evolution

Twenty Years After 'Darwin on Trial', Intelligent Design is Dead

Martin Rees, master of Trinity College in Cambridge, UK Astronomer Royal, non-theist (but cultural Christian), and recent winner of the £1 million Templeton Prize, told the Guardian:

Campaigning against religion can be socially counter-productive. If teachers take the uncompromising line that God and Darwinism are irreconcilable, many young people raised in a faith-based culture will stick with their religion and be lost to science.

PZ Myers takes Rees to task, as he has the Templeton Prize itself many times, for intentionally blurring the lines between fact-based science and faith-based supernatural beliefs. PZ's writings on such accommodation of religion are voluminous and insightful; I can add nothing here on that topic.

Rather, I'll poke at one bit that PZ left unpoked:

If teachers take the uncompromising line that God and Darwinism are irreconcilable...

Ahem. Mr Rees, it's not teachers who take that "uncompromising line". It's religious people that do. 

Scientists and science teachers present evolution as the explanation for life's variety that best fits our observations of nature. There's no mention of God in the theory of evolution, one way or the other; it's not a theory of, or about, God. (Or gods, for that matter. Or ghosts, or demons, or unicorns, or leprechauns. It has nothing to say about any of these.)

Any dispute, clash, or claim of "irreconcilable" is brought up, in its entirety, by religious followers: "Wait! We already have our own supernatural explanation for life's variety!" Fine; the believers are free to think as they like. But let's be very clear on one point: The scientists and teachers are only relating the facts and the theory that fit observations, which is exactly what they should do. Any claim of theological disagreement is the business, and problem, of the believers making the claim. Don't blame the science teachers! 

Isn't Rees aware that hundreds of millions of religious believers do accept the theory of evolution (at least in general terms)? To no one's surprise, we have these believers saying "sure, our God's compatible with evolution", and those believers saying "no, our God's not compatible with evolution" – which means we have a theological debate, of the same sort as arguments over Trinities and true prophets and transubstantiation and how many angels can dance on a pinhead. Don't blame the science teachers for interfaith religious disputes!

The same applies to Rees' further comment:

We should all oppose – as Darwin did – views manifestly in conflict with the evidence, such as creationism … But we shouldn't set up this debate as 'religion v science'...

Setting aside the problem that those are two rather contradictory exhortations, I have to note: "We" (the non-theists) aren't setting up a "religion vs science" debate. "We" just lay out the facts as revealed by observation and experiment. It's the believers who cry fowl at random junctures and set up a "religion vs science" debate. Not us.

Stop blaming the teachers!

Ah, those eloquent Victorian gentlemen and ladies. A selection from Charles Darwin's Origin of Species, Chapter VII, "Miscellaneous Objections to the Theory of Natural Selection": 

A distinguished zoologist, Mr. St. George Mivart, has recently collected all the objections which have ever been advanced by myself and others against the theory of natural selection, as propounded by Mr. Wallace and myself, and has illustrated them with admirable art and force. When thus marshalled, they make a formidable array; and as it forms no part of Mr. Mivart's plan to give the various facts and considerations opposed to his conclusions, no slight effort of reason and memory is left to the reader, who may wish to weigh the evidence on both sides.

Modern translation:

Some Mivart guy thinks he's got all the arguments against my theory – but gee, funny, he forgets to give you the evidence against his claims. So, allow me.

Rather wordy, those 19th-centurians, but I do like their style!

Dang it, another "Death of Darwinism" prediction has up and fizzled. In Death of "molecular Darwinism" imminent! I noted ID luminary William Dembski's prognostication:

In the next five years, molecular Darwinism — the idea that Darwinian processes can produce complex molecular structures at the subcellular level — will be dead. When that happens, evolutionary biology will experience a crisis of confidence because evolutionary biology hinges on the evolution of the right molecules. 

That grim portent came from the July/August 2004 issue of Touchstone magazine, and even allowing a generous deadline of the end of August, 2009, the five-year clock has run out while "molecular Darwinism" is still dancing a merry jig. (Come on, Doctor Dembski, when you give a patient a fixed time to live, at least have the decency to kill him off if he persists in surviving!)

Are there more prophecies to track? Dembski still has the meter running on a 10-year claim for the "Taliban-style collapse of Darwinism"; let's check on that in 2014. But what else do we have? Readeth thou more

Tiny T. rex fossil discovery startles scientists. Therefore, God!

Okay, I don't know why I'm posting this. Just because any new dinosaur discovery is always cool news. But also, I can't help but wonder about the implications of statements like the following. From one of the scientists who announced discovery of the human-sized, presumed ancestor of the famous T Rex:

"The most interesting and important thing about this new fossil is that It is completely unexpected... It's becoming harder and harder to find fossils like this that totally throw us for a curve."

A perfectly innocuous comment. But how long do we have before a Ray Comfort, or other human-sized Creationist slug, seizes upon this instance of "unexpected" as an inadvertent admission that evolutionary theory can't actually make predictions? Just wait and see.

Do animals have it easy?

Sure, the "atheists discredited" prediction didn't come to pass by its deadline of February this year. But fear not, for the faithful have another chance at prophetic jackpot waiting in the heavenly wings. 

I stumbled across another prediction over at The Panda's Thumb, via a 2004 post on Pharyngula. This one comes from famed Intelligent Design (née Creationism) proponent William A. Dembski, in a Touchstone Magazine interview: 

Touchstone: Where is the ID movement going in the next ten years?  What new issues will it be exploring, and what new challenges will it be offering Darwinism?

Dembski: In the next five years, molecular Darwinism — the idea that Darwinian processes can produce complex molecular structures at the subcellular level — will be dead. When that happens, evolutionary biology will experience a crisis of confidence because evolutionary biology hinges on the evolution of the right molecules. I therefore foresee a Taliban-style collapse of Darwinism in the next ten years. Intelligent design will of course profit greatly from this. For ID to win the day, however, will require talented new researchers able to move this research program forward, showing how intelligent design provides better insights into biological systems than the dying Darwinian paradigm.

– (Anonymous (Touchstone Magazine), (July/August 2004).  “The Measure of Design: A conversation about the past, present & future of Darwinism and Design.”  Touchstone, 17(6), pp. 60-65.)

A little background for those not up on their devotional readings: Readeth thou more

Science, Evolution, and Creationism
A great primer by the National Academy of Sciences. Free short version available for download.

Pharyngula
Updated at a mad pace by biologist PZ Myers, a heavyweight in the blogging world and lightning rod for the enemies of reason. (The guy's a hell of a good writer, too.) Great to have this fantastic site on "our side".

Richard Dawkins' site
Richard Dawkins is a renowned scientist and ardent champion of reason. This site is a major gathering place for friends of reason.