Disbelieving Darwin--And Feeling No Shame!

The irony of the theory of evolution is that since 1859 when Charles Darwin published the “Origin of Species” and made the phrase “natural selection” a household term, the theory has not evolved! It is in fact a dinosaur. When you look objectively at the ruminations of science over the last 150 years- theory upon theory, in almost every endeavour and discipline, has been revised, overhauled or just plain cast down and replaced by superseding theories or newly discovered evidence pointing to further revision of the natural laws. Increasing rumbles of disquiet are heard within the hallowed halls of science where eminent scientists of both theistic and atheistic or agnostic persuasion are raising questions as to the validity of the theory’s ability to adequately answer the question of life’s origins in the light of increasing awareness of the awesome complexity of life at the molecular genetics level. This alone should arouse the suspicion that the commitment to it as a respectable and adequate summation of the vast diversity of life which best corresponds to reality has more to do with commitment to it as a faith or belief system or even dogmatism than it has to being the most reasonable explanation available to science.

Admittedly there are attempts to bring Darwin up to speed such as the “punctuated equilibrium” modification, which seeks to answer why
“the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin was virtually nonexistent in the fossil record” (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) but on the whole the theory stands much as Darwin wrote it and is enthusiastically propounded by scientists like Richard Dawkins.
It is refreshing to read these remarks from the pen of William Dembski-

(I have published this piece in its entirety as found on this webpage: http://www.designinference.com/documents/2000.03.feeling_no_shame.htm hoping I am not infringing copyright! The moderator)

