Science and Culture Today | Page 1275 | Discovering Design in Nature

Everyone knows the scene in Annie Hall. Woody Allen as Alvy Singer is standing in line to see a movie and a pretentious twit of a Columbia professor behind him is going on in a loud voice about Marshall McLuhan. Alvy first berates the guy — “Aren’t you ashamed to pontificate like that? And the funny part of it is, Marshall McLuhan, you don’t know anything about Marshall McLuhan!” Then from behind a movie poster he pulls McLuhan himself, who agrees with Alvy: “I heard what you were saying. You know nothing of my work! How you got to teach a course in anything is totally amazing!”

Alvy then turns to the camera and wishes, “Boy, if life were only like this!“

Sometimes it is. This is a brief series about Darwinian “experts” who arouse the admiration of people who don’t know any better, and don’t particularly want to know, but who then turn out to have their facts all wrong. The first illustration is Professor David Hillis of the University of Texas. In his testimony to the Texas State Board of Education about teaching evolution, he referred to the research of Ralph Seelke, a University of Wisconsin biologist.

Seelke’s work tests evolution’s power to produce two necessary mutations in a case where the mutations, to produce a beneficial function, need to happen pretty much simultaneously. Realistically, it can’t happen. He finds that this represents an insuperable obstacle to evolution’s getting its job done. In his testimony, Hillis replied to a question from Board member Pat Hardy, with her touching faith in experts: “I was just curious about Dr. Seelke’s research. How does that demonstrate the weakness of evolution?”

Well, sort of.

From Biologic’s Perspectives:

Researchers at Biologic Institute have stunned the scientific community with the announcement today of a fully functioning automobile capable of replicating itself. Although simple autocatalytic versions of self-replication have previously been demonstrated, the complexity of the system described today–complete with GPS navigation, DVD player, and onboard WiFi–has taken everyone by surprise. In the minds of many, this discovery has forever altered the once fundamental distinction between life and non-life.
…
According to lead scientist Otto Cloner, “In the right kind of environment the process of self-replication just takes off. I still get goose bumps watching it.” The prototype self-replicator is a slightly modified version of the popular Jeep Wrangler–unmanned. When just one of these self-propelled prototypes is placed in an appropriate environment (one lacking any other self-propelled vehicles) magic happens. Or so it seems. Dr. Cloner himself takes the more modest view that “the replicative mechanism is really quite simple when properly understood”.

To better explain the replicative mechanism, check out the diagram below:

[Editor’s Note: This is cross-posted at Discovery Blog.]

Senior Fellows David Berlinski and Bruce Gordon spoke last week at the ninth annual “Physics and the God of Abraham” conference, held at Gonzaga University in Spokane. The event was organized by Fr. Robert Spitzer, President of Gonzaga, physicist and adjunct fellow of Discovery Institute. This year’s theme, “Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions,” was taken from the subtitle of Berlinski’s latest book, The Devil’s Delusion (Crown Forum, 2008).

Harvard University’s Harvey Mansfield has an excellent critique of evolution published by Forbes.com, where he is more commonly debating feminism or discussing Solzhenitsyn. In a book review of Men: Evolutionary and Life History, Mansfield takes a look at the moral implications of Darwinian theory when applied to the obvious differences between the sexes: What ought a man to do, given this discrepancy between men and women? Like many scientists, Bribiescas lives under the yoke of a crude positivism which denies that scientific fact has any ethical implications. “Darwinian evolutionary theory does not support any moral stance.” But of course it does. The trouble is not that Darwinian theory has no implications, but that it contradicts itself with two opposing implications. Read More ›

As I was listening online to last week’s Texas State Board of Education hearings, two comments by Board members stuck with me. The TSBE was in its final deliberations on science standards and liberal Republican Pat Hardy delivered an encomium to “experts.”

She went on about how if you get sick and require the medical knowledge of an expert in the field, why then you’d better go to that expert and follow his advice! She pleaded with other Board members to listen to the “experts” on evolution, which would mean voting to accept the “expert” view that there’s no debate on evolution worthy of being shared with high school biology students.

The same day, Board member Don McLeroy, who was on the dissenting side from majority “expert” opinion, delivered a stirring rebuttal. With marked irony, he asked what right he had, as a mere dentist by profession, to doubt the experts? In fact, despite being “only” a dentist, he took the view that as a citizen and an elected school board legislator, he had the right to think for himself. Indeed he had the responsibility. That was the case even if it meant, after study and reflection, rejecting what many experts say.

Then again, you don’t have to look too hard for genuine credentialed experts on the Darwin-doubting side — quite a number of those testified before the TSBE. Yet it remains true that the skeptics on evolution represent a minority academic view.

As the world now knows, the TSBE ultimately voted with McLeroy and against the majority of experts, adopting science standards that specify the precise headings under which Darwinian theory most urgently needs to be questioned — or, in the Board’s preferred language, “analyzed and evaluated.”

To follow the experts unthinkingly is simply the prestige path for most people. Such docility also explains the resistance of certain constituencies, from whom you’d expert better, to thinking fresh thoughts about Darwinian evolution.

In all the excitement of the debate over Texas science standards last week, one thing was made eminently clear: generally speaking, there is one side of this debate that focuses on the science at hand, and another side that keeps bringing up religion. Contrary to the stereotype (but not the actual experience of those who care to see things as they actually are), it’s the Darwinists in this debate who keep wanting to talk about religion. People who question Darwin’s theory want to talk about the scientific evidence for and against it, as John West explains in The Washington Post’s “On Faith” blog: Evolutionists typically cast themselves as the champions of secular reason against superstition, but in Texas they tried Read More ›

From my Discovery Blog

The New York Times got the preview story wrong, and the Washington Post editorial writer probably was too rushed to question the charges of “creationism” coming from the National Center for Science Education, the Darwin-only lobby. So this week’s important decisions by the Texas State Board of Education (TSBE) on how to teach evolution were predicated in the media by the big question of whether teachers should provide both “strengths and weaknesses” of Darwin’s theory. Those words might sound benign, readers were told, but they really are “code words” (take the press’ word for it) for creationism and religion.

Although incorrect at points, the Wall Street Journal’s article on the new Texas science standards is more accurate than some of the local reporting. The key thing the Journal gets right is that the Board definitely opened the door to critically analyzing evolution in the classroom. Unfortunately, the article omits or mangles a lot of the details. For one thing, the article doesn’t mention the new critical inquiry standard requiring students to “analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations…including examining all sides of scientific evidence… so as to encourage critical thinking by the student.” The story also garbles things when it states that “the board voted down curriculum standards questioning the evolutionary principle that all life on Earth is descended from Read More ›

Unlike the slipshod Dallas Morning News article, the initial Associated Press report on the new Texas science standards acknowledges the “compromise” language requiring scientific critiques adopted by the Board and even quotes some of it: The curriculum will require that students “in all fields of science, analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations … including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations, so as to encourage critical thinking by the student.” Although the AP story is clearly slanted toward the evolution lobby (and contains the obligatory inaccurate comments about intelligent design), it doesn’t suppress the basic facts about what the Board did.