Now to the fun. The Discovery Institute’s John West talked on “The Darwinian Challenge to Faith, Ethics, and Culture,” in which he characterized Darwinism as a block of militant atheists out to squash all opposition to their godless materialist agenda. Along the way West happened to show some slides of “Darwin Day” celebrations where atheist sentiments were on hand to suggest that Darwin Day was really a secularist religious holiday. This got sympathetic murmurs of outrage in the church pews by the way.
Since I helped organize the Spokane Secular Society’s Darwin Day table at Riverpark Square each February, and have attended years of Eastern Washington University Darwin Day science lectures (munching on the Darwin Day cakes baked for their annual contest), I can attest to these venues being explicitly not a deification of Darwin or an assault on religious faith, and makes me wonder whether the PowerPoint snaps were reflecting more the tunnel vision concerns of one John West rather than the attitudes of Darwin Day participants, who have focused on Darwin’s birthday as a way of drawing attention to threats to sound science education.
If an atheist group does a Darwin Day bash, well of course they will sport lots of atheist banners and handouts. Duh! But likewise the presentation of a “science” show at a Seattle church (and not at a college or university) may be seen as more religion than science, no matter how studiously one tries to footnote the power points.
I did tell West later in the Q&A that I was one of those Darwin Day celebrants, and that we might have had comparable Newton Day or Einstein Day events were it the case that lobbyists were trying to dismiss “Newtonism” or “Einsteinism” in the same way. If you wanted to get picky, after all, one might complain of “The Newtonian Challenge to Faith, Ethics, and Culture” by noting how Newton rejected the Trinity and tried to introduce hypothetical “gravitational attraction” forces into science. Horrors! Or even worse: what of “The Einsteinian Challenge to Faith, Ethics, and Culture,” where the (at best) deist & Jewish Einstein introduced weird physics, overturning the nice accepted reality to make “everything relative”? Still more Horrors!
That issue was of lesser concern to me, though, than how the fossil record was going to get spun in the show, which brings me to the DI’s ebullient Casey Luskin and his talk on “What Science Says about the Origin and Development of Life.” This turned out to be a PowerPoint cascade of expected talking points about Irreducible Complexity, Specified Complexity, and the purportedly insurmountable obstacles to a naturalistic origin for life. Even though he was a fairly fast speaker (and as an express train here myself I know one when I see one) Luskin found the hour available wasn’t enough for him to work through his stuff (suggesting he didn’t tailor the presentation to the venue in advance, but instead plucked off the shelf). The upshot was that he never got around to delving into his bullet on the fossil record except to toss off some fast remarks on the Cambrian Explosion.
Fortunately I had done my own prep work beforehand, including some show and tell props. Specifically I had the “reptile-mammal transition” as an ace up my sleeve, from how the evidence for that is really solid to the contrastingly pathetic coverage of that evidence in the creationism/design community. The notoriously superficial ID “textbook” Of Pandas and People (which figured in the recent Dover, PA court case) had given the evolution of mammals very short shrift, claiming there were no transitional forms known for it, but inadvertently using as an illustration for a reptile skull one of the intermediate examples that they had just insisted didn’t exist!
Now the DI team has fielded not one but two intended replacements for Of Pandas and People: The Design of Life by William “Specified Complexity” Dembski and Jonathan “Icons of Evolution” Wells, and Explore Evolution by Stephen Meyer (late of Whitworth College’s philosophy department) and several coauthors.
Dembski & Wells touched on the reptile-mammal transition by pirating lock, stock and barrel the argument Philip Johnson had made in his Darwin on Trial book back in 1991, even down to the specific claim that a particular fossil (the early mammal Morganucodon) had supposedly dated before its proposed ancestors. The only tiny problem for Johnson (and the parasitical Dembski & Wells) is that the brilliant Berkeley lawyer was flat out wrong: the article Johnson (and Dembski & Wells) had cited, by the fine mammal paleontologist James Hopson from the January 1987 issue of The American Biology Teacher, had shown exactly the opposite: that all the transitional groups in the series from early reptile to full blown mammal appeared sequentially in the fossil record, step by evolutionary step. The reason why I knew this was that I had read the original article (and had a copy at hand that I presented to Luskin when I brought all this up in the Q&A later).