William A. Dembski Baylor UniversityMarch 16, 2000

Science, we are told, is tentative. And given the history of science, there is every reason for science to be tentative. No scientific theory withstands revision for long, and many are eventually superseded by theories that flatly contradict their predecessors. Scientific revolutions are common, painful, and real. New theories regularly overturn old ones, and no scientific theory is ever the final word. But if science is tentative, scientists are not. As philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn rightly noted, it takes a revolution to change scientific theories precisely because scientists do not hold their theories tentatively. Thus, in his Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn quotes with approval Max Planck, who wrote: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." No scientist with a career invested in a scientific theory is going to relinquish it easily. And a good thing that is! The only way to make headway with a theory is to be fully invested in it. Scientific theories are frameworks for solving problems. Scientists risk their careers and livelihoods working on theories they hope will solve interesting problems. Consequently, scientists need to be persuaded that their theories provide not only fundamental and profound insights, but also avenues of research sufficiently fruitful to span an entire scientific career (typically forty or so years). By itself a scientist's lack of tentativeness poses no danger to science. It only becomes a danger when it turns to dogmatism. Typically, a scientist's lack of tentativeness toward a scientific theory simply means that the scientist is convinced the theory is substantially correct. Scientists are fully entitled to such convictions. On the other hand, scientists who hold their theories dogmatically go on to assert that their theories cannot be incorrect. How can a scientist keep from descending into dogmatism? The only way I know is to look oneself squarely in the mirror and continually affirm: I may be wrong . . . I may be massively wrong . . . I may be hopelessly and irretrievably wrong--and mean it! It's not enough just to mouth these words. We need to take them seriously and admit that they can apply even to our most cherished scientific beliefs. A simple induction from past scientific failures should be enough to convince us that the only thing about which we cannot be wrong is the possibility that we might be wrong. This radical skepticism cuts much deeper than Cartesian skepticism, which always admitted some privileged domains of knowledge that were immune to doubt (for Descartes mathematics and theology constituted such domains). At the same time, this radical skepticism is consonant with an abiding faith in human inquiry and its ability to render the world intelligible. Indeed, the conviction with which scientists hold their scientific theories, so long as it is free of dogmatism, is just another word for faith. This faith sees the scientific enterprise as fundamentally worthwhile even if any of its particular claims and theories are subject to ruin. In place of faith in the scientific enterprise, dogmatism substitutes unreasoning certainty in particular claims and theories of science. Now the problem with dogmatism is that it is always a form of self-deception. If Socrates taught us anything, it's that we always know a lot less than we think we know. Dogmatism deceives us into thinking we have attained ultimate mastery and that divergence of opinion is futile. Self-deception is the original sin. Richard Feynman put it this way: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool." What's more, Feynman was particularly concerned about applying this principle to the public understanding of science: "You should not fool the laymen when you're talking as a scientist.... I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is [more than] not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong." I open with these general remarks about tentativeness and dogmatism in science because their importance is too frequently neglected in discussions of biological evolution. It hardly makes for a free and open exchange of ideas when biologist Richard Dawkins asserts, "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." Nor does philosopher Michael Ruse help matters when he trumpets, "Evolution is a fact, fact, FACT!" Nor for that matter does Stephen Jay Gould's protegè Michael Shermer promote insight into natural selection when he announces, "No one, and I mean no one, working in the field is debating whether natural selection is the driving force behind evolution, much less whether evolution happened or not." Such remarks, and especially the attitude behind them, do nothing to settle the ongoing controversy over evolution. Gallup polls consistently indicate that only about ten percent of the U.S. population accepts the sort of evolution advocated by Dawkins, Ruse, and Shermer, that is, evolution in which the driving force is the Darwinian selection mechanism. The rest of the population is committed to some form of intelligent design. Now it goes without saying that science is not decided in an opinion poll. Nevertheless, the overwhelming rejection of Darwinian evolution in the population at large is worth pondering. Although Michael Shermer exaggerates when he claims that no research biologist doubts the power of natural selection, he is certainly right in claiming that this is the majority position among biologists. Why has the biological community failed to convince the public that natural selection is the driving force behind evolution and that evolution so conceived (i.e., Darwinian evolution) can successfully account for the full diversity of life? This question is worth pondering since in most other areas of science the public readily signs off on the considered judgments of the scientific community. Why not here? Steeped as our culture is in the fundamentalist-modernist controversy, the usual answer is that religious fundamentalists, blinded by their dogmatic prejudices, willfully refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming case for Darwinian evolution. Although there may be something to this charge, fundamentalist intransigence cannot be solely responsible for the overwhelming rejection of Darwinian evolution by the public. Fundamentalism in the sense of strict biblical literalism is a minority position among religious believers. Most religious traditions do not make a virtue out of alienating the culture. Despite postmodernity's inroads, science retains tremendous cultural prestige. The religious world by and large would rather live in harmony with the scientific world. Most religious believers accept that species have undergone significant changes over the course of natural history and therefore that evolution in some sense has occurred (consider, for instance, Pope John Paul II's recent endorsement of evolution). The question for religious believers and the public more generally is not the fact of evolution but the mechanism of evolutionary change--that chance and necessity alone are enough to explain life. I submit that the real reason the public continues to resist Darwinian evolution is because the Darwinian mechanism of chance variation and natural selection seems inadequate to account for the full diversity of life. One frequently gets the sense from reading publications by the National Academy of Science, the National Center for Science Education, and the National Association of Biology Teachers that the failure of the public to accept Darwinian evolution is a failure in education. If only people could be made to understand Darwin's theory properly, so we are told, they would readily sign off on it. This presumption--that the failure of Darwinism to be accepted is a failure of education--leads easily to the charge of fundamentalism once education has been tried and found wanting. For what else could be preventing Darwinism's immediate and cheerful acceptance except religious prejudice? It seems ridiculous to convinced Darwinists that the fault might lie with their theory and that the public might be picking up on faults inherent in their theory. And yet that is exactly what is happening. The public need feel no shame at disbelieving and openly criticizing Darwinism. Most scientific theories these days are initially published in specialized journals or monographs, and are directed toward experts assumed to possess considerable technical background. Not so Darwin's theory. The locus classicus for Darwin's theory remains his Origin of Species. In it Darwin took his case to the public. Contemporary Darwinists likewise continue to take their case to the public. The books of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Stephen Jay Gould, E. O. Wilson, and a host of other biologists and philosophers aim to convince a skeptical public about the merits of Darwin's theory. These same authors commend the public when it finds their arguments convincing. But when the public remains unconvinced, commendation turns to condemnation. Daniel Dennett even recommends "quarantining" parents who teach their children to doubt Darwinism (see the end of his Darwin's Dangerous Idea). How is it that the public is commended for its scientific acumen when it accepts Darwinian evolutionary theory, but disparaged for its scientific insensibility when it doubts that same theory? The mark of dogmatism is to reward conformity and punish dissent. If contemporary science does indeed belong to the culture of rational discourse, then it must repudiate dogmatism and authoritarianism in all guises. If the public can be trusted to evaluate the case for Darwinism--and this is what Darwinists tacitly assume whenever they publish books on Darwinism for the public--then it is unfair to turn against the public when it decides that the case for Darwinism is unconvincing. Why does the public find the case for Darwinism unconvincing? Fundamentalism aside, the claim that the Darwinian mechanism of chance variation and natural selection can generate the full range of biological diversity strikes people as an unwarranted extrapolation from the limited changes that mechanism is known to effect in practice. The hard empirical evidence for the power of the Darwinian mechanism is in fact quite limited (e.g., finch beak variation, changes in moth coloration, and development in bacteria of antibiotic resistance). For instance, finch beak size does vary according to environmental pressure. The Darwinian mechanism does operate here and accounts for the changes we observe. But that same Darwinian mechanism is also supposed to account for how finches arose in the first place. This is an extrapolation. Strict Darwinists see it as perfectly plausible. The public remains unconvinced. But shouldn't the public simply defer to the scientists--after all, they are the experts? But which scientists? It's certainly the case that the majority of the scientific community accepts Darwinism. But science is not decided at the ballot box, and Darwinism's acceptance among scientists is hardly universal. A growing movement of scientists known as "design theorists" are advocating a theory known as "intelligent design." Intelligent design argues that complex, information rich biological structures cannot arise by undirected natural forces but instead require a guiding intelligence. These are reputable scientists who argue their case on strictly scientific grounds and who are publishing their results in accepted academic outlets (cf. my own work, that of Jonathan Wells, Siegfried Scherer, and others; cf. also www.baylor.edu/~polanyi). Whether intelligent design is the theory that ultimately overturns Darwinism is not the issue. The issue is whether the scientific community is willing to eschew dogmatism and admit as a live possibility that even its most cherished views might be wrong. Scientists have been wrong in the past and will continue to be wrong, both in the niggling details and in the broad conceptual matters. Darwinism is one scientific theory that attempts to account for the history of life; but it is not the only scientific theory that could possibly account for it. It is a widely disputed theory, one that is facing ever more trenchant criticisms, and like any other scientific theory needs periodic reality checks.

