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.

[b_sharp]

Give it up CG, Fester's insistence on defining the world according to his own personal views is a demon even science can't exorcise.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"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."

You mean supernaturally? :) BTW, how do we have any clue what the designer *intends*? What's to stop the designer from breaking any of these predictable laws? Like I said, you were much more coherent when you used to argue YEC.

"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."

I already had that awe and respect for the intricacies of natural processes without needing to invoke an untestable designer.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Alrighty... better late than logical.."

I was already expecting late, so I wasn't disappointed. :)

[CarolinaGuitarman]

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

Maybe if we're talking Whole Science. Real science on the other hand... :)

[Fester Chugabrew]

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

You didn't do any reading, did you? No, it was not all BS. They were observing the same stars and planets we observe to this day. Of course they weren't observing the "forces" any more than you can observe the "force" of gravity. As they observed the planets they also observed and recorded human behavior. Over time they noted predictable, repeatable behaviors during certain times of year. Their observations are largely responsible for the analog clocks we've been using, divided into twelve hours.

And what predictions did they make regarding PMS.

I specifically referred to our ability to predict it these days. I suspect they also came to know and predict certain behaviors each lunar month, IYKWIM.

[Baraonda]

Future of Conservatism: Darwin or Design?

Design by God.

[bobdsmith]

Again, an intelligent designer is a reasonable way to explain the presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws.

Not all reasonable explainations are theories - in the scientific sense.

I have yet to see an evo suggest a better alternative to fit the evidence, and I have yet to see any evo enumerate those things science can accomplish without the presence of either intelligence, design, or some combination of the two.

Even the explaination that we are brains in jars imagining the universe "fits the evidence". Simply fitting the evidence is not what makes an explaination scientific. Explainations that fit the evidence are a dime a dozen.

Nothing in the scientific definition of "theory" suggests there must be evidence to confute it in order for it to be a theory.

It's called falsifiability and it is considered a requirement for scientific explainations, whether or not they become theories. The reasoning behind this is that explainations that cannot be potentially disproven cannot be tested. Therefore what use are they other than philosophical curiosities? Again I present the "brains in a jar" explaination as an example of an idle curiousity that explains the whole universe perfectly and yet is not testable and therefore cannot be a scientific theory.

Even so, I told you that the evidence which best refutes the theory of intelligent design is matter that is not organized and does not behave according to predictable laws.

How would that refute intelligent design? Why would intelligence be unable to design unorganised and unpredictable systems? An omnipotent being, as you suggested, would be capable of anything. Therefore anything we possibly observe would never disprove it.

[Baraonda]

Future of Conservatism: Darwin or Design?

Design by our Christian God.

I thought this is more meaningful and truthful.

[PatrickHenry]

Added post 704 to The List-O-Links in this section: ESSENTIAL INFORMATION ABOUT SCIENCE.

[bobdsmith]

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"

-------

Note the absence of any suggestion in the above definiton - the same one evos keep posting- that, in order to be a theory, there must also be evidence that can refute, or falsify it.

The scientific method contains an important part about testing. If an explaination cannot be potentially disproven then it cannot be tested. It's not a criticism of the explaination that this is the case, it's just that science cannot do anything with it.

[Fester Chugabrew]

BTW, how do we have any clue what the designer *intends*?

That would require a revelation of some kind if it entails matters of attitude, future plans, wishes, or other attributes one might ascribe anthropomorphically. Othwerwise the only clue we have is that organized matter continues to behave according to predictable laws exactly as planned.

What's to stop the designer from breaking any of these predictable laws?

In view of the ubiquity of the designer's work I cannot think of anything, and I do not have to in order for the theory to work. I mean, causing a virgin birth, or changing water into wine, or walking on water - these are not "breaking predictable laws." They, too, are fully in accord with intelligent design, just as it is necessary with an automobile for the designer to jump in and tweak things occasionally.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Of course they weren't observing the "forces" any more than you can observe the "force" of gravity."

But we can test the force of gravity. We can indirectly observe it. No such luck with astrology.

". As they observed the planets they also observed and recorded human behavior. Over time they noted predictable, repeatable behaviors during certain times of year."

No they didn't. There aren't predictable behaviors based on birth date. It was much more than physical cycles they were attempting to predict; they predicted, as they do today, all sorts of things about love and romance, fortune or misfortune in wealth, the rise and fall of kings. That was the nature of the predictions made. These are all nonsense.

"Their observations are largely responsible for the analog clocks we've been using, divided into twelve hours."

That has nothing to do with astrological aspects of their work.

"I specifically referred to our ability to predict it these days. I suspect they also came to know and predict certain behaviors each lunar month, IYKWIM."

But menstrual cycles occur at all different times of the month. And this has nothing to do with astrology. Women didn't have to go to an astrologer to know when they were going to menstruate. You are now making up the nature of the astrologer's predictions.

[Fester Chugabrew]

The scientific method contains an important part about testing.

Yep. Let science test for cases where matter is not organized and does not act according to predictable laws. Then it will assist in establishing a non-intelligent, non-designer as explanatory of the universe as we know it.

[hosepipe]

[ I was already expecting late, so I wasn't disappointed. :) ]

(fileing fingernails)
Are you a pick'er?.. or a grin'er?... Teeth are irrelevant..
d;-)~',','

[bobdsmith]

Yep. Let science test for cases where matter is not organized and does not act according to predictable laws. Then it will assist in establishing a non-intelligent, non-designer as explanatory of the universe as we know it.

But such an observation would not refute an intelligent designer...

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"That would require a revelation of some kind if it entails matters of attitude, future plans, wishes, or other attributes one might ascribe anthropomorphically. Othwerwise the only clue we have is that organized matter continues to behave according to predictable laws exactly as planned."

So in other words, when observing and examining the natural world, all we need to do is figure out the predictable laws that govern matter. That's methodological naturalism, which is the only method that science use. And ID falls outside it's domain. The only way we can have any clue as to the designer's nature is through direct revelation. This too is outside of science.


"What's to stop the designer from breaking any of these predictable laws?

In view of the ubiquity of the designer's work I cannot think of anything, and I do not have to in order for the theory to work. I mean, causing a virgin birth, or changing water into wine, or walking on water - these are not "breaking predictable laws."

They most certainly would be examples of breaking predictable laws. It's predictable law that Virgin births don;t happen. It's a predictable law that people don't walk on water, or change water to wine. You are trying to yet again redifine a word to suit your wishes and feelings, in this case *predictable*.

The only thing predictable about your posts are that they will continue to get zanier and zanier.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

On that note, my hand is cramping up, (might be a pinched nerve, or carpel tunnel, whatever it is, it hurts and I can't use but two fingers on my right hand.) so I am going to bed. Night all :)

[Coyoteman]

From a thread last summer:

I, Fester Chugabrew, am a Young Earth Creationist. I do not accept geology, or radiometric dating, or any part of modern science that might support an old Earth or evolution. Furthermore, I do not accept creation or evolution as proper objects of science in the strict sense. Lastly, VadeRetro notwithstanding, I attribute all tendencies toward verbal putzitude to be a product of those who ignore, disavow, or otherwise impugn the authority of biblical texts.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1456767/posts?page=198#198

[Doctor Stochastic]

Seems some just prefer to choose sides, irrespective of any morality that may apply to all people. Religion (under this interpretation) becomes a prescription for perpetual war. People do things because their religion requires it, not because of any good or evil involved.

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker.