« December 2006 | Main | February 2007 »
Penn State's Center for Infectious Diseases is having a Darwin Day celebration with:
THE WORLD'S LARGEST EDIBLE TREE OF LIFEBoy, it seems like Darwin Day comes earlier and earlier every year. It's only two weeks away and I haven't even finished my shopping or got my Darwin Day lights put up.
Forthekids, a blogger who writes regularly at Reasonable Kansans, has been keeping things interesting since August of last year, holding the Kansas media accountable and getting to the truth of the matter, especially in regards to the debate over intelligent design. She had a great post Sunday on the nature of science and how those involved in the debate often are mischaracterized and misunderstood. Forthekids’ response to Jeremy, a commenter who claimed she was “being deceived” by the *ahem* slick army of ID proponents, follows below:
No need to be sorry, I’ve known for quite some time that you think I’m “being deceived”, which in other words means that you believe my ability to research for the accuracy of the claims being made by ID advocates is sorely lacking. I’ve listened to the arguments repeatedly for about three years now and have witnessed many highly credentialed individuals (scientists included) question Darwinian mechanisms just as laypeople like myself have. If it were just me who was not able to wrap my head around the ~unquestionably factual~ evidence for Darwinian evolution, then I’d just have to get past it. But, the funny thing is that I’m not the only one…It seems extremely obvious to many of us that Darwinian evolution is sorely lacking in many respects.Forthekids is not alone in questioning Darwin, and she finds that those with reason to deceive (and stifle free inquiry) are square in the Darwinist camp:
And, it’s also interesting that you believe there is “desperation” among the ID supporters. Funny, it seems to me that the Intelligent Design movement is growing by leaps and bounds. More scientists are signing off on the dissent form Darwin statement all the time, and the United States is definitely not the only country talking about these issues anymore. Even Sue Gamble (Kansas board of Ed) recognizes that ID has grown. At the KU panel discussion, she mentioned that in ‘99 she received emails from other countries wondering why the US has such a problem with “creationism”, yet in 2005, she was receiving emails from all over the world complaining that “the problem” is at their doorstep now as well. People are waking up, Jeremy...faster than I expected actually.It seems to me that Darwin supporters are a bit more “desperate” than you care to admit. It’s interesting to consider the methods they are willing to resort to, like the recent demand that an entire freshman class (or at least a large part) at UCSD was required to listen to Robert Pennock speak on the evils of the ID movement with absolutely no time given to an ID advocate who would be able to explain what ID really entails.
So am I being “deceived”? I don’t know....are you being “deceived”?
NPR’s Morning Edition recently had a story on Northwestern High school in Baltimore. Students there have been struggling to pass the state science test. The interesting part of this story is the muddled but all-too-common way the featured biology teacher handles students’ perception of conflict between their religious beliefs and Darwinian theory.
According to the teacher, what students' churches and families told them about God creating the world is not wrong; rather, it is just not based on “fact.”
You've got your area of faith. You've got the things your parents have taught you, your church has taught you. And all those things are good. But because we're in a science class, science is not based on faith. Science is based on fact. But I'm not saying this is right or wrong. All I'm telling you is this is on your [test].
This is one of the most patronizing lines in the debate over Darwinism and public schools. Call me simple, but if something isn’t based in fact, why isn’t it wrong? To believe something is to believe it to be true. To believe something is true is to believe that it corresponds to reality--or to put it another way, the facts about the world.
Perhaps when discussing Darwinian theory, concerned parents at school board meetings should say, “I’m not against the teaching of Darwinism. It is all well and good; it’s just that it is not based on facts. The fossil record, DNA experiments, and the presence of irreducibly complex systems merely show that acceptance of Darwinism is not based on factual considerations. It is not wrong though; it is all well and good. I mean, you are still allowed to believe it at home or at the civic club even though it is based on things other than facts—just not in our science classes.”
New Mexico State Senator Steve Komadina has introduced a bill into the New Mexico Senate which would protect the academic freedom of teachers to discuss scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolution. The bill requires that the New Mexico Department of Education adopt rules to “give teachers the right and freedom, when a theory of biological origins is taught, to objectively inform students of scientific information relevant to the strengths and weaknesses of that theory and protect teachers from reassignment, termination, discipline or other discrimination for doing so.” The bill would not only protect teachers, but also students: it requires the adoption of rules to “encourage students to critically analyze scientific information, give them the right and freedom to reach their own conclusions about biological origins and provide that no student shall be penalized in any way because the student subscribes to a particular position on biological origins.” A joint memorial (a.k.a resolution) is also being submitted to the New Mexico legislature stating support for similar protections.
If adopted, the bill would sanction and protect the teaching of science, and science only in the science classroom. In protecting the teaching of “scientific information,” the bill is explicit that “‘Scientific information’ does not include information derived from religious or philosophical writings, beliefs or doctrines.”
Who would oppose such legislative protections? I will make a prediction: many Darwinists will vehemently oppose this bill, exposing that it isn’t the teaching of science they care about, but the teaching of a particular brand of pro-Darwin-only science. The scientific evidence supporting evolution will still be presented under this bill. But this bill opens the classroom up to genuine scientific critiques of neo-Darwinian evolution, and not everyone wants that scientific evidence to be heard. Nonetheless, the protections under this bill are vital to fixing the status quo, expanding student learning of the biological sciences, and fulfilling the nationwide call to improve science education.
In our present climate, many teachers are intimidated—whether by power-wielding Darwinists or ACLU attorneys—into teaching a biased, incomplete view of the biological evidence about neo-Darwinian evolution. Teachers and students need these protections so that all the scientific information about Darwinism can be objectively taught. For this very reason, expect such foes of academic freedom in science education to come out swinging against this bill.
Dr. Jonathan Wells today has a short opinion piece in his alma mater's newspaper, the Yale Daily News, that encouarges churches not to honor Darwinism on Evolution Sunday because Darwinism as a theory is simply bad science.
But experiments have consistently failed to support the hypothesis that variations (including those produced by genetic mutation) and selection (natural or artificial) can produce new species, organs and body plans. And what may have once looked like solid evidence for universal common ancestry (fossils, embryos and molecular comparisons) is now plagued by growing inconsistencies. It is actually the Darwinists who brush aside these awkward facts who “embrace scientific ignorance.”You can read the entire piece here.
In Part I of this short response, I explained some false information about intelligent design promoted by George Kampis at East Tennessee State University. This second and final post will discuss the false information about both intelligent design arguments and Phillip Johnson that Kampis spread.
