politburo diktat 2.0

HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE - With Darwinism, Liberals Attempt to Appear Reasonable by Greg Franke

Franke writes a disingenous, annoying, familiar piece about “Darwinism and the Liberals.” I fisked as much of it as I could stand to. Just to get started, note the use of “Darwinism.” Sorry, Greg, Darwin didn’t know what genes are; he didn’t know about genetic drift; no pre-Cambrian fossils had been discovered in 1859. Evolutionary theory is far more than “Darwinism.” Right off the top, his use of “Darwinism” signals his laziness, ignorance, and inaccuracy.

One of the most prominent ploys utilized by liberal activists in attempting to institutionalize their social ideology is to present their contention in a way that seems reasonable to casual observers, while in reality advocating a much more radical agenda.

There can be no better example of this than the ongoing efforts of such inaptly-named groups as the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State to mandate the teaching of Darwinian Evolution in America’s science classes.

First, Franke “disingenuously” tries to paint this as a liberal vs. conservative issue. It is not. I am a conservative who vigorously supports teaching science in public school science classes. And there are many many others who feel as I do.

In the course of these efforts (which have recently won them a major court victory in Pennsylvania, and a similar political victory in Ohio, with other battles being fought in other states, including Georgia and Kansas) they disingenuously advance the notion that the concept of Intelligent Design — a leading alternative view to evolution — is inappropriate for a science curriculum because it relies on something other than pure science to advance its assertions.

He’s clever here. “Because it relies on something other than pure science,” is close, but not accurate. ID is not science at all, any more than astrology is. ID cannot be tested; it cannot be falsified; it is not predictive. Those thing are key elements of science. Non-testable, non-predictive ideas may be interesting, for barroom conversations, for philosophy classes (no insult intended to philosophers),or for internet discussions, but they are not science.

This can seem eminently sensible to most reasonable people. After all, a theory that relies on something as unverifiable as a Supreme Creator is hardly fitting for a science lab — it would be much more appropriately addressed in the context of a philosophy or humanities class.

However, though this indeed seems compelling, the truth is that this issue goes far beyond simply debating whether or not Intelligent Design is based on science.

The troubling fact is that opponents of Intelligent Design are not interested merely in ensuring that it is presented in its proper place. Rather, they are seeking to stop it from being presented at all.*

*… in science classes.”

To that end, they are intent on bestowing upon Darwin’s theory of evolution the aura of fact, even in the face of its serious scientific and philosophical shortcomings. And unfortunately, the reason for this has little or nothing to do with science.

Evolution is a fact. It happened. An overwhelming majority (99% +) of scientists support evolution. “Darwin’s theory” … Franke implicitly uses the “it’s only a theory” argument, saying that evolution does not have the “aura of fact.” He’s conveying the notion that a theory is a half-baked, still-getting-there kind of idea, which later might be promoted to fact. Wrong. That’s not a scientific theory at all.

The ACLU has already demanded that school districts across the country cease any instruction in Intelligent Design, and have been joined in that effort by other organizations that oppose introducing the concept of Intelligent Design in ANY setting — science classes or otherwise.

Their rationale for this stance is the same old tired notion that Intelligent Design is a nefarious attempt to introduce religion into the classroom, as though this somehow constitutes the “establishment of religion” prohibited by the First Amendment.

(Of course, discussing Intelligent Design in a science or philosophy class would no more amount to proseletyzation than would teaching about Islam or Buddhism in a comparative religion class.)

ID’s pedigree as a direct descendant of Creationism and so-called “Creation Science” is well documented. ID is religion. Franke is being wholly disingenous when he pretends otherwise. Can he name one non-religious proponent of ID?

…

… one question [about evolution] stands dauntingly above the rest. Namely, that even if one were to concede the problematic notion that the creation of a new species out of another were possible, this would not explain the towering difference between the human species and lower life-forms — the ability to reason.

As counterintuitive as it seems that a species could develop new physical traits simply because such a mutation might be advantageous (can we all learn to fly or to breathe underwater if we just wish to long enough?), it simply defies credulity to think that human beings not only physically evolved from ape-like creatures, but developed the ability to think rationally by a similar process.

Certainly this would be an unprecedented phenomenon, entailing a much more extreme manner of natural selection than that which is known to occur.

So this is Franke’s big enchilada. “We are too smart to have evolved from apes.” We did. Would Mr. Franke look here? Which are “mere apes” and which are the magical “reasoning beings?” Since we can reason, we look on such a skill with great awe. Of course, we can’t echo-locate in the dark like bats, or mate while flying, like swallows … but somehow a self-aware brain, is to Mr. Franke, all-important. We can think about tomorrow; we are aware of our own selves; we have enough neurons wired together to contemplate our own mortality. And, yes, that ability has enabled all sorts of technological development. But why should any of that mean that our large, well-adapted brains could not have evolved? Millions of species have uniquely adapted organs, well-suited to their lives.

In sum, it is the shop-worn “argument from personal incredulity.”