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.

[bobdsmith]

How can an evolutionist be anything but a nihilist and maintain a consistent worldview

If they are a christian, for example.

[js1138]

Go to this DI page and tell me what's missing.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2348

[RussP]

"I didn't misrepresent them. The reason they opposed manditory teaching of ID, and the reason they skipped the trial is they have no scientific research to present."

Your denial or reality or utterly Orwellian. You guys really scare me sometimes. All the more so because you are supposedly on "our" side politically.

[edsheppa]

Ah, good old creationist logic. First this quote

By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.

to "refute" Krauthammer by saying

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.

Well, no it's variation which is undirected according to the theory, not evolution. They impugn K and Will for not having "read much by the design theorists they rebuke" but evidently can't remember their own writing from one paragraph to the next.

[DX10]

BS? I am not given to lying. Check it out.

[js1138]

I notice you provide no list whatever of the research being conducted by or spossored by the Discovery Institute.

I notice yo fail to note that sworn testimony by Michael Behe supports my assertion that ID has no supporting research.

You tell me: why would the Discovery Institute advise against teaching ID if there was scientific supporting evidence?

[b_sharp]

"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.

In other words, ID is unfalsifiable. If humans succeed in producing enough cumulative changes in an organism to enable us to consider the origin species and the final species to belong to different phyla, it shows that intelligent designers (humans) can produce 'macro-evolution'. If humans are unable to produce 'macro-evolution' in the lab then ID is again unfalsifiable because no matter how long humans work on the problem, a breakthrough which would result in 'macro-evolution' could be just around the corner.

"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.

Actually that isn't the case. Evolution has been shown to produce highly complex organisms through allele variation and selection. ID is trying to usurp that evidence and use it against evolution. It does this by claiming only intellects can produce complexity. It can then insert itself into any situation where complexity (a term that has not been defined consistently by IDists) rears its ugly head. Even if humans were to use random variation and selection to produce what you ask, ID could claim that the human selection (intelligent design) was responsible for the result.

I have a question for the IDists here. At what point(s) does the intelligent designer interfere with an organism's genome? Did it occur just once, at the beginning of life, or did it occur over the roughly 43 million years of the putative Cambrian explosion? Is it possible that genomic interference happens each time a new class higher than species evolves?

If it happened just the one time, how do we determine which part of a genome is original and which part just 'evolved' since then? If we assume that the genome was created once with contingency built in (the entire genome is designed), we have to assume a designer that knows beforehand which environments the organisms will encounter, what geological upheavals, what extraterrestrial influences, what large scale extinctions are likely to occur and plan for those contingencies in the DNA sequences. This ability to predict and plan ahead pretty much limits the designer to being a God.

The same arguments hold for interference during the Cambrian Era, either we have no way of determining which part of the genome is designed and which part is the result of neo-Darwinian evolution or the designer needs to be able to move through time.

If the genomes are interfered with in an ongoing basis, then either the aliens make a lot of trips here, but never left any evidence of their visits, or the changes are done invisibly by a God.

If the only designer that is possible is God, then ID is not falsifiable, simply because God can do whatever he wants to affect the results of tests.

On top of all this is the necessity for the designer to design just like we do since the only intelligent design we have for comparison is human. If the designers are limited to design as we do by the constraints of the physical world, then these constraints would apply to nature as well, contributing to natural results appearing designed.

I haven't even touched on the influence nature has had on human designs, the possibility of designers emulating nature and the claim that only designers can create complexity (specified or not). "And by the way, reproducibility is one of the cornerstones of a scientific theory, but that's another matter.

Indeed, that is why evidence for evolution is examined by more than one scientist.

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

Fine, the problem is still the same.

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

When are you creationists going to wake up and view the evidence that is right in front of you?

[Antonello]

What is religion, then?..
I beleive Jesus came to make ALL religion obsolete, and did..

What do you see religion "as"..

We might be on the same page...

My definition of religion is a system of beliefs that encompasses a divine entity, a pre-life existence, and/or a post-death existence. More specifically, a religion is an institution that promotes some or all of these elements in order to devise a social and philosophical structure to which its adherents are expected to subscribe.

Is this page close to yours?

[caffe]

I think this is such a hypocritical argument since the argument from design finds application throughout science. Some evolutionists try to erect artificial criteria for the correct application of the argument.
The evolutionists reject Paley's famous argument from design yet his argument embodies strong evidence for a designer.

Paley's theory: An intelligent designer is NECESSARY for the origin of life from non-life.

IT is science because
It is explanatory: it explains the origin of life. An intelligent designer is demanded by the data.
It is testable: it specifically predicts against certain observations-observations that would falsify it. If we could demonstrate the origin of life through natural processes then Paley's theory would be falsified.
So, I don't reject Paley's theory. If a testable hypotheses repeatedly passes rigorous testing, then it is elevated to the rank of scientific theory. Paley's challenge has been repeatedly assaulted by the best minds in science. Of all the widely-applicable testable theories in biology (and there are not many), Paley's is the most thoroughly tested

[antiRepublicrat]

Sounds like evolution to me.

