Evolution as Dogma:
The Establishment of Naturalism
http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/pjdogma1.htm
Phillip E. Johnson
The orthodox explanation of what is
wrong with creationism goes something like this:
Science has accumulated overwhelming
evidence for evolution. Although there are controversies among scientists
regarding the precise mechanism of evolution, and Darwin's particular theory of
natural selection may have to be modified or at least supplemented, there is no
doubt whatsoever about the fact of evolution. All of today's living
organisms including humans are the product of descent with modification from
common ancestors, and ultimately in all likelihood from a single microorganism
that itself evolved from nonliving chemicals. The only persons who reject the
fact of evolution are biblical fundamentalists, who say that each species was
separately created by God about 6,000 years ago, and that all the fossils are
the products of Noah's Flood. The fundamentalists claim to be able to make a
scientific case for their position, but "scientific creationism" is a
contradiction in terms. Creation is inherently a religious doctrine, and there
is no scientific evidence for it. This does not mean that science and religion
are necessarily incompatible, because science limits itself to facts,
hypotheses, and theories and does not intrude into questions of value, such as
whether the universe or mankind has a purpose. Reasonable persons need have no
fear that scientific knowledge conflicts with religious belief.
Like many other official stories, the
preceding description contains just enough truth to mislead persuasively. In
fact, there is a great deal more to the creation-evolution controversy than
meets the eye, or rather than meets the carefully cultivated media stereotype of
"creationists" as Bible-quoting know-nothings who refuse to face up to the
scientific evidence. The creationists may be wrong about many things, but they
have at least one very important point to argue, a point that has been
thoroughly obscured by all the attention paid to Noah's Flood and other side
issues. What the science educators propose to teach as "evolution," and label as
fact, is based not upon any incontrovertible empirical evidence, but upon a
highly controversial philosophical presupposition. The controversy over
evolution is therefore not going to go away as people become better educated on
the subject. On the contrary, the more people learn about the philosophical
content of what scientists are calling the "fact of evolution," the less they
are going to like it.
To understand why this is so, we have to
define the issue properly, which means that we will have to redefine some terms.
Nobody doubts that evolution occurs, in the narrow sense that certain changes
happen naturally. The most famous piece of evidence for Darwinism is a study of
an English peppered-moth population consisting of both dark- and light-colored
moths. When industrial smoke darkened the trees, the percentage of dark moths
increased, due to their relative advantage in hiding from predators. When the
air pollution was reduced, the trees became lighter and more light moths
survived. Both colors were present throughout, and so no new characteristics
emerged, but the percentage of dark moths in the population went up and down as
changing conditions affected their relative ability to survive and produce
offspring.
Examples of this kind allow Darwinists
to assert as beyond question that "evolution is a fact," and that natural
selection is an important directing force in evolution. If they mean only that
evolution of a sort has been known to occur, and that natural selection has
observable effects upon the distribution of characteristics in a population,
then there really is nothing to dispute. The important claim of "evolution,"
however, is not that limited changes occur in populations due to differences in
survival rates It is that we can extrapolate from the very modest amount of
evolution that can actually be observed to a grand theory that explains how
moths, trees, and scientific observers came to exist in the first place.
Orthodox science insists that we can
make the extrapolation. The "neoDarwinian synthesis" (hereafter Darwinism)
begins with the assumption that small random genetic changes (mutations)
occasionally have positive survival value. Organisms possessing these favorable
variations should have a relative advantage in survival and reproduction, and
they will tend to pass their characteristics on to their descendants. By
differential survival a favorable characteristic spreads through a population,
and the population becomes different from what it was. If sufficient favorable
mutations show up when and where they are needed, and if natural selection
allows them to accumulate in a population then it is conceivable that by tiny
steps over vast amounts of time a bacterial ancestor might produce descendants
as complex and varied as trees, moths, and human beings.
That is only a rough description of the
theory, of course, and there are all sorts of arguments about the details. Some
Darwinists, such as Harvard Professor Steven Jay Gould, say that new mechanisms
are about to be discovered that will produce a more complicated theory, in which
strictly Darwinian selection of individual organisms will play a reduced role.