Dr. Kampis's view was summarized as:
"Dr. Phillip Johnson, ID founder and longtime critic of Charles Darwin, rejects the concept of natural selection"There are many problems here. "Intelligent design" was founded by scientists, and the term was coined in its modern form by chemist Charles Thaxton in the mid-1980s, before Johnson got involved with the subject. Jonathan Witt's The Origin of Intelligent Design: A brief history of the scientific theory of intelligent design gives an excellent account of Thaxton's coinage and early usage of the term.
But does Phillip Johnson "reject the concept of natural selection"? In reality, Johnson observes that natural selection occurs and that it works just fine; he just questions its creative power. The problem for Darwinian evolution is giving natural selection something to select for: "Natural selection is the most famous element in Darwinism, but is not necessarily the most important element. Selection merely preserves or destroys something that already exists. Mutation has to provide the favorable innovations before natural selection can retain and encourage them." (Phillip Johnson, Darwin On Trial, pg. 31)
Johnson even recounts six established examples of natural selection, including the Galapagos finches: "There is no reason to doubt that peculiar circumstances sometimes favor drug-resistant bacteria, or large birds as opposed to small ones..." (pgs. 26-27). This is ironic because Kampis' claim that "evolutionary theory is well grounded in facts" was based upon a discussion of Darwin's observations in the Galapagos Islands. Yet Johnson is rightly unimpressed with the minor variations between finch species on the Galapagos Islands:
None of the 'proofs' provides any persuasive reason for believing that natural selection can produce new species, new organs, or other major changes, or even minor changes that are permanent. ... That larger birds have an advantage over smaller birds in high winds or droughts has no tendency to prove that similar factors caused birds to come into existence in the first place. (Darwin on Trial, pg. 27)Has Kampis read Johnson's work? Kampis's viewpoint continues to misrepresent both Johnson and Discovery Institute:
"Johnson co-founded the Discovery Institute, a think tank that promotes the teaching of ID in the science classroom."This statement is doubly wrong: First, Discovery Institute was founded in 1990 by Bruce Chapman and George Gilder; Phillip Johnson had nothing to do with it. In fact, Discovery Institute did not start considering the ID issue until around 1995, and Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture was not founded until 1996. This lecture sounds like Darwinist mythology. Second, Discovery does not favor mandating ID for inclusion in schools. As Discovery's Science Education Policy page has long-stated, "As a matter of public policy, Discovery Institute opposes any effort to require the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education." Kampis then goes on to discuss the "wedge document", apparently failing to mention Discovery's response.
Given how Kampis barely managed to engage ID, I assume that Harker had nothing to worry about after sponsoring this lecture.
Access Research Network has noted a Darwinist's lecture at East Tennessee State University entitled "Intelligent Design Theory and the Poverty of Anti-Science Thought," by historian, philosopher, and cognitive scientist George Kampis. ARN aptly observes, "Dr. Kampis hit every 'talking point' of Darwinists." Dr. Kampis' lecture spread much misinformation about intelligent design. For example, a premed female student said: "he raised a good point when he said Intelligent Design wasn't science." Would her view have been the same if she had heard the facts about ID and not a false caricature? A few of Kampis' errors will be highlighted over a series of two posts:
Dr. Kampis says:
"The Intelligent Design movement holds that living organisms are too complex to have arisen through random mutation and natural selection, and therefore must have been designed by some outside entity."Question: Where do ID-proponents define ID like that? Answer: Nowhere. ID makes positive arguments where design is inferred based upon detecting the types of complexity we know are produced only by intelligence. ID is not inferred merely based upon the falsification of evolution. In short, the theory of intelligent design holds that some aspects of nature are best explained by an intelligent cause because they hold informational properties which are known to come only from intelligence.
"When they can't explain a phenomenon they immediately claim that it must be the work of God. This is just giving in."This is wrong for two reasons: ID doesn't try to identify the intelligence responsible for life. Second, design isn't an argument from ignorance. Design theorists infer intelligent design because intelligence does explain the data. Consider what ID-proponents actually say:
Molecular machines display a key signature or hallmark of design, namely, irreducible complexity. In all irreducibly complex systems in which the cause of the system is known by experience or observation, intelligent design or engineering played a role the origin of the system. ... Although some may argue this is a merely an argument from ignorance, we regard it as an inference to the best explanation, given what we know about the powers of intelligent as opposed to strictly natural or material causes. We know that intelligent designers can and do produce irreducibly complex systems. We find such systems within living organisms.Kampis continues his misrepresentation of ID:
(Scott Minnich and Stephen Meyer, "Genetic analysis of coordinate flagellar and type III regulatory circuits in pathogenic bacteria")
"Supporters of Intelligent Design don't take the normal route to creating a theory. They don't write peer reviewed papers or present research at scientific seminars."That's easy to say, but is it true? No, it's false. ID-proponents do write peer-reviewed papers supportive of ID (see here) and ID-proponents also offer papers at conferences. For a couple of examples, see the poster here and Jonathan Wells presented a poster based upon a scientific article he published. Dr. Kampis appears to have been misinformed, and unfortunately he passed on that misinformation to his audience. This is how the spread of misinformation works among ID-critics.
Discovery Institute’s study, which found that 90.9 % of Judge Jones’ section on whether ID is science was copied essentially verbatim from the ACLU’s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, provoked much discussion. As expected, most Darwinist defenders of Judge Jones swept some of the criticisms of judicial copying aside while engaging in harsh ad hominem attacks against us. I have already responded to some Darwinist defenses of Judge Jones. A few other Darwinists have continued to respond, and still they fail to rebut my legal arguments and misunderstand the type of normal analogical and policy legal reasoning I employed. I close this debate with a new response to such Darwinist critics available at: “Analogical Legal Reasoning and Legal Policy Argumentation: A Response to Darwinist Defenders of Judge Jones' Copying from the ACLU”.
Eminent philosopher of science Elliott Sober is always worth reading. He takes ID seriously and tries to offer principled critiques—and he’s even willing, if need be, to let his critiques slice both ways.
Case in point: Sober recently spoke at the University of Montana, criticizing both ID and Darwinian arguments for
allegedly smuggling in assumptions about the designer’s purposes. He believes that ID proponents cannot say something is designed unless they know the purpose for which the thing is designed.
Likewise, Sober criticizes Darwinian dysteleological arguments for claiming knowledge of a designer’s purposes. Stephen Jay Gould’s argument that the panda’s thumb is poorly designed, for instance, depends upon knowing the designer’s purposes. After all, the natural question is: For what is the panda’s thumb badly designed? According to Sober, Darwinists cannot claim a designer would not have designed the panda’s thumb if they do not know what purpose the designer had in mind. Pandas’ thumbs may be badly designed if they were designed for typing; but they may be well designed if they were designed to strip bamboo.
