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.

[one of His mysterious ways]

Why is everyone in such a heated uproar over this? Do you all not realise that you are debating apples and oranges? Evolution and ID are NOT mutually exclusive. Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of the universe. ID has to do with the origins but not with the modus operandi since then. Evolution doesn't even attempt to address how everything was created in the beginning, ID does address this. ID does not define how everything operates after the beginning, evolution does this. One does not contradict the other, in fact they really have nothing to do with each other. One addresses the beginning, the other addresses the continuing. Neither position requires a person to reject the other. In fact, a person can believe in both positions without contradiction. I believe that God created the universe and also uses evolution as the instrument of continuation and to the fruition of the universe. I love science and I see it as a great tool for understanding what God has created. Science cannot either prove or deny God, in fact, at least at this time in our history, it has no evidence either way, and therefor cannot comment on the matter. But science should continue in it quest for truth, eventually it will uncover evidence one way or the other. Until then, science cannot deny ID, or even address it with facts; just as ID cannot deny the facts of evolution - after all, if God did create everything (as I believe He did), and He did not tell us the 'hows' of how He did it, could He not have easily used evolution as His chosen tool for the continuation of life? Of course! Apples and oranges, people.

[bobdsmith]

Think about it. Try to imagine what Richard Dawkins would say if macroevolution were observed in the lab.

I don't believe ID officially denies macroevolution which is evolution above the species level. For example one species of beetle evolving into another species of beetle would not disprove ID in the eyes of its advocates. Even bigger observed changes would not disprove the ID explaination that specific biological systems (ie flagellum) could only be designed by intelligence.

[Chiapet]

I vote for science and beer.

I second that motion. Once enough beer is consumed, at that point, maybe it might be entertaining to trade philosophical barbs with someone who clearly just completed the first semester of his philosophy degree and wants everyone to know it.

[donh]

Agreed. So I await your explanation as to how evolution and morality coexist. That is, morality that is more than just an evolutionary advantage.

That's interesting. Can you give an example of morality that isn't an evolutionary advantage?

[b_sharp]

"For things to revert to a so-called "natural" state the elements would have to disintegrate into NOTHING."

The elements are the result of the 2LoT, chemical bonds, gravity and energy.

[Pete]

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.

Your criticism is specious because the distinction that exists between neurology and genetics is not relevant to the discussion.

Let's simplify this by going back to a basic question.

Is morality anything more than evolutionary advantage?

[Right Wing Professor]

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.

Why not try some other fearless predictions, like science will never observe a canyon the size of the Grand Canyon erode, or science will never observe the formation of a major planet circling the sun?

If a scientist ever reproduced such neo-Darwinian macroevolution, it would clearly discredit ID theory.

You don't need macroevolution to discredit 'ID theory'. Suggest a feasible experiment to falsify ID. Don't move the goalposts.

[hosepipe]

[ If Marxism is not a religion then what is it?.. A political philosophy. ]

Theres a difference?.. Every religion I know of is a political philosophy.. even the Tau... Politics is about people, its what people do..

"Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you."-Pericles (430 B.C.)

[BagelFace]

I await your explanation as to how evolution and morality coexist. That is, morality that is more than just an evolutionary advantage.

Perhaps the religious sense and the moral sense both stem from the same impulse, an idea on which Freud has written a few interesting words. Those that instill fear of immediate or eternal punishment and hope of reward as a basis of moral behavior hardly provide an encouraging alternate vision to those who suggest a moral sense stemming from intelligence, cooperation, reflection, wisdom.

[RussP]

More semantic obfuscation. What is "observed" and what is not "observed" is a matter of semantics. I can certainly "observe" that Neo-Darwinan macroevolution has never been reproduced in the lab or directly documented in nature. And if it ever *were* observed, you can bet your bottom dollar that evolutionists would claim it discredits ID theory.

Your attempt to rule out that kind of observation is simply a ruse to stack the deck in your favor. But evolutionists are prolific with such ruses.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post!

There are indeed Marxists in the academia and in power over what will be taught both in the U.S. and around the world, e.g. Lewontin. But I suspect the objective of the education gate keepers is not usually political per se but rather philosophical. IOW, in an effort to “purify” science from outside influences by methodological naturalism, they have perhaps inadvertently empowered the political movements as well.

Methodological naturalism is simply “the idea that the mode of inquiry typical of the physical sciences will provide theoretical understanding of world, to the extent that this sort of understanding can be achieved. “ Stoljar, Daniel, "Physicalism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosoph

If that were the end of, it would be quite innocent. But the metaphysical naturalists take methodological naturalism as proof of their “faith”:

In utilizing methodological naturalism, science and history do not assume a priori that, as a matter of fact, supernatural causes don't really exist. There is no conceptual conflict between practicing science or history and believing in the supernatural. However, as several of our authors argue below (e.g., Augustine, Forrest, and Oppy), methodological naturalism would not be as stunningly successful as it has in fact been if metaphysical naturalism were false. Thus the de facto success of methodological naturalism provides strong empirical evidence that metaphysical naturalism is probably true. - Keith Augustine, “Naturalism”

Many of us notice the circular reasoning of metaphysical naturalism which claims authenticity because of the success of science using methodological naturalism, i.e. “no wonder, nature is the only place science looks for answers!”

Alfred Whitehead coined the term “scientific materialism” in describing the phenomenon:

As Whitehead himself explains, his "philosophy of organism is the inversion of Kant's philosophy … For Kant, the world emerges from the subject; for the philosophy of organism, the subject emerges from the world."