The second DI replacement for the “Pandas” book, Explore Evolution (which one DI review preened as a “superb textbook”) was even more hilariously evasive. Meyer & Company dismissed the evidence without discussing a single specific example, sounding like a legion of creationists of the Duane Gish stripe by displaying a hair-brained conception of both evolutionary dynamics and geological contingencies when they fretted that the fossil evidence was really all that significant because it was spread over tens of millions of years and several continents. What, no evolutionary sequence can be accepted unless it all happens in one place and at one time? Isn’t that exactly what a macroevolutionary transition gently microevolving over millions of years couldn’t help but look like?
But then Explore Evolution wasn’t about discussing that fossil evidence. The book showed a graphic where a lot of unlabeled lines represented “reptiles” and some more off to the right were “mammals” with a big “?” in the middle to suggest that no evidence existed to link them. Unfortunately the authors (in trying to look ever so scientific and fair) had injudiciously illustrated on that and an earlier page not one but two pictures drawn from a regular paleontology source illustrating the very fossil examples that they were trying to flush down the drain with that bold “?” on the chart.
I asked Luskin what he knew about the reptile-transition (not much, as it turned out, which measured a curiosity flame in absentia), and apprised him of the problem that Explore Evolution offered not a shred of analysis to refute the fact that those many fossils were exactly the bridge that the authors thought they could ignore with that ever so firm “?” And even worse for the antievolution case here, not only are there fossils documenting the critical stages in mammal evolution (especially the amazing repurposing of three of the basic fish-amphibian-reptile jaw bones for new use in the mammalian inner ear) but the embryological development of mammals reflects that transformation, as do the relevant genes. The embryological issue was even alluded to in that Hopson article Dembski & Wells vacuumed up from Philip Johnson. All in all, there was a lot of evidence for the “superb textbook” Explore Evolution to step over, which may be compared to what is available even in general sources, such as paleontologist Neil Shubin’s Your Inner Fish.
Luskin took all this in pleasant stride, wanting always to maintain everything on the most lofty and gentlemanly level, such as when I happened to describe John Woodmorappe at AIG as a “creationist nimrod” who Philip Johnson and David Berlinski had imprudently drawn as a technical resource to cast doubt on the reptile-mammal transition. When Luskin grumped at this as an ad hominem, I countered that Woodmorappe was indeed a young earth creationist known for his attempt to work out the deck plan of Noah’s Ark, who regularly misrepresents the scientific work of others (and did so ostentatiously in the case of the reptile-mammal transition) as well as engaging in quite virulent holy war diatribes against people whose religious takes he dislikes (such as accusing old earth creationist Glenn Morton of being a heretic).
I thought “creationist nimrod” was a much faster way of putting it, and one of the other lecture attendees agreed, coming to my defense. But this illustrates how Luskin’s appeal to being ever so reasonable and mannered can also serve as a way of insulating themselves from the rough and tumble of what views real people have out there in the big world, and whether some can so fall off the map of reason that they can be properly characterized as absurd if not dangerously stupid. May I offer Kent Hovind or Ken Ham here? Or the creationists on the Texas School Board who have been busily trying to use arguments of people like that to make the secular curriculum more congenial to their worldview by sandbagging a batch of scientific and historical data they don’t like.
This studied reluctance of the ID movement to express even the mildest criticism of YEC views in print or practice was in evidence all through the “Science & Faith” weekend, as issues of when Adam and Eve were supposed to have lived, and how geochronology or the Big Bang do or do not support creation doctrines, simply never arose (even in the Q&A). As far as the presenters were concerned, there was only one view (their own, a fairly squishy “science refutes Darwinism and we know the real reason why” approach) and never mind the far larger body of young earth creationists who present their own very different spin on the same “facts” and can also pack their much larger pews far more than the Greenlake Presbyterian did that weekend.