There is also a continuing debate about whether it is necessary to "decouple
macroevolution from microevolution." Some experts do not believe that major
changes and the appearance of new forms (i.e., macroevolution) can be explained
as the products of an accumulation of tiny mutations through natural selection
of individual organisms (microevolution). If classical Darwinism isn't the
explanation for macroevolution, however, there is only speculation as to what
sort of alternative mechanisms might have been responsible. In science, as in
other fields, you can't beat something with nothing, and so the Darwinist
paradigm remains in place.
For all the controversies over these
issues, however, there is a basic philosophical point on which the evolutionary
biologists all agree. Some say new mechanisms have to be introduced and others
say the old mechanisms are adequate, but nobody with a reputation to lose
proposes to invoke a supernatural creator or a mystical "life force" to help out
with the difficulties. The theory in question is a theory of naturalistic
evolution, which means that it absolutely rules out any miraculous or
supernatural intervention at any point. Everything is conclusively presumed to
have happened through purely material mechanisms that are in principle
accessible to scientific investigation, whether they have yet been discovered or
not.
That there is a controversy over how
macroevolution could have occurred is largely due to the increasing awareness in
scientific circles that the fossil evidence is very difficult to reconcile with
the Darwinist scenario. If all living species descended from common ancestors by
an accumulation of tiny steps, then there once must have existed a veritable
universe of transitional intermediate forms linking the vastly different
organisms of today (e.g., moths, trees, and humans) with their hypothetical
common ancestors. From Darwin's time to the present, paleontologists have hoped
to find the ancestors and transitional intermediates and trace the course of
macroevolution. Despite claims of success in some areas, however, the results
have been on the whole disappointing. That the fossil record is in important
respects hostile to a Darwinist interpretation has long been known to insiders
as the "trade secret of paleontology," and the secret is now coming out in the
open. New forms of life tend to be fully formed at their first appearance as
fossils in the rocks. If these new forms actually evolved in gradual steps from
pre-existing forms, as Darwinist science insists, the numerous intermediate
forms that once must have existed have not been preserved.
To illustrate the fossil problem, here
is what a particularly vigorous advocate of Darwinism, Oxford Zoology Professor
(and popular author) Richard Dawkins, says in The Blind Watchmaker
about the "Cambrian explosion," i.e., the apparently sudden appearance of the
major animal forms at the beginning of the Cambrian era:
The Cambrian strata
of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find
most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them in an advanced
state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were
just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this
appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Evolutionists of all
stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in
the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason,
very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago.
The "appearance of sudden planting" in
this important instance is not exceptional. There is a general pattern in the
fossil record of sudden appearance of new forms followed by "stasis" (i.e.,
absence of basic evolutionary change). The fossil evidence in Darwin's time was
so discouraging to his theory that he ruefully conceded: "Nature may almost be
said to have guarded against the frequent discovery of her transitional or
linking forms." Leading contemporary paleontologists such as David Raup and
Niles Eldredge say that the fossil problem is as serious now as it was then,
despite the most determined efforts of scientists to find the missing links.
This situation (along with other problems I am passing over) explains why many
scientist would dearly love to confirm the existence of natural mechanisms that
can produce basically new forms of life from earlier and simpler organisms
without going through all the hypothetical intermediate steps that classical
Darwinism requires.
Some readers may wonder why the
scientists won't admit that there are mysteries beyond our comprehension, and
that one of them may be how those complex animal groups could have evolved
directly from pre-existing bacteria and algae without leaving any evidence of
the transition. The reason that such an admission is out of the question is that
it would open the door to creationism, which in this context means not simply
biblical fundamentalism, but any invocation of a creative intelligence or
purpose outside the natural order. Scientists committed to philosophical
naturalism do not claim to have found the precise answer to every problem, but
they characteristically insist that they have the important problems
sufficiently well in hand that they can narrow the field of possibilities to a
set of naturalistic alternatives. Absent that insistence, they would have to
concede that their commitment to naturalism is based upon faith rather than
proof Such a concession could be exploited by promoters of rival sources of
knowledge, such as philosophy and religion, who would be quick to point out that
faith in naturalism is no more "scientific" (i.e. empirically based) than any
other kind of faith.
