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.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

"Screwy Louie Nation of Islam"

I just snorted coffee through my nose.

[RussP]

I've always appreciated Charles Krauthammer's brilliant commentary, but I agree with Human Events on this one.

The Darwinists tell us that Darwinism has "nothing to do" with religion. That is misleading. Darwinism basically says, "go ahead and believe in God if you wish, but he is absolutely and completely irrelevant to any scientific understanding of the origin of man." Sorry, but that is a very profound anti-religious position whether the evolutionists are willing to admit it publicly or not.

The evolutionists claim that any notion of ID is "unscientific" and "outside the domain of science," then later they claim that ID has been thoroughly refuted by science. That's like a trial in which the judge stipulates a position a priori and prohibits any challenge to it, then later claims that such position was in fact proven. When the premise and the conclusion are the same, what is the value of the conclusion?

The notion that ID is inherently "unscientific" is patent nonsense, and I am frankly amazed at how many evolutionists are confused enough to believe it.

[Coyoteman]

A 2001 Zogby poll found that more than 70% of American adults favor teaching the scientific controversy about Darwinism.

I had two "Current Problems in Evolution" seminars in grad school some years ago. Didn't realize it was such a popular subject. Guess I should consider myself lucky I got registered with so many people interested in the subject.

[narby]

Why do the atheist/evos care what is taught? Or care about anything for that matter?

Since atheists, by definition, believe that mere humans wrote the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, and any number of other religious books, the evidence is that humans have an innate affinity for moral behavior.

Basic morality, at least with regard to theft, assault, fraud , lies, etc. is common throughout human cultures, regardless of any particular faith. Any claims that morality descends solely from the Judeo/Christian God is laughable.

[Pete]

Because we live in this world and wish to be happy and effective and prosperous in it, and for this purpose, teaching scientific truth as best we understand it is MUCH better than teaching somebody's superstition.

A few of things:

First, happiness, effectiveness and prosperity only exist under the evolutionary illusion. They can be nothing more than natural selections. To assign meaning to them is erroneous.

Second, when you say MUCH better, what is the basis of that value judgement? Much better, how? Evolution is undirected - their is no ultimate goal or purpose. In fact, there is no such thing as "purpose". To suggest otherwise is to purposely forget what has been learned. We could teach students anything and, ultimately, it makes no difference.

If all humans died tomorrow, so what?

[highball]

I refuse to support scientific lies, and that's what ID is.

I'll go you one better - ID is nothing more than a right-leaning PC. Both seek to re-define words and lower standards to avoid offending a certain group, both involve ignoring facts that don't conform to political dogma.

This PC is just as silly, and just as dangerous, as the original.

[PatrickHenry]

The notion that ID is inherently "unscientific" is patent nonsense, and I am frankly amazed at how many evolutionists are confused enough to believe it.

A requirement of a scientific idea is that it makes predictions which, if false, will discredit the idea. What experiment, or observation, could disprove ID? If there are none (and none have yet been proposed by the ID advocates), then it's not science.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[mugs99]

The religious right was the religious left. Reagan brought the religious left to the right. I was a Conservative long before that and I will be a Conservative long after the religious jump back to the left.
.

[antiRepublicrat]

I don't see the scandal in having both groups pursue their theories.

That would be fine if both were scientific theories, not just theories in the vernacular, as ID is. ID needs to be pushed in the classroom as much as evolution needs to be preached in the Sunday sermon.

[blowfish]

Why do the atheist/evos care what is taught? Or care about anything for that matter? In that world view, all is vanity and anything that seems to matter is nothing more than "an illusion fobbed on us by our genes to get us to cooperate".

Because it's possible to believe in evolution and morals at the same time. Take off your ideological blinders; there's a wider spectrum of worldviews than you realize.

[shuckmaster]

Wow! This article should have come with a severe barf alert! I don't know much about the Human Events magazine but, if they're publishing garbage like this from the DI, I bet a closer look would expose a perverted hidden agenda that's not good for conservatives.

[Pete]

Basic morality, at least with regard to theft, assault, fraud , lies, etc. is common throughout human cultures, regardless of any particular faith. Any claims that morality descends solely from the Judeo/Christian God is laughable.

Show me where I made the claim that morality descends from a Judeo/Christian God. You are deflecting again.

the evidence is that humans have an innate affinity for moral behavior.

How? Why? This is nothing more than the result of undirected natural selection to no end. To assign meaning to it is self-deception. To assign meaning to anything is self-deception.

[ThisLittleLightofMine]

Missed that whole "Theory" part in "Theory of Evolution", eh?


Actually I believe that is evolutionists that have missed that point, in addition to school scientist professors.

[blowfish]

The notion that ID is inherently "unscientific" is patent nonsense, and I am frankly amazed at how many evolutionists are confused enough to believe it.

Yeah, we tend to get 'confused' by things like 'the requirement for observable evidence', 'the need for falsifiable hypotheses', 'the need for credabile causitive agents', things like that. So pardon us if we find that ID fails all those criteria.

[antiRepublicrat]

, as well as a number of other antievolution works caught up by incestuous footnoting

"Incestuous footnoting." LOL! I'll have to remember that one. Now I have a simple term for the hack job the History Channel did on Hitler.

[DoctorMichael]

"......"Screwy Louie Nation of Islam"......"

Actually, I used that analogy only HALF in jest, since these morons are waiting for the 'Intelligent Designer' to appear. When it comes right down to it, there is not much difference between them and the twisted mythology of Nation Of Islam's Mother Ship and an Evil Genetic Cloner that created Whites. This crap attracts the same morons whether they be Black or White.

[Pete]

Because it's possible to believe in evolution and morals at the same time.

The only way this can be a consistent worldview is to believe that evolution is the tool of an intelligent creator. Is that your position?

[antiRepublicrat]

They can be nothing more than natural selections. To assign meaning to them is erroneous.

First you mix science and religion, now you mix science and philosophy. What's next, science and aromatherapy?

[Gumlegs]

I vote for science and beer.