At the risk of sounding biased, I think his critique of dysteleological arguments holds while his critique of ID does not. Here’s why:
Dysteleological arguments are inherently theological. They amount to “a designer would not have done things this way.” It is a theological objection which requires a theological response. Christians usually claim natural evil comes from the Fall; Buddhists claim evil is an illusion; Zoroastrians claim Angra Mainyu is responsible, and so on.
But do ID arguments claim that things are designed because a designer would have done things a certain way? No, and they do not need to. Designed objects generally exhibit certain hallmarks of intelligent activity (e.g. specified complexity or irreducible complexity), and these can be identified regardless of the designer’s motives or purposes. (We are not even "assuming" the designer is intelligent; we are inferring it from evidence.)
ID merely studies natural objects to see if they exhibit these features. It does not try to study or identify the designer or designer’s motives. This focus on identifying empirically detectable features is what makes ID a scientifically testable concept. We are inferring intelligence--not postulating motives and purposes.
Finally, as another way to see Sober’s error, think of things that we know are designed--the arrangement of stones at Stonehenge, say, or the statues at Easter Island. Now if you are like me, you have no idea who made these things or why. And yet we know they are designed. This clearly shows that design inferences can be independent of assumptions about designers’ identities, motives, and purposes.
The County Press Online newspaper has an insightful editorial pointing out that the debate over evolution has hardly been laid to rest.
The 2005 Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District decision in our fair state was thought to resolve the debate that Intelligent Design is a religious movement, just a new wrinkle on Creationism. That hasn't happened largely because Intelligent Design, or I.D., is not.
Robert Naeye at Sky & Telescope recently posted a simplistic rant against intelligent design. His logic is astoundingly bad, and his “attacks” on ID are the most elementary sort that have been rebutted too many times to mention. (But I will anyhow — go here, here, and here just to start.)
Here’s his big complaint:
This controversy led me to imagine a trip to a car dealership. The salesman shows me a model that has sleek lines, gets great gas mileage, has a 5-year warranty, and fits my budget. Everything about the car is perfect, except for one thing: The engine contains a part called a kanootin valve that occasionally breaks down. And when it does, the engine explodes. When I ask what good the kanootin valve does for the car, the salesman replies, "Oh, it does nothing at all. You only know about it when it fails." I respond, "Hmmm… this vehicle does not seem to be designed particularly intelligently. I think I'll buy another model."Really? I would say that the existence of the appendix is powerful evidence that a union of physicians and surgeons designed the human body so “when it breaks down, only human physicians, using their scientific training, can save our lives.” (Knowing how unions work, that seems way more plausible to me than random chance.)No auto manufacturer would design a car in such a way. And yet that is how the human body is "designed." We have an organ called the appendix that does nothing positive for us, and yet it can kill us if it becomes inflamed. And when it breaks down, only human physicians, using their scientific training, can save our lives.
The existence of the appendix is powerful evidence that the human body is the product of random mutations and natural selection operating over immense timescales, and that intelligent design is pure bunk.
Naeye goes on to report as “fact” a couple of things that are still being researched and are far from having been decided — such as the similarity of human and chimpanzee genes. (These are not as similar as he thinks; see “Human-chimp difference may be bigger”.) And he seems to be clueless about this, but there’s still a debate about the other fact he cites as well.
Evolution is a well-established fact, not an opinion.Of course, since he doesn’t define his terms (a typical Darwinist ploy), you have no idea if he is simply agreeing with everyone else that things change over time, or if he’s making the claim that natural selection acting on random mutation actually does account for all the complexity of life. If it’s the latter then he needs to do some reading — even evolutionists don’t agree on that point.
Naeye’s whole argument seems to rest on the idea that the appendix is completely useless — yet another controversial idea that has not been scientifically established. Dr. Chris Wilbers wrote this paragraph in response:
For a paragraph, as a physician, I'll address the appendix. Usually it is the evolutionist who accuses the creationist of invoking the "god of the gaps." In your argument, the tables are oddly turned, and since you have no teleological explanation for the appendix you attribute its existence to evolution. Many times the evolutionist patiently explains to the creationist that just because you don't have evidence of an evolutionary explanation of something YET, doesn't negate that you might not discover one in the future, and then lay out an imaginary evolutionary pathway that he posits might be able to result in the structure in question. In this case, however, scientific elucidation of at least some purposes for the “useless” appendix has begun. The organ is part of the mucosa associate lymphoid tissue (MALT) system, along with the tonsils and adenoids, among many others, which functions as part of the generation of immune responses within the mucosal tissues. Tantalizing in their implications are papers describing an increased rate of Crohn's disease and a decreased rate of ulcerative colitis in patients who have undergone appendectomy (surgical removal of the appendix). Another study noted the fascinating fact that women who have undergone tonsillectomy are about 5.2 times more likely to subsequently require appendectomy, whereas men are only about 1.7 times as likely. Elucidation of the exact physiological purpose of the appendix appears to be a "work in progress," but it seems safe to conclude that the appendix is certainly not physiologically useless. Furthermore, the appendix has had inestimable value in the history of medical and surgical advancement. As recognized by an article by G. Rainey Williams, MD (Annals of Surgery, 1983, 197(5): 495 - 506), the history of the study of appendicitis, its diagnosis and treatment, has been a keystone in the development of general surgery and surgical technique. By 1950 over 13,000 articles or books dealing with the appendix had already been published, according to Dr. Williams. Since Dr. Williams' article, the appendix has probably been second only to the gall bladder as the surgical target for the rapidly advancing science of laparoscopic surgery, which has greatly reduced the morbidity associated with many operations that formerly had to be performed by an open technique. Many, many surgeons-in-training have honed their surgical skills through successfully operating on innumerable appendixes, enabling them subsequently to progress on perform many more dramatic and lifesaving surgeries. Finally, of a more philosophical nature, as stated by Dr. Williams "appendiceal disease has clearly affected the course of history." He cites just a few examples of prominent individuals known to have had their lives affected (or deaths effected) by appendicitis and its complications. In light of concepts like chaos theory, who could ever truly know the affect that this tiny organ has had upon the totality of human history? Kanootin valve? NOT!Naeye seems to think that ID proponents are science haters, and that they don’t want any science to progress at all.
Intelligent design basically tells us to stop investigating the natural world, because when we hit a brick wall in our knowledge, we can find the answers in god. …This is simply ridiculous. No serious ID scientist or scholar has ever thrown up her hands and said, “Well, this is unexplained by natural causes, so let’s stop researching it.”
