Neo-Darwinism

Several months ago, I participated in a two-hour radio “debate” with Michael Ruse (along with Guillermo Gonzalez and Carlos Calle) about design in cosmology and astronomy. Several times, Michael Ruse lectured me about Christian theology. But it had a surreal quality to it, since he was talking about the theology he (as an agnostic) preferred, but he kept acting as if he was representing Christian theology accurately. I finally insisted that I actually did know a good bit about theology and that he was just making stuff up.

Ruse’s responses to Stephen Fuller in the Guardian over ID have that same, surreal quality. For instance, here’s how he distinguishes the difference between the Protestant and Catholic views of justification:

Pretty much everyone agrees that natural selection acting on random genetic mutations can explain some things. The really interesting question is, how much can it explain? Since Darwin’s mechanism seems intuitively plausible, we’re often tempted just to trust our intuitions rather than to look at the hard data. And yet the data increasingly show that, whatever its intuitive attractions, the powers of selection and mutation are surprisingly limited. In many cases, new biological functions require several mutations. And everyone agrees that natural selection doesn’t have foresight. But it’s widely assumed that if each of the individual mutations leading to new functions are themselves adaptive, then natural selection can traverse the pathway. Again, this makes intuitive sense. But what about the Read More ›

Eighty years ago Thursday the famous Scopes Monkey Trial ended in Dayton, Tennessee. Time for a quiz:

History tells us that two great lawyers faced off. On the one side was (A) a progressive and a pacifist, an educated man who rejected the idea of a young earth and worried about efforts to peddle racism and eugenics in the South. On the other side was (B) a master orator who defended some flagrantly racist ideas long since discredited by science. Lawyer A sought a full and fair debate over the evidence. Lawyer B used a procedural tactic to shut down the debate so that only his position was heard.

Surely Mr. A would be the darling of any contemporary liberal journalist, right? But Mr. A was William Jennings Bryan, the creationist.

The World Summit on Evolution just happened earlier this month with less fanfare than one might expect in these days of overhyping Darwin’s legacy. It seems that about 200 biologists gathered in Chuck’s old stomping grounds in the Galapagos to compare notes on neo-Darwinian evolution and breathe some life back into the aging concept.

One blogging attendee explained why it had to be kept so hush-hush:

“Arrival details were kept under wraps, said one organizer, lest the Creationist community get wind of the fact that so many evolutionary luminaries would be on the same plane to the island.”

Recent events in Kansas have given Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture an occasion to repeat its policy position concerning the teaching of evolutionary theory in public schools. Now a proposed piece of legislation in New York requires another reiteration.
To restate the CSC’s policy on teaching evolutionary theory in public schools: we OPPOSE the MANDATING of intelligent design theory in public schools. Intelligent design is a promising scientific theory, but it is nonetheless an emerging theory.

A better policy would be for students to learn some of the scientific criticisms of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory and chemical origin-of-life theories, along with the best scientific arguments favoring those respective theories. Drs. John Angus Campbell and Stephen Meyer lay out such a policy in a recent op-ed with The San Jose Mercury News (available here).

Back to New York…