Immediately after the passage above
about the Cambrian explosion, Dawkins adds the remark that, whatever their
disagreements about the tempo and mechanism of evolution, scientific
evolutionists all "despise" the creationists who take delight in pointing out
the absence of fossil transitional intermediates. That word "despise" is well
chosen. Darwinists do not regard creationist as sincere doubters but as
dishonest propagandists, persons who probably only pretend to disbelieve what
they must know in their hearts to be the truth of naturalistic evolution. The
greater their apparent intelligence and education, the greater their fault in
refusing to acknowledge the truth that is staring them in the face. These are
"dark times," Dawkins noted last year in the New York Times, because
nearly half of the American people, including many who should know better,"
refuse to believe in evolution. That such people have any rational basis for
their skepticism is out of the question, of course, and Dawkins tells us exactly
what to think of them: "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody
who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or
insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."
Darwinists disagree with creationists as
a matter of definition, of course, but the degree of contempt that they express
for creation in principle requires some explanation beyond the fact that certain
creationists have used unfair tactics such as quoting scientists out of context.
It is not just the particular things that creationists do that infuriate the
Darwinists; the creationists' very existence is infuriating. To understand why
this is so, we must understand the powerful assumptions that mainstream
scientists find it necessary to make, and the enormous frustration they feel
when they are asked to take seriously persons who refuse to accept those
assumptions.
What Darwinists like Dawkins despise as
"creationism" is something much broader than biblical fundamentalism or even
Christianity and what they proclaim as "evolution" is something much narrower
than what the word means in common usage. All persons who affirm that "God
creates" are in an important sense creationists, even if they believe that the
Genesis story is a myth and that God created gradually through evolution over
billions of years. This follows from the fact that the theory of evolution in
question is naturalistic evolution, meaning evolution that involves no
intervention or guidance by a creator outside the world of nature.
Naturalistic evolution is consistent
with the existence of "God" only if by that term we mean no more than a first
cause which retires from further activity after establishing the laws of nature
and setting the natural mechanism in motion. Persons who say they believe in
evolution, but who have in mind a process guided by an active God who
purposely intervenes or controls the process to accomplish some end, are using
the same term that the Darwinists use, but they mean something very different by
it. For example, here is what Douglas Futuyma, the author of a leading college
evolutionary biology textbook, finds to be the most important conflict between
the theory of evolution and what he thinks of as the "fundamentalist"
perspective:
Perhaps most
importantly, if the world and its creatures developed purely by material,
physical forces, it could not have been designed and has no purpose or goal. The
fundamentalist, in contrast, believes that everything in the world, every
species and every characteristic of every species, was designed by an
intelligent, purposeful artificer, and that is was made for a purpose. Nowhere
does this contrast apply with more force than to the human species. Some shrink
from the conclusion that the human species was not designed, has no purpose, and
is the product of mere material mechanisms-but this seems to be the message of
evolution. (Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution)
It is not only "fundamentalism," of
course, but theists of any description who believe that an intelligent artificer
made humanity for a purpose, whether through evolution or otherwise. Futuyma's
doctrinaire naturalism is not just some superfluous philosophical addition to
Darwinism that can be discarded without affecting the real "science" of the
matter. If some powerful conscious being exists outside the natural order, it
might use its power to intervene in nature to accomplish some purpose, such as
the production of beings having consciousness and free will. If the possibility
of an "outside" intervention is allowed in nature at any point, however, the
whole naturalistic worldview quickly unravels.
Occasionally, a scientist discouraged by
the consistent failure of theories purporting to explain some problem like the
first appearance of life will suggest that perhaps supernatural creation is a
tenable hypothesis in this one instance. Sophisticated naturalists instantly
recoil with horror, because they know that there is no way to tell God when he
has to stop. If God created the first organism, then how do we know he didn't do
the same thing to produce all those animal groups that appear so suddenly in the
Cambrian rocks? Given the existence of a designer ready and willing to do the
work, why should we suppose that random mutations and natural selection are
responsible for such marvels of engineering as the eye and the wing?