Science is not the only field of endeavour where there is great difficulty in "turning the tide of opinion" . Theology too has inertial akinesis as this quote from Martin Luther illustrates:
"Learn from me how difficult a thing it is to throw off errors confirmed by the example of all the world, and which through long habit have become a second nature to us."

The Language of Natural Selection

Natural Selection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common, due to differential reproduction of genotypes. Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, such that individuals with favorable phenotypes are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with less favorable phenotypes. The phenotype's genetic basis, genotype associated with the favorable phenotype, will increase in frequency over the following generations. Over time, this process may result in adaptations that specialize organisms for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species. In other words, natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution may take place in a population of a specific organism.
Natural selection is one of the cornerstones of modern biology. The term was introduced by Charles Darwin in his groundbreaking 1859 book The Origin of Species[1] in which natural selection was described by analogy to artificial selection, a process by which animals with traits considered desirable by human breeders are systematically favored for reproduction. The concept of natural selection was originally developed in the absence of a valid theory of inheritance; at the time of Darwin's writing, nothing was known of modern genetics. Although Gregor Mendel, the father of modern genetics, was a contemporary of Darwin's, his work would lie in obscurity until the early 20th century. The union of traditional Darwinian evolution with subsequent discoveries in classical and molecular genetics is termed the modern evolutionary synthesis. Although other mechanisms of molecular evolution, such as the neutral theory advanced by Motoo Kimura, have been identified as important causes of genetic diversity, natural selection remains the single primary explanation for adaptive evolution. (Emphasis mine)

The above text as indicated has been taken from Wikipedia the free encyclopedic reference on the world wide web.

What I want to illustrate using this text as an example, is how certain forms of language are smuggled in and borrowed in subtle ways, and sometimes not so subtle which show the underlying presuppositions and assumptions of the writer and all who are influenced by him/her.

Remember although this is an elementary and basic piece of free information on what is an exceedingly widely accepted theory which in point of fact has gone well beyond the realm of theory in most peoples minds (scientific community especially), it is still an accurate reflection, and representative of what more sophisticated proponents of the theory espouse. I am sure the same tendencies would be apparent in more stringently edited scientific papers of the same ilk. Remember- this is science, neutral, objective,impartial, interested-only-in-the-facts-science.