Significantly, this view runs counter to more traditional views associated with material substance: "There persists," says Whitehead, "[a] fixed scientific cosmology which presupposes the ultimate fact of an irreducible brute matter, or material, spread through space in a flux of configurations. In itself such a material is senseless, valueless, purposeless. It just does what it does do, following a fixed routine imposed by external relations which do not spring from the nature of its being. It is this assumption that I call 'scientific materialism.' Also it is an assumption which I shall challenge as being entirely unsuited to the scientific situation at which we have now arrived."

The assumption of scientific materialism is effective in many contexts, says Whitehead, only because it directs our attention to a certain class of problems that lend themselves to analysis within this framework. However, scientific materialism is less successful when addressing issues of teleology and when trying to develop a comprehensive, integrated picture of the universe as a whole. According to Whitehead, recognition that the world is organic rather than materialistic is therefore essential, and this change in viewpoint can result as easily from attempts to understand modern physics as from attempts to understand human psychology and teleology. Says Whitehead, "Mathematical physics presumes in the first place an electromagnetic field of activity pervading space and time. The laws which condition this field are nothing else than the conditions observed by the general activity of the flux of the world, as it individualises itself in the events."

The end result is that Whitehead concludes that "nature is a structure of evolving processes. The reality is the process." - Irvine, A. D., "Alfred North Whitehead", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

So we find ourselves in a political quandary where those who would proliferate methodological naturalism reinforce those who would proliferate metaphysical naturalism who likewise reinforce those with a true political agenda. Lurkers who doubt this might wish to explore the infidels.org website and all its political activisms.

One of the most obvious political ramifications of metaphysical naturalism is equal rights for and as animals. This is the basis of Singer’s assertion that parents ought to be able to kill their offspring within a few months or a year after birth. Likewise is the political initiative which says that children should be able to “off” their parents when they become a cause of suffering to the children. Animals do this – culling the runts and the lame. Likewise it follows that, in the absence of an absolute moral code, anything goes – whether homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality and so on.

IMHO, the bright line political battleground centers on the litigation involving the separation of church and state. The First Amendment allows both for freedom of religion and that congress will not establish a state religion. At the moment, from the decision in the 7^th which was based on a litany of past USSC decisions, atheism is seen as a religion if it is promoted. The legal theory may turn on whether the state has established atheism as a religion in the education system.

Anyway, that’s my “two cents”…

[hosepipe]

[ You throw around the term Marxism pretty freely, tarring everyone you can. ]

Sorry.. did some get on YOU.?.. Not intended.. You protest too much, maybe..

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"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."

This is a ludicrous example. Nobody says that a single-celled organism is going to evolve into a vertebrate without countless intermediate steps. In nature it took over half a billion years. To demand that a scientist produce this, and to say that the failure to do so is somehow a validation of ID is astoundingly dishonest. The failure to produce a vertebrate from a single-celled organism is in NO way evidence for a designer.

And even if a scientist could produce this feat, how does that discredit ID? Two ways an ID'er could counter this *falsification*:

1) Since the organism evolved through the intervention of an intelligent designer (humans), this is an example of ID

2) The intelligent designer could have intervened in the lab to direct the evolution of this organism.

[VOA]

bump

[PreciousLiberty]

"And if it ever *were* observed, you can bet your bottom dollar that evolutionists would claim it discredits ID theory."

Certainly not, since any "evolutionist" (read "rational person") knows that ID is not a theory in the first place.

I hope that cleared things up for you.

[donh]

I just think that the secularist can not tolerate the thought that there is a creator who is both superior and anterior to him.

..."can not tolerate"..."superior and anterior"...

Not an auspicious start. I echo the advice you have been given to spend some time with PatrickHenry's list of links, so you can come to this debate with a little less of an inclination toward etherially abstract universal declarations, and a little more of an inclination to talk about the facts at issue.

[js1138]

[RussP]

The irony here is that it is the exact opposite of ID theory that may be unfalsifiable. Short of a direct proclamation by God himself, what would it take to "disprove" purely naturalistic evolution (with no intelligent design)? No matter how much evidence Behe, Dembski, and others provide, it isn't enough to shake the faith of the evolutionists.

What it boils down to is that evolutionists will believe their theory of unintelligent origins until ID is absolutely proven. That is not how science is supposed to work. If I handed you a deck of cards in perfect numerical order, would you refuse to believe they were ordered by an intelligent being unless I showed you a video of someone doing so?

[Pete]

Those that instill fear of immediate or eternal punishment and hope of reward as a basis of moral behavior hardly provide an encouraging alternate vision to those who suggest a moral sense stemming from intelligence, cooperation, reflection, wisdom.

If that is your description of Christianity and secular humanism, respectively, then I reject both characterizations.

The question still is: What motivates those to suggest either? If you believe the logic of E.O. Wilson, it's not what they think. Once again, from the article:

“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

and

Ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed on us by our genes to get us to cooperate.”6

[Physicist]

Your criticism is specious because the distinction that exists between neurology and genetics is not relevant to the discussion.

You specifically said random mutation. Thoughts are manifestly not random, and not the product of mutation. Human morality is a product of human thought and cultural development, irrespective of whether or not humans evolved, and irrespective of whether that evolution resulted from random mutation plus selection.

Is morality anything more than evolutionary advantage?

Of course! It's like any other product of the human intellect, like a song, or a play, or a screwdriver, or a gun, or a model made from Play-Doh. These things serve human purposes, which may or may not pertain to human survival.

As it turns out, moral systems do help us to survive, but they clearly have other purposes besides.