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.

[Oztrich Boy]

History of Australia. Before Darwin, England exiled criminals to purify the race.

Actually, Australians consider that that worked.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Is this a theory you genuinely espouse, or is it one you fabricated for the sake of argument?"

A little of both. I did bring it up to make a point. There is no way to figure out if my assumption or your assumption is true. Neither is testable. They are philosophical positions, not scientific theories. The observation that the matter is organized and acts according to predictable laws is not enough info to make a scientific choice.

"Have you somehow demonstrated that the presence of organized matter functioning under predicatable laws cannot be explained by intelligent design?"

Nope. You have also not demonstrated that the universe doesn't just *exist* with no intelligent designer either.

[js1138]

Can any of you "real scientists" defend this statement?

I'm not a real scientist but I read them. Evolution (common descent) is a fact acknowledged by people who have examined the evidence, including most ID advocates.

Not everything is known about the genealogy of every living thing, and there are many details to learn about how variation works.

[antiRepublicrat]

But it seems that when consensus is given as a reason to accept or reject an arugment one might just as soon declare that objective reality is not dependant upon the number of people who accept or reject its claims.

The missing piece for you is that they accept or reject it on merits. It's the other way around: the concensus is reached because of the merits, it does not attain merit purely through concensus. That would be argumentum ad populum.

Both begin with assumptions about the universe that are beyond proof

There's that "proof" word again showing a lack of knowledge of what scientific theory is.

but neither is wholly unreasonable.

Finally, we agree.

If you can find an individual who seriously espouses spaghetti monster theory, please let me know.

If I find him I will have him trampled under Her Holy Hooves, that culinary infidel! And you know who you are, PL. Repent!

[Fester Chugabrew]

I just wish he'd quit trying to call it science and quit bandying around the vernacular "theory" as if he were referring to scientific theory.

You can wish all you want, but I don't know why. Post the definition of theory, and then explain to me how it is outside the definition to maintain that the presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws is due to an intelligent agent. What is "unnatural" about an intelligent being? I would find it highly unnatural to find organized matter acting according to predictable laws without either intelligence or design as part of the scenario.

[Oztrich Boy]

Once upon a time "science" referred to the entire body of knowledge, episteme - philosophy - spiritual and natural - all of it. Hence I Timothy 6:20-21 in the King James translation says:

Actually "the entire body of knowledge, episteme - philosophy - spiritual and natural - all of it" was not what Paul was refering to in I Timothy 6:20-21

[antiRepublicrat]

Post the definition of theory

[antiRepublicrat]

Oooh, replying to a scripture post with post #666.

:)

[Fester Chugabrew]

The missing piece for you is that they accept or reject it on merits.

That aspect has not been lost on me in the least. Both of us are reasonable enough to know that the number of proponents of a theory does not validate the theory. To deduce an intelligent agent from the presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws is not a deduction wholly without merit.

There's that "proof" word again showing a lack of knowledge of what scientific theory is . . .

Read it again. I used the word "proof" in a negative sense, with the understanding that science is, and always will be, speculative in nature.

One thing that may be lost on the evos who've been dealing with me over the years is that I would hardly espouse substituting ID for evolution in the schools. Atheistic science should be welcomed much as any other science, and its proponents treated with respect (although I've done more than my share of initiating disrespectful discourse). I tend to set a bad example in that regard.

[Fester Chugabrew]

I can't link to that due to restrictions. Is it too long to cut and paste?

[Oztrich Boy]

I can quote scripture for my own purposes

[Gumlegs]

To say that matter is organized and acts according to predictable laws is to say more than "stuff exists."

How?

The ubiquity of intelligent design is such that, like the air you breathe, it goes unnoticed. It is considered natural only because you were born into it and have become accustomed to it.

As it happens, I notice the air I breathe because I'm allergic to much of what it carries. In any case, your statement is, in fact, nothing more than, "stuff exists."

At any rate, Intelligent Design is well-qualified to be called a "theory," because it explains the data, which, if it were without design, would be incomprehensible to reason and senses.

