The Preservation of Favored Theories in the Struggle for Minds

In the nineteenth century, Thomas Huxley became known as Darwin’s Bulldog. In the twenty first century Richard Dawkins could be called “Darwin’s Rottweiler,” as suggested by the man who endowed the chair now held by Dawkins. Dawkins is a British Zoologist, and the Charles Simonyi Professor in the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. Charles Simonyi endowed this chair specifically to free Dawkins, in his writings, has exhibited an open hostility towards religion. As a guest lecturer at Auburn University in Montgomery, Alabama, he departed from his prepared text to critique a textbook label. A transcript of this critique was later titled The “Alabama Insert”: A Study in Ignorance and Dishonesty. Let’s match Dawkins’ complaint against relevant criteria. Where lays the ignorance and dishonesty spoken of in the transcript title? Is his evidence solid, and appropriately applied? Is his logic sound or faulty? Does he betray a motivation more aggressively anti-creation than merely enthusiastically pro-evolution?

While most people care little – or find themselves in the undecided middle – there are two widely separated and vocal extremes in the evolution verses creation battle. At one extreme are the young-Earth, Bible believing, uncompromising, fundamental literalists who’re sure they know every jot and tittle of their sacred text. At the other extreme are the billions-of-years-to-evolve, Darwin believing, uncompromising, fundamental naturalists who’re sure they have correctly interpreted sufficient data. Dawkins proves himself to be an archetypical extremist of the latter type as he critiques The Alabama Insert in a patronizingly harsh and arrogant manner. Contrary to showing why the label should not be used, he is an example of exactly why such a label is vitally needed.

What is this label that has Dawkins’ knickers in such a knot?

A MESSAGE FROM THE ALABAMA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

[to be pasted in all biology textbooks]

•This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things, such as plants, animals and humans.

•No one was present when life first appeared on Earth. Therefore, any statement about life’s origins should be considered as theory, not fact.

•The word “evolution” may refer to many types of change. Evolution describes changes that occur within species. (White moths, for example, may “evolve” into gray moths.) This process is microevolution, which can be observed and described as fact. Evolution may also refer to the change of one living thing to another, such as reptiles into birds. This process, called macroevolution, has never been observed and should be considered a theory. Evolution also refers to the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced a world of living things.

•There are many unanswered questions about the origin of life which are not mentioned in your textbooks, including:

•Why did the major groups of animals suddenly appear in the fossil record (known as the Cambrian Explosion)?

•Why have no new major groups of living things appeared in the fossil record in a long time?

•Why do major groups of plants and animals have no transitional forms in the fossil record?

•How did you and all living things come to possess such a complete and complex set of “instructions” for building a living body?

•Study hard and keep an open mind. Someday you may contribute to the theories of how living things appeared on Earth.

Dawkins went through a sentence-by-sentence lambasting of this label. We will not have to do the same, because he establishes his pattern of argument quickly, and maintains it throughout.

He begins his critique by shooting himself in the foot. He comes out with guns blazing, and says, “This is dishonest. The use of ‘some scientists’ […]”, Dawkins complains, implies a significant “number of respectable scientists who do not accept evolution.” The use of “some” to denote an unspecified number – while perhaps an understatement – is not dishonest, especially considering the overstated nature of typical pro-evolutionary arguments. A number need not be large to be significant. The rest of his opening argument is ad hominem, launching into an invective against the credentials and qualifications of those who disagree with evolutionism. He claims the proportion of qualified scientists not believing is insignificant. He talks about “so called” creation scientists whose PhDs “are, I think, never in relevant subjects.” There are even working biologists who recognize the limits of the theory of evolution. Michael Behe – himself a biochemist – cites Klaus Dose as “a prominent worker in the field of origin-of-life research.”

“More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life […] (has) lead to a better perception of the immensity of the problem […] rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.”

A number of qualified people have spoken their doubts about the more extravagant claims of the theory of evolution. A common ploy used by evolutionary biology extremists is to suggest that none other than biologists are qualified to judge evolutionary claims. It does not take a qualified biologist to understand nomenclature, methodology, contradictory evidence, and faulty logic; especially when there are qualified biologists like Behe and Dose who are willing to speak candidly about the limits of what is known. With whom does the ignorance and dishonesty lie?

Having shot himself in the foot, Dawkins abandons his pistols and picks up a saber to duel with the semantics of “theory.” Here we have an opportunity for a more revealing look at one of the facets of this complex issue. It is the unsubstantiated overstating of the certainty of the theory at one extreme, and the misunderstanding of the term at the other, that helps keep these two ends apart.

“Theory: an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.”

There are variables in this definition and nuances to consider: “based on,” not proven by; “especially,” but not limited to; “helping to,” but not totally explaining. The definition of scientific theory is broad, and in practice is broader still. Dawkins himself adds the phrase, “as well as for ideas that are little more than a hunch” to the definition of theory. It could be rightly said that a particular theory could be: “an explanation or model based on reasoning, and assuming to explain natural phenomena.” With this broad definition, Dawkins still manages to contradict himself within a single sentence, and again in the next sentence. After using the example of there being many different theories as to why the dinosaurs died out, and admitting that nobody knows why, he defines this as an example of an open question for which more evidence is needed. Then, directly referring to origins as just such an open question, he plainly says,

“That is also true of the origin of life, but it is not the case with the theory of evolution itself. Evolution is as true as the theory that the world goes around the sun.”