… Intelligent design, on the other hand, stifles our perseverance because it says that answers to the great questions have already been handed to us on a silver platter. It's the mindset that says that maybe we should buy the car with the kanootin valve.
If that were the case, why would Michael Behe have written Darwin’s Black Box? Or, why would Jonathan Wells be at a major science conference hypothesizing about whether centrioles generate a polar ejection force? Why would ID biologist Ralph Seelke be studying the evolution of bacteria in his lab at the University of Wisconsin, Superior?
Intelligent design is not a science stopper. Rather, it is dogmatic Darwinism that stifles research and stops science. Naeye seems to think that there is no need to research the appendix any further. In his Darwinian mindset, it’s useless. Now that sounds like a science stopper to me.
Over at ARN's ID Update David Tyler is considering the sad situation in science where ID is ruled out a priori and Darwinian explanations are ruled in.
More importantly, it is good practice in science to consider multiple hypotheses and to find ways of evaluating them. One often notes arguments by Darwinians making the claim: "an intelligent designer would not do it this way", always leading to rejection of the intelligent design hypothesis. Here is a case where there are good reasons, supported by a mathematical model, why an intelligent designer would do it that way.When any potential challenge to the Darwinian argument is excluded, are scientists hindered by limiting the scope of their research?
In 1970, Nobel laureate Jacques Monod called DNA the “secret of life” and said that the discovery of its structure and function – especially “the understanding of the random physical basis of mutation” – means that “the mechanism of Darwinism is at last securely founded" and that humans are “a mere accident.”[ 1]
According to neo-Darwinism, all living things are descended from a common ancestor, modified by natural selection acting on random variations that are generated by DNA mutations. But only if an embryo’s development were programmed by its DNA could mutations in DNA provide the raw materials for large-scale evolution. So neo-Darwinism assumes that embryo development is controlled by a genetic program.
But there is a serious problem with this assumption.
The many different kinds of cells in an animal or plant develop from a single fertilized egg cell. Humans, for example, consist of cells that form bone, skin, muscle, digestive organs, nerves and many other tissues. Such cells are so different from each other in form and function that an untrained observer might conclude that they represent different species.
Yet all of these cells contain the same DNA, a fact long known to embryologists as “genomic equivalence.” As the fertilized egg divides, it bequeaths a complete set of DNA (its “genome”) to all of its descendants – with a few minor exceptions, such as red blood cells, which have no DNA at all. But if bone, skin, muscle, digestive and nerve cells all have the same DNA, why are they so different? Why don’t nerve cells secrete juices that digest the brain? Part of the answer is that although brain cells have the genes for digestive juices, those genes are turned off in nerves. As an embryo develops, its cells go through a phase called “differentiation” that turns some genes on and leaves others turned off.
But this does not solve the problem, since it begs the question of why two cells with the same DNA would differentiate in two distinct ways.
Another part of the answer is that cells somehow know where they are in the body and differentiate appropriately. In July 2006, a scientific article reported that certain cells have “zip codes” in their DNA that correspond to their locations. According to the article:
A major question in developmental biology is, How do cells know where they are in the body? For example, skin cells on the scalp know to produce hair, and the skin cells on the palms of the hand know not to make hair… In this study, the authors present a model that explains how cells know where they are in the body. By comparing cells from 43 unique positions that finely map the entire human body, the authors discovered that cells utilize a ZIP-code system to identify the cell’s position in the human body. The ZIP code for Stanford is 94305, and each digit hones in on the location of a place in the United States; similarly, cells know their location by using a code of genes. For example, a cell on the hand expresses a set of genes that locate the cell on the top half of the body (anterior) and another set of genes that locates the cell as being far away from the body or distal and a third set of genes that identifies the cell on the outside of the body (not internal). Thus, each set of genes narrows in on the cell’s location, just like a ZIP code. [2]Yet the existence of “cellular zip codes” still doesn’t solve the problem either (and the authors of the article don’t claim that it does). If the human body were the United States and cells were postal envelopes, each would start out bearing every zip code in the country on its face. Only after the postmaster had stuck each envelope into one of many slots on the wall to direct it to its final destination would a particular zip code be highlighted. Obviously, the postmaster and the array of slots play a major role in determining where each letter goes.
If the DNA corresponds to zip codes that are originally the same on every envelope, where in the embryo are the postmaster and the slots? What is it that highlights one zip code but not others? Where is the all-important developmental information that directs cells to different parts of the body and tells them where they are and how to differentiate?
By focusing attention on DNA as the supposed source of raw materials for evolution, neo-Darwinism has systematically downplayed the nature and location of developmental information elsewhere in the embryo. Obviously, there is more to embryo development than is dreamt of in neo-Darwinian philosophy.
----------------------
NOTES
[1] Quoted in Horace Freeland Judson, The Eighth Day of Creation: The Makers of the Revolution in Biology (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1979), pp. 216-217.
[2] Rinn JL, Bondre C, Gladstone HB, Brown PO, Chang HY (2006) Anatomic Demarcation by Positional Variation in Fibroblast Gene Expression Programs. PLoS Genet 2(7): e119 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.0020119.
Recently I received a thoughtful e-mail asking questions about Discovery Institute. A slightly modified and adapted version of my reply is below:
Question (1): “Does the DI have any religious affiliation? (My understanding is DI is specifically neutral on religion and open to all scientific teaching and research regardless where the evidence leads)”
You’re basically correct--this question is answered on our website at "Top Questions":
Is Discovery Institute a religious organization?Question (2): “Has DI taken a stand on the enforcement of the 'church / state establishment' rules banning from public schools and colleges the teaching of evolution if it is being taught as a religion?”We do not believe that teaching evolution is necessarily unconstitutional. We explain this in our Kitzmiller Amicus Brief. Moreover, courts have rejected arguments that teaching evolution establishes “atheism” or “secular humanism.” We also agree that evolution should not be used to promote a materialistic worldview, as is done by prominent Darwinists like Richard Dawkins. Thus, we endorse the following U.S. Senate resolution:Discovery Institute is a secular think tank, and its Board members and Fellows represent a variety of religious traditions, including mainline Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Jewish, and agnostic. Until recently, the Chairman of Discovery's Board of Directors was former Congressman John Miller, who is Jewish. Although it is not a religious organization, the Institute has a long record of supporting religious liberty and the legitimate role of faith-based institutions in a pluralistic society. In fact, it sponsored a program for several years for college students to teach them the importance of religious liberty and the separation of church and state.