In the first two words of the piece the underlying assumptions are immediately apparent.

Natural selection- how often has that phrase been bandied about! What is selection? How is the term ordinarily used? Ordinary people use the term when they describe how they might choose a watermelon at the supermarket. Some people check the withered stalk, you will find others smell it, yet others take to tapping it and listening intently. The one thing that all these methods have in common is: someone is distinguishing a valued one, from one to put back by using their minds in different ways to find how ripe it is and therefore its suitability to eat. What is important to notice is that "selection" is a value judgement- a function of a mind.

But of course we all knew that, that’s why the word Natural needed to be planted in front. The word natural dare I say naturally means: of nature. Its purported meaning may be more contextually gleaned from a bit further down the piece where we have a comparison with artificial selection.

Natural selection is one of the cornerstones of modern biology. The term was introduced by Charles Darwin in his groundbreaking 1859 book The Origin of Species[1] in which natural selection was described by analogy to artificial selection, a process by which animals with traits considered desirable by human breeders are systematically favored for reproduction

So Darwin intended, by introducing this phrase, to show that a process similar (by analogy) to that of human breeders was taking place all by itself, that is without a mind. I would venture to say that the really novel thing about this phrase is that never before had the word selection been used without reference to some mind except perhaps as a metaphor.
When human breeders of animals practice their skills they must start with certain things in mind- and I italicize those words deliberately and emphatically. They have in mind deliberate standards to which they are aiming. As cow breeders we were looking for and indeed aiming for by choosing, selecting bulls with certain favourable characteristics to breed with cows who had favourable characteristics that we wished to enhance or maintain. Now look at the words that have been used with reference to breeding. But not just my words, those that have appeared in the above piece also.
Favourable or favoured: again we see that this is a word borrowed from cognizant beings, never before used without reference to God or man. To favour means to look upon with favour, that is either to bestow some benefit with respect to and because of something that the recipient has done or because of what it is. Another form of favour is to bestow some benefit unconditionally, that is for nothing the recipient has done or not for any state of being in the recipient. Nevertheless favour is a word always (at least until Darwin) used in conjunction with reason- a faculty of mind.

Desirable: Here again the word is never ordinarily used without reference to a mind or at the least an animate being. But in Darwins terms an inanimate, mindless entity called nature is expressing not only an ability to select but desire and favour. It does not end here, these ideas are all tied up with a master plan, another term which goes hand in hand with a reasoning, cognizant mind.

Systematic: We have got so used to using these words in the context of science as in solar system but they have been divorced from their original context of a machine or process which stemmed from an idea or design from a designer in short from the workings of rational being or beings.

So we have these words and phrases used in the context of a mindless entity which in any other context are always used in conjunction with rational, reasoning minds.
· Selection
· Favourable
· Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism. Whatever acts as a response in the form of favour or selection is accorded under normal uses of language the dignity of rational mind.

All of this is ascribed in Natural Selection to a mindless entity called nature.

In plain language a mindless something had a plan and a goal for achieving better and better bred creatures and was achieving it by favouring creatures with survival as a reward for the recipient having certain desirable characteristics that the mindless thing could recognize and reward and favour. One wonders why Richard Dawkins used the analogy at all in his book the "Blind Watchmaker". After all if the watchmaker is blind as well as mindless he can hardly be called a watchmaker, why even the gender specific "he"? Oh that is just his point you say- Well why then is the language employed in Evolutionary Theory inseperable from the identical sort of language one ordinarily employs in the description of a complex goal oriented, rationally designed, mechanically orchestrated, purpose driven process or system? The short answer is because it cannot be seperated. The microsm as in the macrocosm is so complex and yet so accessible and intelligible because they have a common ultimate origin which is also (to a degree) intelligible- the Logos. And therefore we, endowed with intellect are able to know even as we are known. It takes one to know one.

Call it Darwinian Evolution or modern evolutionary synthesis, at bottom if people are going to use the terms: selection, favour, acting on observable behaviours, there is no getting away from the fact that these terms are all functions and capacities of a reasoning mind. How can non-mind reward, favour, or act on observable characteristics? If it is mindless nature then even if it had eyes to see observable characteristics it certainly could not reward them because it didn’t have a mind to! And if it didn’t have a mind how could it distinguish favourable from unfavourable characteristics. If it didn’t have a mind how could it even think of the term favourable? If it didn’t have a mind how could it (even over the sort of time frame commonly spoken of) reward favourable characteristics? These terms only have meaning within the context of reasoning minds.

