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.

[Physicist]

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.

Coprolites.

If nature (red in tooth and claw) doesn't have direction, purpose, values, or preferences, it in no way follows that I don't have those things, or that other people don't have those things, or that humanity as a whole doesn't have those things.

Value requires a valuer; I am a valuer. And whether or not my particular values matter to the stars in their courses--and I expect they do not--they matter very much to the person you asked, which is me.

Second, when you say MUCH better, what is the basis of that value judgement?

Effectiveness. The science of immunology prevents disease better than any trust in the commanding hand of the Divine. In order to prevent, say, influenza pandemics, scientists must have an understanding of the ways in which, say, the H5N1 virus can evolve. The Bible is reticent on this technical point, and if the future course of the virus is simply a matter of Divine Whim, then all we can do is wait and pray.

But there's still no standard of value in the cold numbers that show immunology to be effective. So OK, try this: I prefer not to be sick. Don't you?

[blowfish]

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

An assertion bordering on the bizarre...

[rustbucket]

The Republicans have done many things right for the last 15 years. I stay with them because they have been right. If Republicans take up the ID fight, they will be wrong. It goes against my craw to support people when they're dead wrong.

I understand exactly where you're coming from and agree. I was a delegate to my state Republican convention in 2004. I imagine ID and creationism would have won at the convention if a vote had been taken. The delegates were good people, but on this issue they would have been wrong.

I hope ID does not become more of a wedge issue than it already is.

[RussP]

"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."

OK, here's a prediction which, "if false, will discredit the idea." No macroevolution will ever be observed in the lab (or even in nature, for that matter). Many others could be given as well, of course. But I'm sure you will continue parroting your nonsense anyway.

The emperor has no clothes.

[PatrickHenry]

Note to self: take your tagline seriously.

[bobdsmith]

OK, here's a prediction which, "if false, will discredit the idea." No macroevolution will ever be observed in the lab (or even in nature, for that matter). Many others could be given as well, of course. But I'm sure you will continue parroting your nonsense anyway.

How does observing macroevolution in the lab discredit the idea that species on earth were intelligently created?

[Pete]

If nature (red in tooth and claw) doesn't have direction, purpose, values, or preferences, it in no way follows that I don't have those things, or that other people don't have those things, or that humanity as a whole doesn't have those things.

If we are the product of evolution then where, pray tell, did "those things" come from if they are not from undirected natural selection.

Go back to article. O.E. Wilson has written:

Ethics as we understand it is an illusion

I believe that logic requires that we agree.

You say that purpose, direction, values and preferences have meaning to you. But they are the result of mutation and selection. Those without that specific mutation didn't survive. There isn't any "real" meaning beyond the mutation. The fact that we think there is more to them ended up being an advantage in the fight for survival. But the cat is out of the bag. Really, there is nothing outside the box.

[Pete]

An assertion bordering on the bizarre...

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

[DX10]

You seem to be very knowledgeable on the subject of the general theory of organic evolution (evolution). Perhaps you can help me with a project. Several years ago on the Johnny Carson show and in Time Magazine Dr. Carl Sagan stated unequivocally that evolution was no longer a theory, but a fact, and that he would be willing to debate anyone on the matter. Dr. Thomas Warren immediately accepted the challenge, whereupon Dr. Sagan conveniently hid under his desk. Both men are now deceased. Though not qualified myself to conduct such a debate, I have nonetheless challenged prominent evolutionists to meet on the polemic platform to defend their doctrine through the years. I regularly propose to provide a champion with a Ph.D. in microbiology to refute the theory. None have responded. I always make it clear that no reference to God, religion, or ID would be involved; only the merits of the theory pro and con. I am willing to bear some of the expense in the organization and conduct of the debate and the ensuing publication.

My position is that evolution is simply the religion of the secularist and is not science. I just think that the secularist can not tolerate the thought that there is a creator who is both superior and anterior to him.

The theory is not observable; it is not demonstrable in the laboratory; and it is not falsifiable. In the opinion of many it violates the second law of thermodynamics, the mathematical law of population statistics, and certainly the biological law of biogenesis. However, I would leave these and arguments concerning irreducible complexity etc. to the debate rather than this thread.

My goal is to simply expose the theory to some critical analysis with the hope that somehow the public schools will at least acquaint the students and teachers with it's weaknesses.

So, if you or a champion of your choosing would consider such a debate just let me know.