It is the sense of the Senate that: (1) good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; (2) where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject.Question (3): “When does teaching science cross the line from speculation to indoctrination?”
Good question! I believe that anything that cannot be justified via empirical evidence, but instead requires some kind of philosophical or metaphysical justification, crosses the line into indoctrination. For example, if one says “If we assume that mammals evolved from reptiles, then mammalian limbs are homologous to reptilian limbs,” that could be considered a scientific statement. However, if one says “Only undirected material causes were involved in the history of life, therefore we only consider hypotheses where mammalian limbs are homologous to reptilian limbs,” I'd say that crosses a line into indoctrination.
Question (4): “What kind of test can a teacher / parent / student use if they are trying to avoid being indoctrinated or being agents of religious indoctrination?”
Here are some principles I’d consider:
Tests should never imply that a student must modify or abandon their religious beliefs.
Students should not be required to pledge belief in any given scientific theory. They should be required to learn and understand about scientific theories such as evolution, but their personal views about evolution should have no bearing upon their grade or treatment in the class.
Students and teachers should have the right to voice skepticism of evolution on a test or in a classroom (although they can be required to demonstrate an understanding of the subject matter of evolution), and any scientific evidence for or against evolution should be permitted to be taught or discussed in the classroom.
Include discussion of both scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolution—this ensures evolution is taught objectively and doesn't force a particular viewpoint upon students.
Allow students to critically evaluate the scientific evidence for and against evolution and weigh the evidence for themselves, coming to their own conclusions.
Movies like Inherit the Wind give a false view that skepticism of evolution is all religiously based. For that reason they have little pedagogical value when teaching evolution and tend to indoctrinate students with a false characterization of the various viewpoints that exist on evolution. If you do show them, have students critically evaluate such films to determine whether they give an accurate portrayal of the reality of the debate over evolution, or a false caricature.
This is the final installment of a four-part series responding to Larry Arnhart’s comments about my book, Darwin’s Conservatives: The Misguided Quest. The first three installments can be found here, here and here.
5. Darwinism and Economic Liberty
Arnhart contends that Darwinian theory supports economic freedom, but in my book I argue that efforts to apply Darwinism to economics are misleading and based on false analogies. In particular, I criticize the claim that F.A. Hayek’s idea of “spontaneous order” is in any important sense analogous to Darwin’s idea of unguided evolution. I also dispute the claim that “spontaneous order,” properly understood, is incompatible with intelligent design. I further point out that in the history of ideas, Darwinism has been used much more often to stigmatize capitalism than to support it.
Arnhart does not respond to any of these specific criticisms. He merely restates his view that social order involves “genetic evolution, cultural evolution, and deliberate reasoning.” But this restatement of his earlier position does not meet the objections I raised. Those who would like more information about the relationship between Darwinism and capitalism are encouraged to read chapter four of my book.
6. Darwinism and Limited Government
Arnhart argues that Darwinism provides support for limited government, and he attempts to disassociate Darwin’s theory from the utopian crusades of “Social Darwinism” such as eugenics. Indeed, he argues that Charles Darwin is unfairly blamed for eugenics and that “much of what has been identified as social Darwinism... is a distortion of Darwinian science.” However, in my book I show how Darwin himself in The Descent of Man provided the rationale for what became the eugenics movement, and how the vast majority of evolutionary biologists early in the twentieth century were right to see negative eugenics as a logical application of Darwin’s theory. In his response, Arnhart continues to insist that eugenists and other Social Darwinists “were not really acting out of a clear and accurate understanding of Darwinian science” and contends that blaming Darwinism for Social Darwinism is tantamount to claiming that “Christianity was responsible for Hitler’s anti-Semitism because Martin Luther’s anti-Semitism was often cited by the Nazis.” The Luther comparison is inapt. Martin Luther was not the founder of Christianity, and so any claims he may have made are not necessarily authoritative interpretations of the Christian tradition. But Charles Darwin was most certainly the founder of his own theory. So if Darwin himself provided a logical rationale for eugenics in his writings, it is hard to see how others can be accused of “distorting” his teachings in their embrace of negative eugenics. Moreover, the fact that virtually all leading evolutionary biologists in the first part of the twentieth century embraced eugenics on Darwinian grounds should make one think twice about claiming that eugenics was simply a distortion of Darwin’s theory.
Arnhart insists that Darwin himself would have supported only such sensible measures as “prohibiting incestuous marriages” or voluntary efforts to discourage marriage and reproduction among the carriers of Tay Sachs disease. But in order to make this argument Arnhart must radically downplay the centrality of the struggle for survival in Darwin’s account of human progress. As I describe in my book, Darwin continued to believe that natural selection was the engine of human progress, and he feared that efforts such as small-pox vaccinations and welfare programs for the poor were counteracting natural selection and leading to the destruction of the human race: “No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man... hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.” In such a situation where natural selection has been undermined, it would be perfectly logical to argue for instituting “artificial selection” in order to allow human progress to continue.
Bringing things up to the present, I would add that it is difficult to see any valid Darwinian objection to expansive bioengineering of humans today. As I pointed out in my book:
once one understands the evolving nature of “human nature” [according to Darwinism], it is difficult to see any in principle objection to efforts to transform human nature through bioengineering. Drawing on a report from the President’s Council on Bioethics, Arnhart attempts to outline a Darwinian argument against radical human bioengineering, but his argument is less than persuasive. “Our desires have been formed by natural selection over evolutionary history to promote survival and reproduction,” he writes. “Knowing this should make us cautious about using biotechnology to radically change our evolved nature.” But why? Natural selection is a messy, hit-or-miss process of dead-ends and false starts. Why shouldn’t human beings use their reason to direct their evolution in order to produce a new kind of human being? What is so sacrosanct about existing human dispositions and capacities, since they were produced by such an imperfect and purposeless process?Arnhart and the President’s Council on Bioethics seem to want to clothe human nature with a kind of sacred awe that will restrain human beings from tinkering with it. But such awe is alien to the Darwinian mindset. In his autobiography, Darwin recounted how he had once had such feelings, but they had evaporated... In the Darwinian framework, there is nothing intrinsically right about the current capacities of human beings, so there can be nothing intrinsically wrong about trying to alter them. In the end, Arnhart’s main arguments against radical human bioengineering are his prediction that it may not be technically feasible and his hope that it may be restrained by certain deeply-ingrained human desires. Let’s certainly hope so, but Darwinism itself provides little or no barrier against such schemes. As Carson Holloway points out, the Darwinian account of morality all but invites “wholesale biological engineering.”
