An article, by Robert Meyer at American Daily, came across my desk recently that, in my mind, sums up the problems that arise when we try to debate evolution. It illustrates several of the misconceptions about evolutionary theory as well as exposes some of the rhetorical defenses anti-evolutionists stand behind, especially the concept of "elitism". It is important to fisk it in its entirety.
As the debate over Intelligent Design vs. evolutionary theory tends to
flair up now and again, it is important to register some observations
about the nature of the controversy.
Darwinian evolution, or at least some contemporary derivative
of it, is the predominant, if not the exclusive view of origin taught
in public school. To justify such deference, we note that presumed
intellectuals will smugly characterize any opposition as an argument of
science versus superstition, or the like.
First of all, Darwinian evolution is not a "view of origin" the way the author intends (and his readers will assume) it to be; it is the predominant view of the origin of speciation, not the origin of life. The scientific view on the origin of life is called abiogenesis, the hypothesis that life arose via chemical reactions from non-living material. Abiogenesis is much less supported than evolution, is not taught as fact in schools (or if it is, it should not be) and has little to do with Darwinism. It is important that this distinction be understood before a proper debate can ensue.
Secondly, we see that in the second paragraph the author has already characterized evolutionists as "intellectuals" who are "smug" and think of all other arguments as merely "superstition". If anti-evolutionists want evolutionists to respect their opinions, they should respect ours.
This proposition of science in contrast to theology, philosophy or
superstition sets up the classic false dilemma. Consider the statement
that the only valid knowledge is that which can be empirically
verified.
This is the first misleading statement that anti-evolutionists often make, that science is in contrast to philosophy or theology. And the author, below, will embrace his false dilemma as willingly as he tries to condemn it. The only valid scientific knowledge is that which can be empirically verified. We gain human knowledge from many aspects of our lives. There are theological truths that require certain criteria to be valid. But truth cannot contradict truth; that is, knowledge of our human existence gleaned from theology and philosophy cannot contradict nor be contradicted by knowledge gleaned from science. Evolution says nothing about our soul or our morality, nor should it.
It must be ascertainable through the five-senses, testable,
observable, subject to falsification. If not, then such information is
basically unintelligible and meaningless. We ask how many of these
categories are representative of evolutionary theories? Who has
observed the evolutionary theories we casually postulate with little
mental reservation? Who has replicated Evolution in the laboratory.
Evolutionary theory was not, and is not, casually postulated. Darwin came up against great opposition when it was first proposed. The evidence for the theory, now more than before, is overwhelming. But even more glaring is the author's misconception of what is testable and observable. In order for things to be tested in a laboratory they do not need to be completely replicated. We do not need to recreate a heart to know that it beats and pumps blood. "Replicated" is of course a deliberate word choice, because while evolution hasn't been replicated it most certainly has been observed. It is observed daily by scientists working in fields of genetics, physiology, biochemistry, paleontology, practically every life science field.
Whenever the fossil record is presented as a witness against evolution,
we see retooling of the processes, but never doubt about the
plausibility of the theory itself. How would Evolution be falsified if
indeed it could be? Reasonable questions–but don’t dare to ask them
without being quickly branded a stark-raving mad fundamentalist. If
both ID and Evolution are metaphysical theories, why give one
consideration over the other with a virtual monopoly?
To my knowledge the fossil record has never been presented as a witness against evolution. To be certain, there are gaps in the fossil record. Bu these "reasonable questions" are indeed being asked by scientists, and answered by scientists. Simply because evolutionary theory doesn't answer every single question now doesn't mean that it never will. In fact, the more scientists search, the more these "gaps" in the fossil record are filled in by consistant, plausible data. Evolution is not metaphysical; interestingly enough neither is ID. It's also very clear that this author has never actually studied ID or he would know that ID is a biochemical hypothesis for an intelligent creator, not a paleontological one and therefore invoking gaps in the fossil record is a red herring. So I will pose my own "reasonable" biochemical question; if irreducibly complex biological structures are evidence of a planned design, how do ID proponents explain the unused, primitive, useless genes that are peppered throughout the genome of every organism?
