see who keeps introducing the words "necessity," "proof," "know," etc. as if these are necessary for a theory to be a theory. The scientific definition of theory does not require absolute facts for every conceivable possibility. It only requires a good amount of evidence. I consider the massive presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws as good evidence for intelligent design, and from it I can infer some things about the intelligent designer. Hint: the presence of pasta is, in my theory, interpreted as an object, not a subject, of intelligent design.

You have already said that EVERY CONCEIVABLE OBSERVATION is in line with your claim.

No. I've given at least one conceivable observation that would weaken my claim, namely the presence of disorganized matter that does not behave according to any predictable law. Another possibility would be for all matter to disintegrate into nothing. Both of these would weaken the theory considerably, but of course they would not disprove it. No theory can be disproven, and no theory can be proven.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You might want to read back through the thread and see who keeps introducing the words "necessity," "proof," "know," etc. as if these are necessary for a theory to be a theory."

I didn't say proof or necessity. Knowledge IS needed though.

"I consider the massive presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws as good evidence for intelligent design, and from it I can infer some things about the intelligent designer."

And those assumptions you make are not logical nor scientific.

" Hint: the presence of pasta is, in my theory, interpreted as an object, not a subject, of intelligent design."

In mine it's the subject. There is no way to scientifically choose between the two.

'You have already said that EVERY CONCEIVABLE OBSERVATION is in line with your claim.'

---

"No. I've given at least one conceivable observation that would weaken my claim, namely the presence of disorganized matter that does not behave according to any predictable law."

Yes, you are contradicting what you said earlier when you said that EVERY CONCEIVABLE OBSERVATION is in line with your claim. I never said you were logically consistent. I was just pointing out your changing story.

"Another possibility would be for all matter to disintegrate into nothing. Both of these would weaken the theory considerably, but of course they would not disprove it. No theory can be disproven, and no theory can be proven."

Both situations would in no way weaken your claim, because an Omnipotent, omniscient being can do anything, including make matter that follows no regular laws, or make matter disintegrate. Are you going to put limits on what God can do?

[highball]

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

The only difference is that you want to believe in an intelligent designer. Other than that, one does not have a greater "basis in reality" than the other.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for your posts!

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

Indeed, Spiritual understanding is not in the same league with reason. It comes over time through Spiritual revelation as a person walks with the Lord (Romans 8); it cannot be "contrived" nor is it equally received among Christians and over time.

The first and most important Spiritual revelation all Christians receive is that "Jesus Christ is Lord". Further Spiritual understanding builds on that foundation according to His will and our willingness to let go and let God.

[antiRepublicrat]

Oh really? How so? Have you ever known a hypothesis to be created apart from intelligent design? Or a theory? Or an explanation of so-called natural phenomenon?

Get it through your head. You are saying that ID created science. That means ID is above and outside of science. It is bigger than science. Science cannot model what it outside its own demenses. Therefore, ID (as you so strangely interpret it) is not science.

Theories do not require proof. Neither does science.

You're trying to change the argument. "Burden of proof" is the technical term in debate, which we're engaged in. It means you can't just state something without backing it up, otherwise your position is by default considered lost. It doesn't mean you have to absolutely prove your point.

In your attempt at debate, you've already exhibited several logical fallacies, the biggest of which is Petitio Principii. If you don't understand that fallacy, just answer this question: Exactly when did you take over from Monica in "servicing" Bill Clinton?

No it is not. Surely you know what "word for word" means.

It is. I do. In fact, the text promoting Flying Spaghetti Monsterism can be found at the Discovery Institute, the foremost proponent of ID. You fill in the blanks with God. Heathens fill in the blanks with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. True divinely blessed people know in their hearts that the blanks are filled by the Invisible Pink Unicorn (PBUHH).

Flying spaghetti monsters have no basis in reality that I am aware of. Intelligent designers do.

That is personal belief, which has no basis in a science discussion.

[longshadow]

*****Gut feeling?*****

Naaa; "disgestive deduction"!

[Fester Chugabrew]

The only difference is that you want to believe in an intelligent designer.

On the contrary, I have concrete examples of the former, and none for the latter. Understand the difference?