Those who desire more information about any of the issues discussed here are encouraged to consult the relevant chapters of my book.
The Chronicle of Higher Education is currently running a refreshing op-ed piece entitled, "Why Can't We Discuss Intelligent Design?," by J. Scott Turner, arguing for open discussion of ID on university campuses. The twist: Dr. Turner is a an associate professor of biology at the State University of New York's College of Environmental Science and Forestry who thinks intelligent design is "wrongheaded," but nevertheless deserves to be discussed in academia.
Turner, who studies termites and their "remarkable structures," relates how recently, his mere use of the term "design" in a lecture incited an anti-ID heckler to interrupt Turner repeatedly in an effort to prevent him from completing the lecture. Ironically, Turner doesn't even attribute such apparent "design" in termite structures to an intelligent cause.
Turner marvels at how, since Darwin, the mere mention of "design" in connection with biology can evoke what Turner calls "The Pause, the awkward silence that typically follows a faux pas." Turner then observes:
If just one freighted word like "design" can evoke The Pause, combining two — as in the phrase "intelligent design" — seems to make otherwise sane people slip their moorings. If you enjoy irony, as I do, the spectacle can provide hours of entertainment. I wonder, for example, what demon had gripped a past president of Cornell University when he singled out intelligent design as a unique threat to academic and civil discourse. Aren't universities supposed to be a place for dangerous ideas?Turner offers this welcome advice to his fellow biologists:
"Friends, intelligent design is just an idea." You might believe (as I do) that it is a wrongheaded idea, but it's hard to see how that alone should disqualify it from academic discourse. Academe is full of wrongheaded ideas, and always has been — not because academe itself is wrongheaded, but because to discuss such ideas is its very function. Even bad ideas can contain kernels of truth, and it is academe's role to find them. That can be done only in the sunlight and fresh air of normal academic discourse. Expelling an idea is the surest way to allow falsehood to survive.Turner also points out the irony of scientists who claim to be staunchly against any mixing of religion and science, yet who approve of Richard Dawkins' blatant mixing of religion and science in his recent anti-religious diatribe, The God Delusion (Houghton Mifflin, 2006).
Turner is to be applauded for his courage in proposing an open debate of the scientific significance of the appearance of design in nature, and The Chronicle of Higher Education is to be applauded for publishing Turner's op-ed. Let us hope that others in academia will recognize the value in permitting the theory of intelligent design to be openly discussed and debated—whether or not they agree with ID.
Samuel Chen and William Dembski are discussing a talk given by Donald Wise at the Geological Society for America conference in October, 2005, where Wise recommended that Darwinists use dysteleological arguments against ID rather than discussing science. Wise stated in his talk abstract that Darwinists contending against ID should not go “off-message with debates on origins of life” but should “pound simple themes of obvious design failures.” Basically, Wise recommended that they avoid discussing relevant scientific questions and instead raise fallacious and irrelevant theological objections to ID, which have nothing to do with ID and to which religions have had answers for millennia. But then again, Wise was not interested in addressing the scientific issues, as his talk's abstract suggested, “[a]ll the tools of political campaigns should be used: slogans, songs, bumper stickers (‘Human skeletal errors: Incompetent Design or Evolution ?’).”
It’s further difficult to believe Wise's later claim that “[t]he last thing we want to do is get into arguments of religion” since Wise led GSA conference attendees in mocking a traditional Christian hymn (Battle Hymn of the Republic) by singing:
My bones proclaim a story of incompetent design.What’s incredible is that Wise boasts that he lead 300 professional geologists singing the song during the GSA meeting (“I still had an audience of about 300 singing that lustily at the end of the GSA meeting”).
My back still hurts, my sinus clogs, my teeth just won’t align.
If I had drawn the blueprint, I would cer-tain-ly resign.
Incompetent Design!
Evo-Evo-Evo-lution! Design is but a mere illusion.
Darwin sparked our revolution. Science SHALL prevail!
After posting about the law review article in the Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion which argued that Judge Jones went too far, I was sent an unsolicited e-mail by someone I'll call SGB with the subject, "Intelligent Design is Not Science." The e-mail was sent as a letter to the Editor-In-Chief and Managing Editor of the Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion, apparently intended for public consumption. I was cc'd on it, along with Richard Dawkins and Glenn Branch (of the NCSE). It's a long letter, which largely misunderstands ID and Mr. Italiano's legal arguments. But SGB's conclusion was most interesting:
In a book titled "The God Delusion", author Richard Dawkins considers "the God Hypothesis." He defines the God Hypothesis as follows: "there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us" (page 31). He asserts that "God is a scientific hypothesis like any other" (page 50). He concludes that the validity of the God Hypothesis has a "Very low probability [of being correct], but short of zero" (page 51). He regards God as "a pernicious delusion" (page 31) and I agree with his assessment.Clearly SGB misunderstands the Kitzmiller ruling. Judge Jones emphatically declared it is "utterly false" to believe that "evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being." Judge Jones even ruled that evolution "in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator." (online version, page 136) It thus seems highly unlikely that Judge Jones would agree with SGB that religion is "a brain virus" or that Judge Jones intended his ruling to be used a polemic against all religion.Religion can be compared to a brain virus. Religion impedes a person's capacity to think rationally. If the members of a public school's governing board try to inject that disease into the brains of children then their efforts should be stopped cold. I therefore applaud Judge Jones' ruling in the Kitzmiller case.
Intelliget [sic] design is not science!
Sincerely, [SGB]
cc: Casey Luskin, Richard Dawkins, Glenn Branch
(emphasis added)
Despite Judge Jones' efforts, it’s clear that persons such as SGB (and Richard Dawkins) are happy to rely upon Kitzmiller as part of their crusade against religion. But 2 questions remain:
(1) Do SGB's actions support Judge Jones’ bold holding that evolution "in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator"? (emphasis added)SGB and Judge Jones Have More Common Ground than They Think(2) In light of these quotes from Judge Jones, what business does a federal judge have ruling on the proper theological interpretation of a scientific theory? The quote from U.S. v. Ballard answers this question below.