And, I am new, so flame away. And, if someone will let me know what all the abbreviations mean I would appreciate it.

[Fester Chugabrew]

See my home page and judge for yourself whether these views are compatible with my "personal religion." You should have noted by now that I consider the word "supernatural" to be arbitrary. Science can explain anything in "natural" terms, but that does not change the nature of the object described. For things to revert to a so-called "natural" state the elements would have to disintegrate into NOTHING.

[RussP]

"How does observing macroevolution in the lab discredit the idea that species on earth were intelligently created?"

Think about it. Try to imagine what Richard Dawkins would say if macroevolution were observed in the lab. I'm sure that would abundant enough evidence for him -- given that he is already convinced *before* such an occurrence was ever observed!

I need to get to work, so please do not interpret any lack of reply on my part as a tacit agreement with any posts that follow here.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

You signed up today just to post this? lol

[bobdsmith]

The theory is not observable; it is not demonstrable in the laboratory; and it is not falsifiable. In the opinion of many it violates the second law of thermodynamics, the mathematical law of population statistics, and certainly the biological law of biogenesis. However, I would leave these and arguments concerning irreducible complexity etc. to the debate rather than this thread.

This only shows you are not familiar with the crevo debate. All the criticisms you list above are rooted in some kind of error. I recommend you follow Patrick Henry's list of links on the subject, or visit This page which explains the error behind each of those arguments and more

[Physicist]

Let me get this straight: do you really believe--or think that evolutionists believe--that people's ideas, opinions, values, morals, etc. are encoded in their genes?

If that's what you think you're debunking, you've touched down on the wrong planet, I'm afraid.

[Coyoteman]

My position is that evolution is simply the religion of the secularist and is not science.

Sorry, your position is wrong.

Take a look at these definitions (from a google search) and try again:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"

Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information

Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"

Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"

Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence)

Observation: any information collected with the senses

Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions

Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact

Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith

Faith the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof

Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof

Impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"

Based on this, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.

[hosepipe]

Lets see.. Marxism and Psuedo-Marxism can be taught in Americas schools by Marxists and Psuedo-Marxists proudly and boldly(Berkely/Harvard).. but Intelligent Design cannot.. and God forbid Creationism is taught..

If Marxism is not a religion then what is it?..
Intelligent Design must be WORSE than Marxism..

Anybody know of where, when, any proponent of Marxism had the slightest problem with "Evolution"?.. Marxism and Marxists are always EXTREMELY active in "adjusting" what is taught in schools.. never has any Marxist had a problem with Evolution..

Must be because Marxists are so science oriented, and want science to be pure..
Ya think?.. On the other hand the reverse could be true.

[b_sharp]

"OK, here's a prediction which, "if false, will discredit the idea." No macroevolution will ever be observed in the lab (or even in nature, for that matter). Many others could be given as well, of course. But I'm sure you will continue parroting your nonsense anyway.

What is macro-evolution and how does it differ from micro-evolution? Give an example of what you would expect macro-evolution to produce if it ever did occur in the lab.

I have another prediction. ID will never develop a set of tests that will allow us to objectively determine if an object was designed by a nonhuman designer. I also predict IDists will never be able to show that 'complexity' is a design only phenomenon.

[DX10]

So, you don't think a debate would be in order? I would be interested in the tested hypotheses.

[b_sharp]

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

Sorry to butt in, but what you said does not make sense.
Evolution and morality coexist because morality developed through evolutionary mechanisms. Why should morality need to be more than an evolutionary advantage to coexist with evolution?

[PreciousLiberty]

"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."

I don't find this to be well thought out, or even sensical. Evolution (as creationism would be if it were correct) is something that deals with origins, and extremely long time scales. It has little to do with day-to-day human experience, which is where "happiness, effectiveness, and prosperity" have meaning.

"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."

Whether or not there is "purpose" to evolution, is irrelevant to whether we have purpose as people, as a nation, or as a species. Evolution got us here, in no way does it determine what we do now. The only relevance I see is that evolution endowed us with a strong survival instinct which we should apply at the personal, national, and global level. If this is truly done with "enlightened self interest" we'll see a real golden age dawn.

"If all humans died tomorrow, so what?"

The human species will have been an evolutionary dead end. I hope it doesn't happen.

On the other hand, I suppose you're hoping for such an event to fulfull your religious beliefs. How sad.