The latest issue of The New Republic has a good and very long refutation of “intelligent design.” (I discovered this by looking at the Blogad on my sidebar – plug, plug!) There’s also a shorter piece on the subject by Leon Wieseltier, although he loses me when he starts quoting Maimonedes.
My friend Andy occasionally blogs in support of intelligent design, but he gets me all confused when he does this, because I’m not sure his definition of intelligent design is the same as the definition that other people give it. (I mentioned this confusion in a comment on his blog last week.) Andy believes in intelligent design and evolution, but most believers of intelligent design seem to blur the issue. See this from yesterday’s USA Today, in which supporters of intelligent design seem to both reject evolution and support it within the same piece (and see the sidebar). (And jeers to USA Today for presenting intelligent design as a legitimate alternative to evolution. Again, see sidebar.)
Basically, I don’t see how you can believe in evolution without believing in natural selection. Evolution without natural selection isn’t “evolution.” That may be semantic, but it’s important. According to evolutionary theory, human beings will eventually evolve into one or more other species. If God directs evolution, then you believe God will eventually direct us to evolve into another species. In other words, humanity is just one step along an endless evolutionary path. That doesn’t jibe with the idea of humanity being favored by God over all other species.
Much of the confusion stems over the imperfection of language. See the confusion over “homosexuality,” wherein one person might say he “disapproves of homosexuality” and means that he disapproves merely of homosexual conduct, whereas the hearer might think the speaker is referring even to same-sex arousal. Unless both people are defining a term in the same way, they’re not going to get their points across to each other.
Anyway, to quote one of Wielseltier’s less-confusing sentences:
It is impossible, of course, not to marvel at the complexity and the beauty of the natural order; but marveling is not thinking. The mind may recoil from the possibility that all this sublimity came into being by accident, but it cannot, on those grounds alone, rule the possibility out, unless it is concerned only to cure its own pain.
“Basically, I don’t see how you can believe in evolution without believing in natural selection.”
Natural selection is a fantastic concept, but is it true? We say, “Survival of the fittest” as if it means something, but it’s a circular phrase: fitness means only that the survivor survived. We assume that it survived because it was fittest to do so, but hell, we don’t know. See what I mean?
Furthermore, evolution is still just a theory. We don’t see gentle morphing from one form to another; the best example we have of the kind of evolution theory predicts is of the horse (and that’s why those neato horse exhibits are so well known) but generally we don’t find missing links – we see rapid, giant jumps, showing immense change in a moderately short amount of time.
While I’m not a creationist, I think it’s important to keep a rational distance from our evolutionary fervor lest we become like our rabid creationist counterparts. Sure, evolution makes sense (and it’s elegant and we want it to be true), but the jury’s still out. We just don’t have the fossil record to support it, nor have we ever witnessed evolution ourselves. (We’ve been breeding dogs for a thousand years and have yet to see a new species. Which makes you think.)
I suspect the truth of the matter is, as usual, somewhere in the middle.
Great post!
“See the confusion over “homosexuality,†wherein one person might say he “disapproves of homosexuality†and means that he disapproves merely of homosexual conduct, whereas the hearer might think the speaker is referring even to same-sex arousal.”
But I’ve never encounted a situation where someone voicing “disapproval” of “homosexual conduct” WASN’T talking about same-sex arousal. Saying “homosexual conduct” is their way of poiting at same-sexuality without making a face like Michelle Malkin.
Michelle: If you read the article, you’ll see that it addresses some of your points.
Well, for a (very short) time I thought that your friend ‘Andy’ was none other than … the ex-editor of the ‘TNR’, Andy Sullivan – the one who devoted nearly a whole issue to ‘The Bell Curve’ back in 1994. My apologies!
And this looks like something sensible coming from that magazine – for a change ..
Now look what you’ve done!
Like so many people, you’re confusing the observed fact of evolution with the theory of natural selection. Darwin observed numerous instances of evolution during his trip on the Beagle, and devised the theory of natural selection to explain the observations.
Natural selection is just one attempt to explain how evolution works. It happens to be the explanation that most scientists accept because it’s been tested. But it’s nearly as plausible that God created heaven and earth, but She did so using evolutionary processes over millions of years. That theory would better explain the observed facts of the fossil record better than the ancient book of Genesis, but it’s unfortunately impossible to test in any scientific fashion. That’s the main reason why any theory of “intelligent design” that involves a supernatural deity or creator inherently falls outside any definition of science– it’s not possible to subject a deity to scientific inquiry.
All the Evangelicals seem interested in is getting ordinary people so confused about what is and is not “science” that it will neutralize the threat “science” poses to their authority. That authority depends on the infallibility of their Scripture, and they see evolutionary theories as contradicting one part of that Scripture. Once you’ve contradicted one part, the entire basis of their authority collapses like a dodgy building.
By the way, evolution does not necessarily require natural selection. If you own a dog, cat, or pet rat, or if you eat beef, turkey, corn, or rice, you’re seeing a product of evolution by artificial selection. None of those species would ever arise naturally, as the characteristics we prize in our pets, livestock, and crops would be very detrimental in a wild environment. But the fact that humans are able to manipulate plants and animals so readily suggests that they are “designed” to evolve by natural selection.
Bravo, Mipiel!
“But the fact that humans are able to manipulate plants and animals so readily suggests that they are “designed†to evolve by natural selection.”
This makes it out like humans are somehow outside of the evolutionary chain. We’re not. Therefore, whatever schemes we develop re: our pets, food products, etc. is a product of our highly evolved brains, and therefore just a further aspect of the natural selection evolutionary process in action.
If you read the article, you’ll see that it addresses some of your points.
Great, now I feel like I’ve been caught bullshitting in class, having not read the assignment.
*chuckle*
Intelligent design is a waste of time, really. It is ideological in nature and untestable. It can’t be used productively to explain the things that are occuring around us- the mutation of the flu virus is one example. Evolution relies on many branches of science- biology, chemistry, geology, archaeology, physics, paleontology, etc- whereas “intelligent design” relies on texts written a couple of thousand years ago and subsequently selected about 1000 years ago. What amazes me is that many proponents of intelligent design feel free to lie about their fundamental cause, covering up the fact that they are really pushing Biblical creationism. Any “theory” based on lies is not worth considering.