In conclusion, all should be reminded of a passage from a famous U.S. Supreme Court case from the 1940s which makes it clear that it is not the business of a court to declare any religious belief false under any circumstances:
Heresy trials are foreign to our Constitution. Men may believe what they cannot prove. They may not be put to the proof of their religious doctrines or beliefs. ... The religious views espoused by respondents might seem incredible, if not preposterous, to most people. But if those doctrines are subject to trial before a jury charged with finding their truth or falsity, then the same can be done with the religious beliefs of any sect. When the triers of fact undertake that task, they enter a forbidden domain.See here for more details.(U.S. v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, at 86–7 (1944) (internal citations omitted))
Spoof.Com has a funny article, “Flaws Found in Intelligent Design Theory,” poking fun at dysteleological arguments against ID. The parody has biochemist “Dr. Jack Harvey” complaining about the fact that penguins can’t fly and that they must live in a very harsh environment. “Dr. Harvey” goes on to complain that humans aren’t designed because they sometimes have large noses and illness. The article said, “Some scientists say that Harvey's claims bolster the ridiculous idea of ‘evolution’.” If only this type of thing really were a spoof. Unfortunately, Darwinists make these fallacious arguments all the time. For example, today at Uncommon Descent, William Dembski discusses how various scientist have mocked the Christian hymn “Battle Hymn of the Republic” by singing about our “incompetent design” due to back pain. But Rutgers University English Professor George Levine takes first prize. In his book, Darwin Loves You, Levine actually makes precisely the same argument about penguins spoofed in the Spoof.com article:
What designer with any competence and with any compassion at all would construct a mode of living and survival that entails so much pain, so much awkwardness, such clumsy reuse of organs and limbs apparently adapted for other purposes? Why force aquatic birds (with wings that don’t work as means to flight but are already readapted for swimming) to “march” for seventy miles from their source of food to their breeding grounds, or to walk on their heels for months in order to protect the egg from touching the ice and immediately freezing? Was it an intelligent designer, or the penguins, who figured out that this was a manageable way to do things, and then did it?Even some serious publications by scientists repeat these arguments. In National Geographic in November, 2006, Carl Zimmer claimed (among other things) that our eyes aren’t designed because our retinas may become detached during a strong physical jolt. In August, 2003, Scientific American had a special issue which argued that evolution has caused “imperfection” because we have small ears, bipedal locomotion, and various illnesses associated with aging. The new anti-ID book Intelligent Thought relies heavily upon such dysteleological arguments, as evolutionary anthropologist Scott Atran asks, “Why did he [the designer] give us just one head, heart, and liver, instead of two, like lungs and kidneys?” The list of such fallacious dysteleological objections to ID never ends.(George Levine, Darwin Loves You: Natural Selection and the Reenchantment of the World (Princeton University Press, 2006), pgs. 256-257)
All of these arguments make two false assumptions: (1) that the designer must only make things which are pain-free and have no suboptimal features, and (2) that the design is indeed suboptimal. In short, all of these dysteleological arguments about pain or suboptimality are theological arguments which do not make a dent in the scientific theory of design. As Dembski says in response to the "Incompetent Design" song, "yes, the performance is poor, but poor design is not the absence of design." These Darwinists are making theological objections (to which many religions have very good theological answers) which have nothing to do with the scientific theory of intelligent design. As I wrote in response to Zimmer:
Was the Ford Pinto, with all its imperfections revealed in crash tests, not designed? Zimmer thus presents a straw-man argument against intelligent design, based upon his view that a designer must design things to withstand a certain type of malicious physical attack. This is not a scientific objection, but a theological objection. As a scientific theory, intelligent design does not require that systems always survive malicious physical beatings: as a science, ID requires the detection of specified complexity, and the moral purposes of the designer or the "perfection" of the design are irrelevant when determining whether an object was designed. But Carl Zimmer's personal theological views have no bearing upon the science of intelligent design. A more interesting question is, Why has National Geographic become a mouthpiece for a view of theology that states that a designer must design things to withstand certain types of physical attacks?Spoof.com should realize that they weren’t really spoofing anything, and that Darwinists make these fallacious arguments with a straight face all the time.
The Scidev Network is run out of the UK and seems to be focused on Latin America, South America, Africa, the Middle-East and Asia.
The Science and Development Network (SciDev.Net) aims to provide reliable and authoritative information about science and technology for the developing world.The organization "aims to provide reliable and authoritative information about science and technology for the developing world" with their goal being "to help both individuals and organisations in developing countries make informed decisions about how science and technology can improve economic and social development." They have an interesting section of their website devoted to explaining to scientists and non-journalists how to work with the media and how to communicate their messages to reporters.
Two recent articles caught my interest immediately, "Explaining controversial issues to the media and the public" and "Reporting on controversies in science." I'm always interested in seeing how people are advising the public to convey their message, as well as how journalist are being advised on how to report those stories.
The first article on explaining controversies to the media provided several very good points which scientists on both sides of the Darwin debate would be well advised to heed:
In many cases, scientists can make it more difficult for the public or journalists to understand an issue clearly. They may speculate casually about the implications of preliminary findings that have not been fully examined. They may use jargon that proves impenetrable to the layperson.I work with scientists all the time. And it is sometimes difficult to get them to remember that not everybody is an expert in evo-devo or paleontology. They have to craft their message to the level of the audience they are addressing, which, for people with PhDs, is sometimes not that easy.
Some additional points made by the author:
Ultimately, you are seeking to leave your audience with a clear understanding, neither exaggerating nor underplaying the controversy that surrounds the issue. You should be willing to acknowledge conflicts and to explain clearly why they exist, even if your own views put you firmly on one side of an argument.Imagine if most of the reporting on the origins debate followed these same guidelines. All we have ever required of the media is accuracy and fairness. If reporters are going to quote three evolutionary biologists supporting Darwinian evolution, they also should try to quote scientists who are critics of Darwinism, letting them make their case in their own words and respond to any rebuttals. This is what is known as civil debate. Some reporters are better than others, and hopefully we can encourage more of them to be responsible.You may also be asked to comment on the motivations of individuals who are involved in a controversial issue, because these can add ‘colour’ to a story. Be careful not to cause offence, and do not speculate. In many cases, opposing views in a controversy are honestly held, and the protagonists and their supporters will hardly welcome comments that cast doubt on their integrity, for instance by suggesting they have an ulterior motive for their views.
Remember that some degree of uncertainty exists in almost every area of science. Be prepared to explain how significant the evidence is and make sure you recognise when other scientists might credibly offer different interpretations of it. Make a clear distinction between evidence and the conclusions drawn from it. Even when the evidence is inconclusive, you should indicate where the weight of evidence and opinion lies, although there is a chance that a minority view may ultimately be proved correct. (emphasis mine)
The second article, "Reporting on controversies in science", also had some good advice.