So never mind whether “Science & Faith” are in conflict (they aren’t necessarily). The DI needs to arm wrestle more with AIG and the ICR over whether their “Faiths” are in conflict. That sort of presentation I’d attend too, and bring my own popcorn.
The reptile-mammal transition sounds fascinating. I don’t know nearly as much about evolutionary theory as I would like, but it is certainly amazing to say the least. My question is why? What is the purpose that life serves? Why the will to survive that powers natural selection?
Thanks for the great article! I guess I’m glad that creationism is coming together and trying to articulate itself as an idea, but I’ve still never come close to having a substantial conversation about creationism with someone who believes differently than I do on the topic. It’s a hard argument to have, not least because there are so many temptations to do rhetorical battle and shut someone down in the process. It’s a challenge to reject the (to me) unpersuasive science, while still honoring the importance of another person’s struggle over how faith and science ought to inform their view of the world, but I think that’s exactly what has to happen before we can make progress on the more social questions (for instance, about what should be taught in schools.)
I’m still on the road but managed a quick check of the website from my sister’s place in Louisiana. The reptile-mammal transition is one of those evolutionary crown jewels that is far better known in evolutionary circles than among the general public (or the creationist cul-de-sacs). A nice intro work by someone in the field would be Neil Shubin’s fine book “Your Inner Fish” (available gratis at the public library I do believe).
As for the nature of natural selection, it must be noted that Bruce’s “will to survive” plays zero role there. Every one of the 99% of the earth’s past life that has gone extinct had exactly as much drive to live as the ones that managed to leave progeny that has made it down to the present day. Individual species usually have a run of a few million years or so, a value that depends on the luck of the draw over time. Natural variation provides all sort of grist for selection to act on, and a trait that may be swell for millennia could back the species into an extinction wall should the climate or its predator/prey position shift. It is fair to say that modern evolutionary theory has no teleological aspect to it, though that is exactly the element that Intelligent Design advocates and theologically-minded evolutionary scientists would like to have as a “behind the curtain” guiding force.
From my position out in secularist land, it is hard to see any grand purpose in the yaws and tacks of life over the last few billion years. Many lineages of cousins to what ended up as the “winning” mammals” did just fine, thank you very much, just as in any human family tree there are squads of family groups that went their ways for generations before leaving no progeny and thus going “extinct.” Beethoven had just as long a pedigree of generational begatings leading up to his not having children, and this is pretty much what has gone on in the bigger family tree of life.
Bruce Meyer asked
“What is the purpose that life serves? Why the will to survive that powers natural selection?”
As Jim noted, “will to survive” and “purpose” are mostly null concepts. Think about it: what happens to the genes of critters that don’t have the wherewithal to survive and reproduce? No “will” or “purpose” is necessary to account for differential reproduction in populations.
Thanks for the response, but I guess I’m still not getting it. It doesn’t seem like a null concept to me. Why does anybody (used loosely to include all life) try to survive at all? What purpose does ultimate survival serve? We usually think it’s a sad thing when someone commits suicide, but in your “null concept” framework, I can’t see where that makes sense. Why is someone who commits suicide any different then someone who struggles to survive?
We’re getting off on separate foots here, Bruce, because you pulled in surving as the power behind “natural selection” and that is a connection you shouldn’t be making. However grand it is to be alive, and however intense the desire to stay going as long as possible (and these are related to our nervous system and biochemistry, other matters too long to delve into in a quick blog like this) natural selection is unconcerned with any of that. Consider two organisms, one suicidal but having offspring (some spiders fall into that category, devoured by their mates after copulation), the other happy to be alive to the bitter end but having no progeny. As far as natural selection is concerned, animal one is a player in the NS game, number two is not.
Its not that wanting to live versus not are not important issues, it is just that pulling natural selection as a concept into it misunderstands the separate domains of both.
I think that evolution is hard for a lot of people to wrap their heads around because it’s hard to relate to what it says. Evolution by natural selection is an (evidence based) creation story. When we hear a story about who we are and where we come from, it’s really hard not to take it personally. Yet, evolution is the most impersonal force imaginable.
