As Casey Luskin described yesterday, he had a fruitful and genial online discussion recently with Oxford University biologist and physiologist Denis Noble, ably hosted by Perry Marshall on Evolution 2.0. It’s up online now, and worthwhile to watch. I was glad Dr. Luskin added some further commentary on his argument that “DNA contains properties very similar to computer programs.” That was an interesting point of contention between Noble and Luskin.
Noble is a founder of the Third Way of Evolution community, which rejects intelligent design but criticizes neo-Darwinism. He’s a maverick who has declared that “neo-Darwinism is dead.” To be honest, I hear more than a little commonality between scientists on his side and those on ours.
The Usefulness of Conversation
Beyond Casey’s observations, I want to bring out a statement that Dr. Noble made at the very end of the conversation, in favor of dialogue about evolution, with participation from all sides. This is another area of commonality, since ID scientists seek out discussion with opponents while Darwinists flee from it, or, like Dr. Dan Stern Cardinale, engage but then withdraw amid invective. Noble — who it just occurred to me has an apt surname! — highlights the usefulness of having conversations with people even if you disagree with them:
You see I like engagement in discussion, and what I find very disappointing in the behavior of the, let’s call them the orthodox evolutionary biologists…., what I find common amongst them is their unwillingness to come and discuss. The reason I love what we’re doing now is although we’ve got possible deep fundamental differences, we’re happy to discuss it. They won’t. Do they ask anybody from Third Way to come to the meetings they organize? Never….But I find this kind of discussion — which is probing where we agree, where we disagree or where we’re doubtful, where the fuzziness is — extremely helpful. And that’s, I hope, the way science should advance.
Now that is a noble thing to say! And why do orthodox Darwinists flee from debate? As Luskin points out, it’s a defensive tactic. He quotes biologist Kevin Laland,1 “Perhaps haunted by the spectre of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to science. Some might fear that they will receive less funding and recognition if outsiders — such as physiologists or developmental biologists — flood into their field.”
Sacrificing Science
There you have it: prestige and money. Perhaps they also don’t know how the debate will turn out for them, which is scary too. Noble is of course right that science is stymied without dialogue, but Darwinists would sacrifice it — sacrifice science! — in the defense of these things they obviously feel more strongly about.
Notes
1. Speaking of surnames, I’ve just learned that Professor Laland has changed his last name from Laland to Lala, for reasons you can explore on his website. Instead of the Laland Lab at St. Andrews University, he now oversees the Lala Lab.