Journalists are obliged to be inquisitive, sceptical and fair to all sides of the debate. They cannot be sure of being right, but they can try to be responsible.Compare this to the advice given last year by Chris Mooney and Matthew Nisbet in "Undoing Darwin" in the Columbia Journalism Review. Mooney and Nesbit are upset that ID might ever get fair and balanced treatment by the media, when clearly there is no debate and Darwinian evolution is a fact (if not a downright law of nature in their point of view).But remember that mostly scientists will be telling you something that seems to be the case, at that moment, on the evidence of the latest research. They are unlikely to be lying ... But they may be mistaken, misled or just too fond of a theory to give it up. If in doubt, talk to a scientist from a competing research group. (again, emphasis is mine)
Distinguished scientists tend to be more confident, and more persuasive, than younger researchers; but they are, in some cases, just as likely to be wrong.
A reporter’s job is to report the latest evidence, the latest twist in a debate.
As evolution, driven by such events, shifts out of scientific realms and into political and legal ones, it ceases to be covered by context-oriented science reporters and is instead bounced to political pages, opinion pages, and television news. And all these venues, in their various ways, tend to deemphasize the strong scientific case in favor of evolution and instead lend credence to the notion that a growing "controversy" exists over evolutionary science. This notion may be politically convenient, but it is false.Their idea of good science writing is to report that Darwinian evolution is a fact, and ID is not science. Any paper that doesn't do this consistently gets into trouble — even those who do side with them, but somehow let things slip through the cracks, are taken to task.
At two elite national papers, The New York Times and The Washington Post, the opinion pages sided heavily with evolution. But even there a false sense of scientific controversy was arguably abetted when The New York Times allowed Michael Behe, the prominent ID proponent, to write a full-length op-ed explaining why his is a "scientific" critique of evolution.One might expect that Pravda adhere to party dictated guidelines like these when writing about communism. But when writing about science does a reporter have to report only what the AAAS dictates? Mooney and Nesbit think so.
Perhaps journalists should consider that, unlike other social controversies — over abortion or gay marriage, for instance — the evolution debate is not solely a matter of subjective morality or political opinion. Rather, a definitive standard has been set by the scientific community on the science of evolution, and can easily be used to evaluate competing claims. Scientific societies, including the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, have taken strong stances affirming that evolution is the bedrock of modern biology. In such a situation, journalistic coverage that helps fan the flames of a nonexistent scientific controversy (and misrepresents what’s actually known) simply isn’t appropriate.News editors are advised to:
At the very least, newspaper editors should think twice about assigning reporters who are fresh to the evolution issue and allowing them to default to the typical strategy frame, carefully balancing "both sides" of the issue in order to file a story on time and get around sorting through the legitimacy of the competing claims.At least when it comes to the opinion pages, Mooney and Nesbit are willing to ease up a little bit and actually let some opinions get published. But hey editors, don't let your sense of fairness get carried away!
When it comes to opinion pages, meanwhile, there’s certainly more room for dissent because of the nature of the forum — but that doesn’t mean editorial-page editors can’t act as responsible gatekeepers.Maybe Mooney and Nesbit should familiarize themselves with the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics. Part of the preamble it states that "The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues." It doesn't say to present what another association deems is fair, or to report only one side of an issue.
If they want to be professional journalists then here are three points from the code of ethics that Mooney and Nesbit need to work on.
Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
[Editor's Note: This blog post was mistakenly listed as the last in a four part series, when in fact it is the third. The fourth and final installlment will be published in the near future.]
This is the third installment of a four-part series responding to Larry Arnhart’s comments about my book, Darwin’s Conservatives: The Misguided Quest. The first and second installments can be found here and here.
3. Darwinism and Religion
In the section of my book on religion, I make clear that “evolution” can be compatible with theism in general and Biblical theism in particular—depending on how one defines the term “evolution.” If all one means by “evolution” is “change over time,” or “microevolution” through natural selection, or even biological “common descent,” then evolution would seem perfectly compatible with most forms of theism. Only if one insists that evolution is an undirected Darwinian process of chance and necessity, with no particular end in view, does there seem to be a serious problem with traditional theism. But even here there are at least two potential solutions.
First, one could choose to believe that evolution is a directed process even though it looks undirected. As I explain in my book, most consistent Darwinists would reject such a view because it essentially guts Darwinism’s core claim that evolution is undirected. Alternatively, one could stress that Darwin’s theory, strictly speaking, begins after the first life has developed, and so it does not necessarily refute the claim that there may be some kind of “first cause” to the universe that stands outside of nature. I agree with Arnhart that this second view is logically possible according to Darwinism. However, in his book Darwinian Conservatism, Arnhart claims not only that Darwinism is compatible with the idea that there is a “first cause,” but that it is “compatible... particularly with biblical theism.” (emphasis added) I am highly skeptical of the latter claim. As I explain in my book, the God of the Bible actively supervises and directs the development of life in a way that is detectable, but this is precisely the kind of God that Darwinism cannot allow.
In an effort to answer my objection, Arnhart comes up with the inventive claim that
Does Darwinsim lead to Moral Relativism? Click here to watch a video clip from Dr. John West's presentation on his book Darwin's Conservatives.
Darwinian evolution and intelligent design theory are in the same boat here. They are both open to the possibility that nature depends on some supernatural First Cause. But whether this is the “God of the Bible” is a matter of faith beyond any rational study of nature. As West admits, the proponents of intelligent design cannot determine “whether the intelligent cause is the Judeo-Christian God.”But this is another false analogy. True, both Darwinism and intelligent design are open to the possibility of a transcendent First Cause of the universe. But only intelligent design is open to the further possibility that a transcendent First Cause could have personally directed and guided the development of life—which is the particular claim made by traditional Judeo-Christian theism. It is this further possibility that orthodox Darwinism clearly denies. In the words of an open letter signed in the late 1990s by more than 100 evolutionists, “the possibility that evolution is in fact supervised in a personal matter... is a prospect that every evolutionary biologist should vigorously and positively deny.” (See p. 16 of my book for documentation.)
Intelligent design as a scientific theory cannot prove whether the intelligent cause behind life is the God of the Bible. But—unlike Darwinism—it leaves open the genuine possibility that such an intelligent cause exists, allowing philosophers and theologians to continue to discuss and debate this possibility.
4. Darwinism and Intelligent Design
Arnhart has little to say about my chapter on Darwinism and intelligent design, except to continue to insist that “for ID to have some positive content, its proponents would have to explain exactly where, where, when, and how a disembodied intelligence designed ‘irreducibly complex’ structures like the bacterial flagellum.” I think the response in my book to that charge still stands:
But why? Can’t we know that something was produced by an intelligent cause even if we do not know the method used by the intelligent cause? If I am hiking in the d