Because the claims of Darwinism are
presented to the public as "science" most people are under the impression that
they are supported by direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record
studies This impression is seriously misleading. Scientists cannot observe
complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in
a laboratory or elsewhere. The fossil record, as we have seen, is so unhelpful
that the important steps in evolution must be assumed to have occurred within
its "gaps." Darwinists believe that the mutation-selection mechanism
accomplishes wonders of creativity not because the wonders can be demonstrated,
but because they cannot think of a more plausible explanation for the existence
of wonders that does not involve an unacceptable creator, i.e., a being
or force outside the world of nature. According to Gareth Nelson, "evidence, or
proof, of origins of the universe, of life, of all the major groups of life, of
all the minor groups of life, indeed of all the species-is weak or nonexistent
when measured on an absolute scale." Nelson, a senior zoologist at the American
Museum of Natural History, wrote that statement in the preface to a recent book
by Wendell Bird, the leading attorney for the creationist organizations. Nelson
himself is no creationist, but he is sufficiently disgusted with Darwinist
dogmatism that he looks benignly upon unorthodox challengers.
Philosophical naturalism is so deeply
ingrained in the thinking of many educated people today, including theologians,
that they find it difficult even to imagine any other way of looking at things.
To such people, Darwinism seems so logically appealing that only a modest amount
of confirming evidence is needed to prove the whole system, and so they point to
the peppered-moth example as virtually conclusive. Even if they do develop
doubts whether such modest forces can account for large-scale change, their
naturalism is undisturbed. Since there is nothing outside of nature, and since
something must have produced all the kinds of organisms that exist, a
satisfactory naturalistic mechanism must be waiting to be discovered.
The same situation looks quite different
to people who accept the possibility of a creator outside the natural order. To
such people, the peppered-moth observations and similar evidence seem absurdly
inadequate to prove that natural selection can make a wing, an eye, or a brain.
From their more skeptical perspective, the consistent pattern in the fossil
record of sudden appearance followed by stasis tends to prove that there is
something wrong with Darwinism, not that there is something wrong with the
fossil record. The absence of proof "when measured on an absolute scale" is
unimportant to a thoroughgoing naturalist, who feels that science is doing well
enough if it has a plausible explanation that maintains the naturalistic
worldview. The same absence of proof is highly significant to any person who
thinks it possible that there are more things in heaven and earth than are
dreamt of in naturalistic philosophy.
Victory in the creation-evolution
dispute therefore belongs to the party with the cultural authority to establish
the ground rules that govern the discourse. If creation is admitted as a serious
possibility, Darwinism cannot win, and if it is excluded a priori
Darwinism cannot lose. The point is illustrated by the logic which the Natural
Academy of Sciences employed to persuade the Supreme Court that
"creation-scientists" should not be given an opportunity to present their case
against the theory of evolution in science classes. Creation-Science is not
science, said the Academy, because
it fails to display
the most basic characteristic of science: reliance upon naturalistic
explanations. Instead, proponents of "creation- science" hold that the creation
of the universe, the earth, living things, and man was accomplished through
supernatural means inaccessible to human understanding.
Besides, the Academy's brief continued,
creationists do not perform scientific research to establish the mechanism of
supernatural creation, that being by definition impossible. Instead, they seek
to discredit the scientific theory of evolution by amassing evidence that is
allegedly consistent with the relatively recent, abrupt appearance of the
universe, the earth, living things, and man in substantially the same form as
they now have.
"Creation-science" is thus manifestly a
device designed to dilute the persuasiveness of the theory of evolution. The
dualistic mode of analysis and the negative argumentation employed to accomplish
this dilution is, moreover, antithetical to the scientific method.
The Academy's brief went on to cite
evidence for evolution, but evidence was unnecessary. Creationists are
disqualified from making a positive case, because science by definition is based
upon naturalism. The rules of science also disqualify any purely negative
argumentation designed to dilute the persuasiveness of the theory of evolution.
Creationism is thus out of court and out of the classroom-before any
consideration of evidence. Put yourself in the place of a creationist who has
been silenced by that logic, and you may feel like a criminal defendant who has
just been told that the law does not recognize so absurd a concept as
"innocence."
With creationist explanations
disqualified at the outset, it follows that the evidence will always support the
naturalistic alternative. We can be absolutely certain that the Academy will not
say, "The evidence on the whole supports the theory of evolution, although we
concede that the apparent abrupt appearance of many fully formed animal groups
in the Cambrian rocks is in itself a point in favor of the creationists." There
are no scientific points in favor of creation and there never will be any as
long as naturalists control the definition of science, because creationist
explanations by definition violate the fundamental commitment of science to
naturalism. When the fossil record does not provide the evidence that naturalism
would like to see, it is the fossil record, and not the naturalistic
explanation, that is judged to be inadequate.