Here we go again. Intelligent design explains nothing, it predicts nothing, and it has nothing to do with science. Your Grand Theory that states "Nothing is comprehensible except for design" is so vague as to be meaningless. I was in the Navy. I can comprehend the ocean. Where's the evidence that it was designed? That it always and everywhere mysteriously goes exactly to the shore and no farther!!?

You again conflate human intelligence, for which we have evidence, with some sort of "other" intelligence, for which there is no evidence and which is beyond our ability to test.

Can you state something that ID doesn't explain?

I'm coming to believe there may be something to The Hitchhiker's Guide theory, which is that human thought is considered to be so primitive that it's considered to be infectious disease in much of the universe

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

The prophesy about Judas Maccabi in Enoch 90 takes the "great horn" (reign) to its end. The end of the Maccabees is in the early reign of King Herod the Great: Antigonus was defeated by Herod with the aid of the Romans, and beheaded at Antioch in 37 B.C. The chapter continues to the Messiah and on to the Messianic Kingdom, end of days and final judgment.

Enoch contains many references to Christ. Throughout Enoch, Jesus Christ is called "the Elect One". Luke 9:35 which was translated "And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, 'This is my beloved Son: hear him." actually uses the Greek phrase ho eklelegmenos - IOW, "This is my Son, the Elect One: hear him."

Some scholars believe that Enoch was disfavored by the Jews after the crucifixion because of such references, i.e. they wanted to deny Christ was the Elect One. Later Christian scholars disfavored Enoch because of its discussion of angels and demons. So it fell into obscurity for nearly two millennia. And nowadays, some new agers have picked up Enoch as well as some Jewish mysticism as a basis for their "religion". Jeepers!

As a reminder to Lurkers, the link at post 621 was to a pre-Dead Sea Scroll era translation, 1882. Only one of the five sections did not have fragments found at Qumran. The best translation since (known to me) is in Charlesworth's collection.

The natural world is a closed system, in as far as I can detect.

Indeed. But nature cannot be a closed system - particularly a geometric one - without a beginning, a cause which cannot be a physical cause but must exist and be singular and therefore transcendent to the natural or closed system or geometry.

As a side point, we cannot say something is random in the system without knowing what the system "is" - which we do not yet know.

Existence exists. God exists. Without that context, we are just blind men trying to describe an elephant.

[JohnnyM]

I would say that anyone who has raised a 2 yr old would agree with me. Disobedience is their natural persuasion and, without the influence of the parents or, as Hillary likes to say, the village, this trait would not be suppressed.

But I freely admit, that one's world view or religious persuasion effects their definition of morality. So the elephant in the room is which is right. If there is a right answer, then there MUST be a standard that makes it so. What makes your definition or standard of morality right and that of the terrorist wrong?

JM

[js1138]

Science doesn't try to unseat philosophy any more than it tries to unseat mathematics.

But science can change our perception of what is normal, reasonable, intuitive and natural by expanding our ability to observe.

Things that have historically have eluded our ability to assign causes have had causes assigned by science. Some are mundane like volcanos and earthquakes; some a little more difficult, like mental illness.

Our interpretation of these phenomena changes as science advances.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I would say that anyone who has raised a 2 yr old would agree with me. Disobedience is their natural persuasion and, without the influence of the parents or, as Hillary likes to say, the village, this trait would not be suppressed."

Unless your child is the Bad Seed they also have a natural inclination to try to please their parents too. Children don't know enough to make moral decisions.

[Gumlegs]

As if the theory of intelligent design could not possibly cite a specific intelligent agent! It is actually capable of more specificity than the theory of evolution. It posits a single, almighty, intelligent agent, not vague "forces of nature;" not a concoction of natural selection, random mutations, unguided forces, etc.

Behe denied this. Under oath.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply, but please explain further what you mean!

For Lurkers: the word in Greek is gnosis which is interpreted as knowledge in I Cor 13 and 14.

[js1138]

My standard of morlity does not include killing people who disagree with me.

As for the two-year-old, I've raised two kids past that stage. Disobedience is not the natural persuasion, but neither is obedience. The notion of morality and evil is not particularly relevnt when dealing with toddlers.

[JohnnyM]

"My standard of morlity does not include killing people who disagree with me. "

Neither does mine. On this we agree. But what makes your morality right, and the one who sees killing as ok, not?

JM