Jim’s example of the suicidal spider (good one Jim), not only points out the indifference of evolution, it also points out the “inhumanity” of it. I think a lot of people recoil from the idea because it challenges their sense of personal value and morality. The DI is a (well funded) institution that is promoting a “persecuted Christians” narrative precisely because evolution is an affront to their personal and religious identities as moral beings. They are trying to use political means to write their own version of reality into the science books (and often succeeding by the way).
I could try to offer some sort of consoling account of how evolution isn’t really a challenge to the Christian narrative about our origins, but I feel that I would be lying. There are ideas in the Abrahamic religions (as in every ideology) that are simply wrong. The origin story in Genesis is one of those ideas. People need to hear that. This is what “militant” atheist militate for: We have a moral obligation to face what the evidence tells us, even if we don’t like it. ESPECIALLY if we don’t like it.
The thing is, once you accept the validity of evolution, it becomes possible to ask new and really important questions. Questions like “if survival of the fittest made us, why do we have morality at all?” It turns out that the answer to this question is both very deep and very interesting. It offers insights not only about how human morality works, but also about how and why it breaks down. If you really want to get on board with the project of creating a more stable, safe, and moral society, denying evolution is the WORSE thing you can do.
We live in a culture where acknowledging that the bible is wrong is a social taboo. It is a taboo because people are taught that without the divine authority of the bible, there is no standard for morality. This is clearly not true, but it creates a culture where it is forbidden to say that the bible is wrong.
Yet the bible is wrong. Not about everything, but about lots of things.
This issue gets to the heart of both why I post on this blog, and why I am an atheist. I was taught that what makes a democracy work is the willingness for people to look at reality and use our understanding to collectively make decisions. I don’t think the US is doing a very good job of this. We have abdicated our responsibility both to understand and to choose. The first step in “stepping up” to our responsibilities as citizens is to recognize that ideas must be judged by their merits, and not by their source. There is no such thing as a sacred text, only texts about the sacred.
In my experience the big conceptual hurdles for antievolutionists turns on their inability to get a grip on the nature of genetic variation and what a macroevolutionary transition would look like “on the fly” over time. At the Idaho Country Fair where the S3 and INFS groups had an atheist table, visitors of a creationist perspective who approached the matter from the “where’s teh evidence for evolution” point of view tended to think (a) no “new” genetic information is known so evolution has nothing to work on, and (b) that transitional forms don’t exist in the fossil record. Neither of those statements are true.
Gene duplications, for example, are a common genetic phenomenon in the history of life, and that is the grist for variation to modify the original gene’s functions so that over time teh copy is doing something very different, and if that doesn’t qualify as “new” information it is hard to imagine what would. And the fossil record are replete with intermediate forms linking most minor branchings and quite a few of the major ones, especially the closer we get to the present when the fossil record is better and so more blips stand a chance of getting preserved.
The primary problem with persuading a creationist that intermediates exist is that, quite literally, they have no idea in their own heads what an intermediate would look like in a particular case, and how that would appear when seen along a spectrum in the vast map of time, and therefore there is nothing for them to match up when you start showing examples to them. Some creationists even insist that in order for a fossil intermediate to qualify as one, it must be alive today, in living form, which again is something evolution isn’t going to be doing, since most things alive in the past end up generating extinct lineages. Even those “living fossils” creationists love to trot out are never the same species as their fossil form, and usually not even the same genera or family. They are “living fossils” only in that they resemble their ancient counterparts more than most, and that is usually due to that animal or plan living in pretty much the same conditions, hence the old form has proven reliable and durable and hasn’t shown much in the way of change in order to keep running well.
Creationists also tend to have the odd idea that there is some sort of macroevolution gene or mode, where a worm can turn into a human in one poof step. This is exactly how evolution never operates, all macroevolutionary change consisting of microevolutionary wiggles that seen step by step would not appear very much at all. Only after seeing the end result a long way down the road do you realize that you’ve moved a long way from where you started.
Take all these misconceptions and then mix in the religious issues of morality and purpose and you have a potent antievolutionary mix, which is difficult to penetrate in any short exchange at fair booths.