Social evolution, which involves knowledge passed down, not natural selection (theory of evolution), which involves genes. Different subject.

[Matchett-PI]

"Religion and science are two entirely different ways of looking at the universe. The Catholic church understands that, and they have chosen not to confront science, after their disaster of Galileo."

Your portrayal is misleading.

What were Galileo Galilei's conflicts with the Roman Catholic Church? It was not a simple conflict between science and religion, as usually portrayed. Rather it was a conflict between Copernican science and Aristotelian science which had become Church tradition. Galileo expressed his scientific views supporting Copernicus as well as his biblical views in a 1615 letter to the Grand Duchess of Tuscany ..." MORE

[Ichneumon]

If you don't like that example, here's another one. Imagine walking along the beach and seeing a series of geometric shapes in the sand.

Logarithmic spiral(above)

Fibonacci numbers 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, and 34 ...

Beware of concluding "design" from finding "geometric shapes" or other forms of regularity and/or complexity in nature. Such things also arise from natural processes.

Thus the vacuity of concluding "design" merely from the "appareance" of design, as the IDers keep trying to do.

Can specific cases be examined in a sensible way? Sure. But not, as the IDers attempt to do, by jumping to conclusions based on "appearance", or on mere "complexity", or "function", or through any hand-waving attempt to declare a *generalized* filter which can reliably sift "design" from "nondesign", especially while refusing to make any conclusions about the nature, methods, or abilities of a hypothetical "designer".

[RussP]

"I didn't misrepresent them. The reason they opposed manditory teaching of ID, and the reason they skipped the trial is they have no scientific research to present."

Let's try that once more.

Your denial of reality is utterly Orwellian. You guys really scare me sometimes. All the more so because you are supposedly on "our" side politically.

[antiRepublicrat]

Discovery Institute repeatedly advised the Dover School Board and Thomas More that the board's intelligent design policy enacted in the fall of 2004 was problematic and should be replaced. The Dover Board and Thomas More chose to reject Discovery Institute's advice

That's some quick backpedalling.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Paley's theory: An intelligent designer is NECESSARY for the origin of life from non-life.

IT is science because
It is explanatory: it explains the origin of life. An intelligent designer is demanded by the data. "

Not every explanation lives up to the rigors of being a scientific theory. I could just as easily say that a pink unicorn created the universe and life. It would be as testable as saying an intelligent designer did it.

"It is testable: it specifically predicts against certain observations-observations that would falsify it. If we could demonstrate the origin of life through natural processes then Paley's theory would be falsified."

It is not falsifiable, because there is no way to tell the difference between ID and natural processes. It specifically predicts against nothing.

"If a testable hypotheses repeatedly passes rigorous testing, then it is elevated to the rank of scientific theory. Paley's challenge has been repeatedly assaulted by the best minds in science. Of all the widely-applicable testable theories in biology (and there are not many), Paley's is the most thoroughly tested"

This is laughable. What have been the tests?

[Aquinasfan]

It was not a simple conflict between science and religion, as usually portrayed. Rather it was a conflict between Copernican science and Aristotelian science

Partly, perhaps. But that wouldn't explain why a cardinal and a bishop were funding Copernicus' research efforts, and Copernicus' book was dedicated to the pope in an effort to protect his book from critics.

[antiRepublicrat]

Imagine walking along the beach and seeing a series of geometric shapes in the sand. Let's say it's a circle, square, and triangle, all repeated 50 times.

Funny you put it that way. The scientific facade of ID is that things are too complex to have come about by chance. As you walk on that beach, you'll see incredibly complex patterns everywhere, in the sand, the waves, and the weather, which is too complex for the world's most powerful supercomputers to accurately model. Yet all that happened naturally, no guiding hand.

Yet it's the extremely simple geometric shapes in a simple pattern that you notice. Nature likes complexity.

[PatrickHenry]

I'm delighted that the Templeton Foundation and highly intelligent conservatives like George Will and Charles Krauthammer are speaking out and taking a stand against ID. It's one thing when almost the only voice against ID around here was Darwin Central. The creationists were almost universally united in declaring us commies, fascists, atheists, homos, trolls from DU, etc. But now that a clearly visible schism is taking place within conservatism, it's a little more difficult for the creationists to demonize anyone who accepts the theory of evolution.

[antiRepublicrat]

I notice yo fail to note that sworn testimony by Michael Behe supports my assertion that ID has no supporting research.

That it was sworn testimony is not very convincing, given the creationist perjury that we know occurred in the Dover trial. ;^)

[js1138]

Let's start over. Tell me what you think I've said, and how you think I've backpeddled.

Here's what I think I said. Discovery Institute backed out of the Dover trial because they knew they'd be creamed. ID has done no research, supported no research. By their own admission, the teaching of ID is decades away from being possible.

If you go to their FAQ page you will find, among other things, a list of ID supporters who engage in serious research. What you don't find is any mention of the fact that when ID supporters do serious research, their research (and the published papers) support evolution. Try it. Read some of the papers.