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.

[caffe]

I suppose you would defend the anthropic principle. You typed alot but basically your full of tautological non-speak. As you know, a tautology has the appearance of being explanatory, but is not. It is a statement which, due to its circular form, is true by definition. So your all about words, not about the empirical world. You have managed to explain nothing about our observations. You masquerade as though your conveying knowledge and information when in fact you convey nothing. It reminds me of the doctor saying "Your father's deafness is caused by hearing impairment."
What can one expect from a person of your perspective...How about this "The universe has survivable properties because we survive. Now, that would be profound compared to to the nothingness of your post.

[Matchett-PI]

"I was responding to your "The Bible is the only infallible..." comment in a previous post. Based on my studies, I do not think the global flood is an example of infallibility." ~ Coyoteman

You misunderstand what is meant by the term, "infallibility" as regards the Scriptures.

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

Inerrancy applies only to the original manuscripts, not to copies or translations:

Article X.

WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
WE DENY that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

Further, inerrancy does not mean blind literalism, but allows for figurative, poetic and phenomenological language, as long as it is accurate:

Article XIII.

WE AFFIRM the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.

WE DENY that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy says that the autographs of the Bible, that is, the actual parchment or papyrus on which the Biblical authors wrote, accurately reflects the authors intent.

This allows the possibility of errors in the surviving manuscripts and translations. But even if the autographs are lost, surviving manuscripts are found in such large numbers that the autographs may be reconstructed with more than 99 percent accuracy.

*

When discussing Biblical inerrancy, it is important to remember that ONLY the original texts of the Bible are claimed to have been inerrant - not the copies or translations.

Inerrancy and Human Ignorance
http://www.tektonics.org/gk/inerrancy.html

[huge snip] Scroll down to:

Religious and Philosophical Reasons Why We Don’t Have Inerrant Copies

[dread78645]

Let the people choose. He looks porcine to me.

The Hippo on the right. Affinity to water and all ...

[RussP]

John: Pigs can't fly.

Fred: Oh, so you believe the "pigs-can't-fly" (PCF) theory, eh?

John: I suppose you could say that.

Fred: That's not even a theory. A theory must be falsifiable. Give me one prediction that your theory makes that, if found false, would discredit your theory.

John: Well, basically the theory predicts that a pig will never fly.

Fred: Ha! That's not a *positive* prediction. It's just a prediction that something will *not* happen!

John: Well, yes. But if the prediction were falsified because we observed a pig flying, then the PCF theory would be discredited. Of course, we certainly don't expect to see that happen, do we.

Fred: Ha! So you've admitted that your PCF theory cannot be disproven. We'll never see a pig fly, so your theory cannot be disproven! So it is not a valid scientific theory! Your silly trick won't work.

John: I give up. I don't have time for this nonsense. You "win."

Fred: Your weak arguments just can't stand up, so that's why you are quitting.

John: Whatever you say, Fred. Whatever you say.

[aNYCguy]

We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as... the reporting of falsehoods

Best quote ever?

[dread78645]

Though Dr. Gene Ray has been widely dismissed as a crank, the fact remains: That Earth nor human equal entity, and Male/female = zero existence, as in 2 opposite hemispheres has never been disproven.

So your saying Dr. Gene Ray is the love child of Gore3000 and effdot?

[so_real]

Finding an ERV in both orangutans and chimps that was not also present in gorillas and people would disprove the currently-accepted family tree of the primates.

You might find this study interesting. How about an ERV found in chimps, gorillas, baboons and macaques but not found in orangutans, siamangs, gibbons or humans?

Have a look at this outline of the primate phylogeny as deduced from human-ERV studies : http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/retrovirus.gif

Then consider that the primate-ERV studied is found in Old World Monkeys, not in gibbons or orangutans, and then in gorillas and chimps, but not in humans ... The primate phylogeny from the human perspective doesn't exactly jive with the same phylogeny from the Old World Monkey perspective. We know that not every ERV found in both gorillas and chimps is also found in humans, we just don't know the how's and why's yet.

[dread78645]

John: Pigs can't fly.

"Given sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead."

[aNYCguy]

Argument by Questionably Analogous Playwriting alert.

Frankly, it's no Death of a Salesman, although I can see Tom Hanks playing John. And only Anthony Hopkins could bring depth to that bastard Fred.

[dread78645]

You might find this study interesting. How about an ERV found in chimps, gorillas, baboons and macaques but not found in orangutans, siamangs, gibbons or humans?

"Eichler and colleagues found over 100 copies of PTERV1 in each African ape (chimp and gorilla) and Old World monkey (baboon and macaque) species. The authors compared the sites of viral integration in each of these primates and found that few if any of these insertion sites were shared among the primates. It appears therefore that the sequences have not been conserved from a common ancestor, but are specific to each lineage."