Did he just say, “We don’t have enough evidence to decide the origin of life, but the general theory of evolution – which includes origins – is as true as the world going around the sun?” Dawkins then engages in some stereotyping by contrasting theory with myth and comparing the “Jewish origin myth” with other creation stories that have the world being formed from ant dung, or being stirred up in a cosmic butter churn. I’ve yet to see an anti-creation writer fail to insist the entire theory of evolution is way closer to certainty than the evidence supports; nor have I seen anyone writing in support of creationism doing other than implying that “theory” is ever more than just a guess.

Another characteristic of the debate is the failure to recognize what a huge difference a single letter makes. The difference between microevolution and macroevolution is infinitely greater than a difference in spelling. It’s also the difference between Dawkins’ evidence being acceptable or its being inappropriately applied. The theory of evolution is two theories. Macroevolution requires an increase in complexity from one kind of life to another. Microevolution accounts for the tremendous variety we see, and does not entail an increase in complexity. Dawkins ridicules the creationists for making a point of the difference between micro and macro. Typical of anti-creation arguments, he haughtily sweeps it aside with the ubiquitous appeal to time.

“Actually, it’s no big deal. Macroevolution is nothing more than microevolution stretched out over a much greater time span.”

This logic would claim that because a motorcycle and a Mack™ truck both have engines, are made of metal, and roll on rubber tires, they both evolved from – as a common ancestor – a pile of tin cans and inner tubes that were discarded millions of years ago. Every attempt at evidence Dawkins offers is an example of micro – not macro – evolution. He chants the evolutionist’s litany of moths, finches, dogs, and hybridized plants, and expects you to pause-step in procession to the cadence of his liturgy. In every example he cites as proof of evolution he ends up with what he started with. He started with moths – inserted several words of gibberish – and ended up with moths; started with finches, and ended up with finches; started with dogs, and ended up with dogs. And what about the hybridizing of plants? That’s a planned, purpose-driven process inserting outside intelligence and design to influence the characteristics of succeeding generations. It mimics creation rather than evolution. When attempting to explain origins the anti-creationist always cites microevolution, and then appeals to the ubiquitous “lots and lots of time.”

There seem to be often repeated examples used by anti-creationists whenever they try to brush aside the questions of creationists. Archaeopteryx is a favorite. It is billed as a transition from reptile to bird. Remember the supposed evolution of the horse in your high school biology text? Peddlers of macroevolution also like to point out vestigial organs that he claims were of use in the far distant past, but are now mere reminders of our evolutionary history. The problem for the evolutionist is that every feature of Archaeopteryx has proven to be either a feature of modern bird or not a feature of reptiles. Archaeopteryx is not transitional. The classical sequence of horse evolution appears nowhere in the fossil record, and the Eohippus – the supposed ancestor – is nearly the same as the now existing African Hyrax. In addition, modern horse types have been found in the same fossil strata as Eohippus. And the list of supposed vestigial organs grows shorter and shorter as we discover their heretofore-unknown functions.

Dawkins continues ad nauseam in the same vein. There is the continual appeal to time – alone and without design input – as enough to account for macroevolution. One argument can be summed up as: Macroevolution happens too slowly for us to observe in the present, but it happened to quickly in the past to have left evidence. In his own words:

“The riddle for any theory to answer is, ‘how do you get complicated, statistically improbable apparent design?’ Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is the only known theory that can answer this riddle.”

Any theory, as long as it’s the one he preaches. There will always be those at each extreme too stubborn to compromise. The evolutionist lobby employs the First Amendment of the Constitution, and its clause regarding the establishment of religion, as a check against the creationist lobby. What check is there on a peer-reviewed system of dissertation, hiring, publishing, and tenure? No matter how vital and dynamic academia is in general, or how professional most of those involved, there exists the potential for abuse. For the evolutionist to ask why – if there is so much evidence for creation – is there not more published in qualified journals, is akin to asking why you wouldn’t board your pet kitten in a Pit Bull kennel. Someone might accuse the worst of anti-creation extremists of being the academic equivalent of bullies beating up the little creationist kid.

Mr. Dawkins’ critique of The Alabama Insert is a prejudicial diatribe against an idea that he cannot disprove, but refuses to consider. His judgments are not adequately substantiated. He sang a little song about relevant credentials, did a little dance of nomenclature, and then – after squirting a little seltzer in your pants – he pulls closed a curtain of valid microevolutionary tapestry to cover his assumptions of macroevolution. He then relaxes in his dressing room to read Darwin’s book, the full title of which is, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection; or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.The Alabama Insert. Perhaps it should even be required. Evolutionism is not the only show in town. Close the curtain on their burlesque show, and allow the use of the Alabama Insert. Perhaps it should even be required.