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.

[Fester Chugabrew]

The suggestion is not absent. It's right there in "well substantiated".

Please explain to me how "well-substantiated" means "capable of refutation," or "vulnerable."

[hosepipe]

[ A group of pearls composed of pearls.. is what hosepipe is Casting to the Public (swine)... whence we do not/cannot deserve these gems of wisdom... ]

You said it I didn't... hecklers are allowed but graded..
"C"

[Stultis]

As I said, if science can demonstrate the absence of organized matter along with the absence of predictable laws, it will have a strong case for falsifying the theory of intelligent design.

LOL! Now that's it. No one can be THAT dense and perverse. Seriously. I won't say I know for sure, but I'm openly positing that you are actually an evolutionist having us on for a laugh, or that your posts and persona are some manner of farce or imposture.

I'm calling you out. You don't have to reveal your real handle, but honor binds you to retire this one now that you've been fingered. Fess up and take your bows.

[ml1954]

People keep forgetting that Fester Chugabrew has previously stated that he starts with the assumption that he is correct, and concludes that any observations must be in line with his correctness.

When someone asserts that "everything is supernatural", where do go from there?

[b_sharp]

The sounds of rational thought.
Thank you.

[hosepipe]

[ The modern translations accommodate science tunneling its field of view to nature alone and use the word "philosophy" to keep an overarching meaning - all attempts of science to unseat philosophy notwithstanding. ]

Ouch... that had to hurt some calloused conciences..
Hmmmmm.. calloused conciences don't feel pain... DuuuH on my part...

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You are defining EVERYTHING CONCEIVABLE as being intelligent design, a priori. This is absurd." (me)

---

"No more absurd than assuming the opposite, a priori. In fact, it is more reasonable." (you)

I don't assume that intelligent design is false; I know it is untestable, because it IS. I can make no scientific claims to it's truth or falseness. Science is an a posteriori method, not an a priori one. And when you define everything conceivable as being intelligent design, then there is NO WAY to test that. It cannot be a scientific theory, no matter how much you twist and stretch every word used to describe your claim. You were much less incoherent when you used to argue for YEC.

"Hence natural selection, mutations, and the like, are all manifestations of organized matter behaving according to predictable laws. I would expect this in an intelligently designed universe."

No, you ASSUME it because that is what you WISH to be. Organized matter following predictable laws and processes is perfectly consistent with a universe that *just is*. It is also perfectly consistent with a universe that was created by 1, or 2, or 1,000 designers. They could have been good, evil, indifferent. They could also not exist. All of this is consistent with the universe we see.


"They directly observed the movements of the planets and the stars, and they directly observed the behavior of people at the same time. They noticed recurring patterns of behavior at certain times of year and recorded that, too, over more than a thousand years of direct observation on the part of thousands of people."

Nonsense. They made it all up. That is why they almost never made accurate detailed predictions. They only ones that were predicted consistently were the very vague ones. Just like the astrologers of today.

"I would not be surprised if the foundations of astrology involved as much or more direct observation than Charles Darwin and all who have followed in his footsteps."

Well, since you don't believe in the utility of having to test ideas, I am sure you do believe that.

[Fester Chugabrew]

The presence of organized matter behaving according to predictable laws is well-substantiated.

The fact that intelligent design entails the organization of matter so it behaves predictably is also well-substantiated.

The fact that the organization of matter occurs under the agency of intelligent agents is also well-substantiated.

When one is faced with these well-substantiated facts, it is hardly an unreasonable stretch to infer an intelligent agent as responsible for the presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws.

The best way to falsify this theory is to provide an example of matter that is wholly disorganized and behaves entirely contrary to any predictable laws. Who's to say it cannot be done?

[b_sharp]

Anyone that contemplates their navel and documents any portion of the contemplation is doing science. Did you not know that?

As a up and coming young philosopher once said.

"Hey, what's it like being a rationalist in a world of empiricists? Must be uncomfortable, but I'm sure that if you think about it hard enough it will all go away. "

[Fester Chugabrew]

Science is an a posteriori method, not an a priori one.

Science partakes of both inductive and deductive reasoning. The theory of intelligent design works well in both directions, and it covers every conceivable situation in the known universe. If you think you can engage science without any a priori method then you may indeed be a candidate for belief in the spaghetti monster.

[hosepipe]

[ More nonsensical gobbledygook. I am still waiting for a coherent response to my question about how an untestable assumption (divine interference) is better than a testable one (natural, physical causes)? ]

SO, you're PURE are you.. pure logician..
No spooky ghost in the closet for you for three months..
there I said it - the Spirit-Nazi..

[hosepipe]

[ Sorry, that last question was for Cornelis, not you. I misread who posted to me. Busy day. :) ]

Too late.. punch line already posted..

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Science partakes of both inductive and deductive reasoning."

This does not mean it is not a posteriori.

"The theory of intelligent design works well in both directions, and it covers every conceivable situation in the known universe."

It therefore is completely worthless. It explains nothing in particular.

"If you think you can engage science without any a priori method then you may indeed be a candidate for belief in the spaghetti monster."

If you think that you can have a scientific theory that can never be falsified or tested, because, as you said, "...it covers every conceivable situation in the known universe.", then you haven't a clue what science is.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Nonsense. They made it all up. That is why they almost never made accurate detailed predictions. They only ones that were predicted consistently were the very vague ones. Just like the astrologers of today.

Do yourself a favor and look up a brief history on the science of astrology. You might be surprised at the amount of direct observation that was made and recorded, both on the part of stars and planets and human behavior. Of course there were elements spun out of whole cloth from time to time. Fact is, they were able to make some decent predictions, not unlike the predictions we can make to this day r.e. PMS.

[hosepipe]

[ True enough. It's what we disagree on that makes it difficult (and a test of virtue). ]

LoL... Corny you're a ham..

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" SO, you're PURE are you.. pure logician.. No spooky ghost in the closet for you for three months.. there I said it - the Spirit-Nazi.."

"Too late.. punch line already posted.."

Now I can say that's nonsensical gobbledygook. :)

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You might be surprised at the amount of direct observation that was made and recorded, both on the part of stars and planets and human behavior."

But it was all BS. They weren't really observing any forces.

"Of course there were elements spun out of whole cloth from time to time."

Most of the time.

"Fact is, they were able to make some decent predictions, not unlike the predictions we can make to this day r.e. PMS."

They only made *decent* predictions when they made very very vague ones. And what predictions did they make regarding PMS.? This aught to be good.

[Fester Chugabrew]

It therefore is completely worthless. It explains nothing in particular.

It particularly explains why there is, on a universal scale, the presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws. This is valuable because it relieves the observer from anticipating occasions where matter will behave in a way other than the intelligent designer intends. It is also valuable because it instills in the observer a sense of respect and awe for the manner and degree of detailed design with which the observable universe is imbued.

[Senator Bedfellow]

See? It's valuable because it makes you feel good to believe it. And that's what science is all about, right?

[hosepipe]

[ Now I can say that's nonsensical gobbledygook. :) ]

Alrighty... better late than logical..