[RussP]

Has it occurred to you that your screen name has an annoying grammitical error? Sorry, but it just bothers me. You don't say, "a NYC guy. You say, "an NYC guy." If you spell out New York City, then you precede it with "a," but for the acronym you use "an," because "N" is pronounced "en."

[aNYCguy]

Has it occurred to you that your screen name has an annoying grammitical error?

Has it occurred to you that your spelling of annoying grammatical error has an annoying spelling error?

But seriously, I chose "a" because, as you expected, I think of it as "A New York City Guy" and don't consider the space-saving acronym something which would be pronounced.

And besides, it's my favorite indefinite article. So streamlined! So elegant!

[so_real]

Keep reading :-) If the subsequent insertions are truly not orthologs, and "few if any" are, it is still problematic that gorillas and chimps were subject to later re-insertion but humans were not (resistance/susceptibility hypothesis) despite their overlap during the Miocene era. My mind is open and I patiently await the results of further research.

[Right Wing Professor]

'Pigs can't fly' is falsifiable. 'Some unknown and unspecified person entity designed and then, by some unknown mechanism, implemented the design for some unspecified part of life at some unknown time in the past, in such a way that may or may not be detectable' isn't.

Do you know what 'arguing by analogy' is? Becasue, despite my cautions, that's all you seem to do.

[RussP]

"'Pigs can't fly' is falsifiable."

Oh, is it? Can you prove that no pig is able to fly? I don't think so. You'd need to thorougly test every pig in the world.

Is that an unreasonable standard of proof to ask for? Of course it is, just as it is unreasonable for evolutionists to implicitly require absolute proof of ID (.9999999999 probability isn't good enough).

The irony is that as an evolutionist, you must be willing to concede that pigs may someday develop wings and start flying!

When I read the "arguments" presented against ID here by evolutionists, I can't help but think that they are parrotting the party line just as Democrats parrot the party line on Iraq, taxes, etc. So many evolutionists hear something about the philosophy of science and parrot it without really understanding it, thinking they are experts, and not realizing that they lost something critical in the translation.

[Right Wing Professor]

Altruism means acting for the other.

No it doesn't. You destroy the meaning of the word by omitting the word selfless which is well, Orwellian.

'Alter' is Latin for other, nothing more. My dictionary specifies a particular meaning in the field of behavior that means acting for the benefit of others, possibly but not necessarily at some disadvantage to the self. You're the one trying to eliminate a normal use of the word, and the one that is valid in the present context. But then redefining words to suit is a MO of yours. Funny you should mention Orwell.

The very word altruism denies any contract at all which is why the sociobiological term "reciprocal altruism" is so farcical. There is nor reciprocity in a selfless act. The act is born of a morality learned, not acquired else there would be no heroes.

This discussion is on hold while you reacquaint yourself with the English language.

[Right Wing Professor]

Oh, is it? Can you prove that no pig is able to fly? I don't think so. You'd need to thorougly test every pig in the world.

Don't need to. All I have to show is that pigs don't have the means or physiology for it. If you had an organism with wings, hollow bones, etc., it wouldn't be a pig.

As for the rest of the rant, I think for myself. I don't have a party line. What you don't seem to appreciate is that the arguments you're presenting are transparently specious, and it's not in the least surprising that twenty people, all with a reasonable command of logic, will be able to drive a truck for them.

[RussP]

"'Pigs can't fly' is falsifiable."

"Oh, is it? Can you prove that no pig is able to fly? I don't think so. You'd need to thorougly test every pig in the world."

OK, let me correct myself here. I posted too hastily this time. Of course "pigs can't fly" is falsifiable in principle. All you need to do is show a pig flying. But someone took me to task earlier in this thread for giving an example of how ID is falsifiable -- because it couldn't actually be done (just as you can't actually make a pig fly).

A more interesting question is whether the theory that "pigs CAN fly" is falsifiable. How could it be falsified? As I suggested in my last post, you'd need to test every single pig in the world and prove that not one of them can fly. And how could you even prove that one particular pig can't fly? How would know that they are just refusing to cooperate with you? I'm talking about absolute, 100% proof here. You may be able to get to 99.9999999999% certainty, but I don't think you can get to exactly 100% certain proof. So then the theory that "pigs can fly" is unfalsifiable, so it is not a valid theory. Oh, but it *is* a valid theory -- just not a very useful one.

[aNYCguy]

I'm talking about absolute, 100% proof here. You may be able to get to 99.9999999999% certainty, but I don't think you can get to exactly 100% certain proof.

Science doesn't deal in 100% certain proofs. Next.

[Right Wing Professor]

Alamo-Girl extrapolates from methodological to metaphysical naturalism by saying that people who adopt naturalism as a mere working hypothesis often note that they never encounter a case where it is invalid, and thence extrapolate to naturalism as a metaphysical principle. I find that concession revealing, to start with. But arguing, never in thousands of instances having encountered an exception, that no exceptions are likely to exist, is hardly 'philosophy'; it's a valid application of induction that in any other case would be regarded as unexceptionable.