When pressed about the unfairness of
disqualifying their opponents a priori, naturalists sometimes portray
themselves as merely insisting upon a proper definition of "science," and not as
making any absolute claims about "truth." By this interpretation, the National
Academy of Sciences did not say that it is untrue that "the creation of
the universe, the earth, living things and man was accomplished through
supernatural means inaccessible to human understanding," but only that this
statement is unscientific. Scientific naturalists who take this line
sometimes add that they do not necessarily object to the study of creationism in
the public schools, provided it occurs in literature and social science classes
rather than in science class.
This naturalist version of balanced
treatment is not a genuine attempt at a fair accommodation of competing
worldviews, but a rhetorical maneuver. It enables naturalists effectively to
label their own product as fact and its rival as fantasy, without having to back
up the decision with evidence. The dominant culture assumes that science
provides knowledge, and so in natural science classes fundamental
propositions can be proclaimed as objectively true, regardless of how many
dissenters believe them to be false. That is the powerful philosophical meaning
of the claim that "evolution is a fact." By contrast, in literature class we
read poetry and fiction, and in social science we study the subjective
beliefs of various cultures from a naturalistic perspective. If you have
difficulty seeing just how loaded this knowledge-belief distinction is, try to
imagine the reaction of Darwinists to the suggestion that their theory should be
removed from the college biology curriculum and studied instead in a course
devoted to nineteenth-century intellectual history.
By skilful manipulation of categories
and definitions, the Darwinists have established philosophical naturalism as
educational orthodoxy in a nation in which the overwhelming majority of people
express some form of theistic belief inconsistent with naturalism. According to
a 1982 Gallup poll aimed at measuring nationwide opinion, 44 percent of
respondents agreed with the statement that "God created man pretty much in his
present form at one time within the last 10,000 years." That would seem to mark
those respondents as creationists in a relatively narrow sense. Another 38
percent accepted evolution as a process guided by God. Only 9 percent identified
themselves as believers in a naturalistic evolutionary process not guided by
God. The philosophy of the 9 percent is now to be taught in the schools as
unchallengeable truth.
Cornell University Professor William
Provine, a leading historian of Darwinism, concluded from Gallup's figures that
the American public simply does not understand what the scientists means by
evolution. As Provine summarized the matter, "The destructive implications of
evolutionary biology extend far beyond the assumptions of organized religion to
a much deeper and more pervasive belief, held by the vast majority of people,
that non-mechanistic organizing designs or forces are somehow responsible for
the visible order of the physical universe, biological organisms, and human
moral order." Provine blamed the scientific establishment itself for misleading
the public about the absolute incompatibility of contemporary Darwinism with any
belief in God, designing forces, or absolute standards of good and evil.
Scientific leaders have obscured the conflict for fear of jeopardizing public
support for their funding, and also because some of them believe that religion
may still play a useful role in maintaining public morality. According to
Provine, "These rationalizations are politic but intellectually dishonest."
The organizations that speak officially
for science continue to deny that there is a conflict between Darwinism and
"religion." This denial is another example of the skilful manipulation of
definitions, because there are evolution-based religions that embrace naturalism
with enthusiasm. Stephen Jay Gould holds up the geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky,
"the greatest evolutionist of our century and a lifelong Russian Orthodox," as
proof that evolution and religion are compatible. The example is instructive,
because Dobzhansky made a religion out of evolution. According to a eulogy by
Francisco Ayala, "Dobzhansky was a religious man, although he apparently
rejected fundamental beliefs of traditional religion, such as the existence of
God and of life beyond physical death. His religiosity was grounded on the
conviction that there is meaning in the universe. He saw that meaning in the
fact that evolution has produced the stupendous diversity of the living world
and has progressed from primitive forms of life to mankind...He believed that
somehow mankind would eventually evolve into higher levels of harmony and
creativity." In short, Dobzhansky was what we would today call a New Age
pantheist. Of course evolution is not incompatible with religion when the
religion is evolution.