No we have to look closer at the underlying reasons for the almost hysterical reactions from certain quarters when thoughtful people have attempted to offer another explanation for the vexed problem of origins. In a paper written by Alvin Plantinga ("When Faith and Reason Clash: Evolution and the Bible." University of Notre DameIN 46556) Plantinga relates this quote by the famous atheist Richard Dawkins-

"although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin," said he, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

Scientists with a naturalistic mindset have an axe to grind:

In other words Darwin finally made it possible to give a plausible explanation for the origins of complex life in such a way that intellectuals could thereby exclude the idea of God without compromising their intellectual credibility- which before then was not possible. As far as atheists are concerned "evolution is the only game in town". Here perhaps lies the clue to the religious nature and reason for the dogmatic tenacity of the theory of unguided evolution against growing evidence to the contrary.

Far from being scientifically neutral- evolution has deep religious and philosophical connotations.

Plantinga again- "among the secularists, evolution functions as a myth, in a technical sense of that term: a shared way of understanding ourselves at the deep level of religion, a deep interpretation of ourselves to ourselves, a way of telling us why we are here, where we come from, and where we are going."

From this it is clear that science has radically abandoned its territory of answering the "how" questions and blustered drunkenly into the realm of philosophers and theologians to ask the "why" questions.

In his book " The Biblical Philosophy of History" R.J. Rushdoony re-iterated the principle that   getting an "ought from an is" poses an insurmountable problem for naturalism:  There is no attempt to give the obvious answer,..., that meaning always escapes man when he seeks it in the realm of creation rather than in God. Because all things are made by God, nothing is understandable in terms of itself, but only in terms of God the Creator. Neither fact nor man can be understood in reference to himself alone, or to any created combination, but only in terms of God. Remove God, and, eventually, you remove meaning. John C. Greene has pointed out that the idea of evolution is philosophical and means progress, which is a value judgement. Attempts to "arrive at an objective, value-free definition of progress" soon fall. We can add that every attempt to do without God leads to an elimination not only of values, but also of meaning, as well. The issue is clear: no God, no meaning.

Finally what was there to decide that survival of the fittest was a goal (which evolution apparently accomplishes, or at least supposedly makes progress toward) worthy or better than anhilation? Mindless nature? One cannot even speak of something (survival of the fittest) being better or worse than another possibility (anhilation) without involking morality which again is a property of moral agents and rational minds (a question the philosophers and theologians should be better equipped to answer). The idea and language of evolution as progress toward a goal is replete with meanings that are inseparable abstractions of a mind or minds.

In all of this I have not once concluded that evolution isn't true but that in the current state of the continuing saga it seems to me to be much more reasonable given the sort of language employed by the evolutionists themselves that to posit a mind at back of their theory is much more cogent than to deny any semblance of mind altogether. And the reason for the denial is patently obvious- to posit a mind at the back of evolution is to run the risk of being thought a creationist! Something that most are irrevocably committed against.

According to the popular theory there is no mind working throughout the process, but the terms commonly in use are incongruous outside of a reasoning mind. It pretty soon becomes clear that when it is found impossible to describe the so-called reality of the origin of species without using language that is exclusive to rational minds then by default we ought to give up the charade and admit that nature is actually rational and has a mind. Maybe then they ought to revise their definition of nature.

It is a contradiction in terms to deem everything as the result of time plus matter plus chance while all the while using terms normatively reserved for a rational, logical, reasoning mind.

If nature has a mind and nature is non-material then how do you account for non-matter having rational being?

Perhaps evolutionists should give up the pretense of a mindless "Nature" that favours, designs, rewards et al and give the name countless others have: God.

One of the phrases employed in the piece refers to cornerstones.

"Natural selection is one of the cornerstones of modern biology…"

It is my understanding that this metaphor is speaking of an essential and foundational truth upon which a whole gamut of understanding is based. If the cornerstone is faulty then the whole building is likely to collapse.
Interestingly the source of this metaphor is most likely biblical.

(1 Peter 2:6,7,8) Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be ashamed. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, (cornerstone) And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

Of course there is a ready answer but one which to many is too unpalatable to contemplate.

(Psalms 19:1) To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.