That brings us to the issue of academic freedom. It is applauded when
it is used to question the boundaries of conventional morality, it is
sneered at when it is applied in opposition to the presuppositions of
orthodoxy pertaining to scientific naturalism. We are told that few
“credible” scientists doubt Evolution. Maybe that’s because few
scientists who are skeptical of Evolution are perceived as “credible”.
One is indicative of the other. When your career is threatened, it is
easy to be swallowed up in “groupthink” and consensus. Doubting
Evolution might make one a “yokel”, but it still won’t solve the many
independent problems of evolutionary theories.
Now we see that the author is embracing the false dilemma that he earlier chided. By using the terms "orthodoxy", "naturalism" and "doubting" he places evolution in terms of metaphysical philosophy. But it is not. Some scientists do embrace scientific naturalism as a worldview. Let them. It's not necessary to understanding and accepting evolution. Not believing evolution. No one believes in evolution; they either accept science or reject science, preferably on its merits. No one believes in the theory of gravitation (which ironically is less understood scientifically than evolution). No one believes in the theory of relativity. The question is, are you going to let accept or reject evolution or ID based on its scientific merits? One might take evolution and use one's understanding of it to formulate a naturalistic philosophy of life. But in no way does that take away from the validity of evolution as a scientific theory.
We wonder what it is that evolutionists fear? If they are correct on
the basis of overwhelming scientific evidence, then comparisons with
competing theories of origin will fold like a deck of cards.
Interesting. We don't fear anything other than bad science. I hate to break it to the author, but ID has folded like a deck of cards. Those uncourageous scientists who cave to "groupthink"? They don't exist. Any serious examination of ID, and it folds. The scientific community has thoroughly debunked ID. Which is why we don't want it taught in schools. When another valid, better theory comes along to replace the perfectly good one that we have, then we'll teach it. There are a few people in this country who believe the earth is flat. Should they be given equal time to the round-earthers?
But they don’t want such comparative analysis to take place. You see,
these Intelligent Design theories sound convincing to people who don’t
understand the technicalities, principles and nuances that preoccupy
enlightened minds. That is part of the reason given for the poor
showing by Evolutionists in their debates with Ceationists. You might
think they would realize that there are only so many people of 160 plus
IQ’s on the far reaches of the Bell Curve. It is hard to build a
movement on a body of thought that is so esoteric. But folks have a way
of stumbling over their own hubris. What they want is to have their own
oligopoly of philosopher-kings to reign in the ignorant throngs of
rabble.
And that is where anti-evolutionist really annoy me; the accusation of the hubris of the educated elite. I wouldn't presume to tell my doctor what was wrong with me because I'd watched a few episodes of ER. I trust that he knows more about medicine than I do. Sure, I don't get the "technicalities, principles and nuances that preoccupy" his "enlightened mind", but I think he knows a bit more about it than I do. So when a group of trained mathematicians tell you that all the information theory supporting intelligent design, laid out by a man who has never published a single peer-reviewed article in a reputable (or even disreputable) mathematics journal, and whose book was reviewd by philosophers not mathematicians, is wrong and that you are being misled, it is not merely because evolution is esoteric and they want their own oligopoly of philosopher-kings; we teach evolution in schools because we want the masses to not be ignorant. Pretending that ID is valid science would keep them ignorant.
Recently, a popular local editorial writer, saw fit to compare intelligent design with Egyptian mythology, featuring a god who masturbates the universe into existence. And yet don’t non-Creationists have their own counterpart in the ludicrous propositions of “panspermia” theories? Personally I don’t have the faith to believe that a universe of impersonal matter created itself out of nothing, and then evolved into meaning, purposefulness, logic and reason.
It seems that the promulgation of evolutionary theories have little to do critical thinking, and more to do with eliminating any considerations about the implications of the Creator’s existence.
And finally we return to the original false assumption, that evolution eliminates any considerations about a divine creator. Evolution eliminates any considerations that God created man de novo by scultping him out of clay. Science informs only one aspect of our lives; theology informs another. Evolution is not abiogenesis and evolution does not exclude a creator. People who support ID are uncomfortable about evolution because they think it calls into question their purpose and spark of divinity. Evolution denies the existence of a soul only if you let it. We shouldn't give it more power than it should have.
