Author’s note: This is Part Seven in a series of conversations with Stuart Burgess, author of Ultimate Engineering: An Engineer Investigates the Biomechanics of the Human Body.
Terrell: If it’s true that the evidence favors intelligent design, why do you think the evolutionary narrative persists — as in the article we’ve been discussing by Lucy Hyde, your anatomist colleague at the University of Bristol.
Stuart: There is a saying that “in China you cannot criticize the government, but you can criticize evolution; in the West you can criticize the government, but you cannot criticize evolution.” There is enormous peer pressure for academics not to question evidence for evolution.
I often speak with my academic colleagues about evolution, and they will often admit in private that the evidence is overwhelming for intelligent design, especially in areas like the origin of life. But you’re just not allowed to admit that in public. It’s an unwritten rule that you don’t support intelligent design in academia.
I had a good friend who was not a Christian, a really senior biologist. He was head of school, a world-leading microbiologist. And he said his colleagues have admitted to him that what’s most important to them is pay, promotion, pension, and parking. Those things are more important than evolution being right or wrong. People don’t want to stick their head above the parapet and say, “Hang on, the evidence points to intelligent design!”
Terrell: Truth is not the priority.
Stuart: Yes, sadly. It’s human nature. Academics want an easy life like most people do. And the easiest life is sticking to the current paradigm, not stirring things up but just sticking to accepting evolution. You’ve got that inertia. It’s very hard to change that inertia.
Terrell: What has been your experience of espousing intelligent design in academia? You’ve been doing that for quite some time now.
Stuart: Yes, I have. First of all, I’ve had a big advantage because I’m based in engineering. Had I been based in biology, I would have had a completely different life. I doubt I would have kept my job! I’ve had a lot of support from my engineering colleagues and my bosses, including head of school and dean.
I’ve also been in a very fortunate position because most of my research has been in bioengineering. So I’ve published research in both engineering and biology. I’ve had my feet in both camps and been privileged to have done research in two fascinating areas that both exhibit brilliant design. People can’t accuse me of not knowing about biology. And being based in engineering has made me immune to a lot of attacks.
ID Support but in Secret
One of the most encouraging things I’ve found in academia is how many people secretly support intelligent design. I would describe most academics as being agnostic, and many of those who are agnostic support intelligent design. It’s only a minority who are atheists, but they’re a very vocal minority. Richard Dawkins is not a typical academic, but he’s a very vocal one.
Very few academics come up to me and say, “you’re wrong.” Most have said, “I think you’re probably right.” I find that really encouraging, but also very frustrating because the media do not accurately explain what academics actually think. I almost called my book What Academics Actually Think. I thought that would be a provocative title.
Apart from the peer pressure to support evolution, another reason why academics don’t talk about intelligent design is that academics are really busy running their research labs. They don’t have time to explain what they really think. Another issue is that many get into a niche area, and they don’t like talking about broad topics, the big picture. If you go back to previous centuries, academics like Isaac Newton would happily talk about theology, math, engineering, and biology. But academics are often reluctant to take on broad topics now.
And so, you have this very vocal minority group of atheists and humanists driving the narrative in the media and education. And academics are not very good at pushing back against that.
A Tidal Wave of Dissent
Terrell: You wrote that the vast majority of Darwin dissenters have yet to go public, and that if all of them went public tomorrow, it would create a tidal wave of dissent. What are your thoughts on what might happen in the sciences over the next, say, 10 or 20 years?
These things are very hard to predict. I do see things slightly improving, probably for a combination of reasons. People are finally seeing the weakness in evolutionary theory, especially with its inability to explain the origin of life. I think Discovery Institute is doing an excellent job in exposing the lack of science in evolutionary theories. I also think things like Covid are causing people to be less prone to accepting everything scientists say.
We are seeing a bit of a shift. Opening the Whewell Centre in Cambridge in Europe is a really positive move. And I think in the next 10 years, we could possibly see intelligent design being discussed in academic circles. That’s what I’m hoping. Things are moving in the right direction. Whether that can happen in the next 10 years, we’ll have to find out, but I think it’s possible.
Terrell: I heard Stephen Meyer say on a podcast recently, a bit tongue in cheek, “We’re not as disreputable as we once were.”
Stuart: Exactly. There is progress.