Dobzhansky was one of the principal
founders of the neo- Darwinian synthesis. Another was Julian Huxley, who
promoted a religion of "evolutionary humanism." A third was the paleontologist
George Gaylord Simpson. Simpson explained in his book The Meaning of
Evolution that "there are some beliefs still current, labeled as religious
and involved with religious emotions, that conflict with evolution and are
therefore intellectually untenable in spite of their emotional appeal." Simpson
added that it is nonetheless "self-evident ...that evolution and true religion
are compatible." By true religion he meant naturalistic religion, which accepts
that "man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have
him in mind." Because efforts have been made to obscure the point, it should be
emphasized that Simpson's view is not some personal opinion extraneous to the
real "science" of Darwinism. It is an expression of the same naturalism that
gives Darwinists confidence that mutation and natural selection, Darwinism's
"blind watchmaker," can do all the work of a creator.
Against this background readers may
perceive the cruel irony in Justice Brennan's opinion for the Supreme Court
majority, holding the Louisiana "balanced treatment" statute unconstitutional
because the creationists who promoted it had a "religious purpose." Of course
they had a religious purpose, if by that we mean a purpose to try to do
something to counter the highly successful efforts of proponents of naturalism
to) have their philosophy established in the public schools as "fact." If
creationists object to naturalistic evolution on religious grounds, they are
admonished that it is inappropriate for religion to meddle with science. If they
try to state scientific objections, they are disqualified instantly by
definitions devised for that purpose by their adversaries. Sisyphys himself,
eternally rolling his stone up that hill in Hades, must pity their frustration.
The Darwinists are also frustrated,
however, because they find the resurgence of creationism baffling. Why can't
these people learn that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming? Why do they
persist in denying the obvious? Above all, how can they be so dishonest as to
claim that scientific evidence supports their absurd position? Writing the
introduction to a collection of polemics titled Scientists Confront
Creationism, Richard Lewontin attempted to explain why creationism is
doomed by its very nature. Because he is a dedicated Marxist as well as a famous
geneticist, Lewontin saw the conflict between creation and evolution as a class
struggle, with history inevitably awarding the victory to the naturalistic
class. The triumph of evolution in the schools in the post-Sputnik era signaled
that "the culture of the dominant class had triumphed, and traditional religious
values, the only vestige of control that rural people had over their own lives
and the lives of their families, had been taken away from them." In fact, many
creationists are urban professionals who make their living from technology, but
Lewontin's basic point is valid. The "fact of evolution" is an instrument of
cultural domination and it is only to be expected that people who are being
consigned t the dustbin of history should make some protest.
Lewontin was satisfied that creationism
cannot survive because its acceptance of miracles puts it at odds with the more
rational perception of the world as a place where all events have natural
causes. Even a creationist "crosses seas not on foot but in machines, finds the
pitcher empty when he has poured out its contents, and the cupboard bare when he
has eaten the last of the loaf" Lewontin thus saw creationism as falsified not
so much by any discoveries of modern science as by universal human experience, a
thesis that does little to explain either why so absurd a notion has attracted
so many adherents or why we should expect it to lose ground in the near future.
Once again we see how the power to
define can be used to distort, especially when the critical definition is
implicit rather than exposed to view. (I remind the reader that to Lewontin and
myself, a "creationist" is not necessarily a biblical literalist, but rather any
person who believes that God creates.) If creationists really were people who
live in an imaginary world of continual miracles, there would be very few of
them. On the contrary, from a creationist point of view, the very fact that the
universe is on the whole orderly, in a manner comprehensible to our intellect,
is evidence that we and it were fashioned by a common intelligence. What is
truly a miracle, in the pejorative sense of an event having no rational
connection with what has gone before, is the emergence of a being with
consciousness, free will, and a capacity to understand the laws of nature in a
universe which in the beginning contained only matter in mindless motion.
Once we understand that biologists like
Lewontin are employing their scientific prestige in support of a philosophical
platform, there is no longer any reason to be intimidated by their claims to
scientific expertise. On the contrary, the inability of most biologist to make
any sense out of creationist criticisms of their presuppositions is evidence of
their own philosophical naivete' The "overwhelming evidence for naturalistic
evolution" no longer overwhelms when the naturalistic worldview is itself called
into question, and that worldview is as problematical as any other set of
metaphysical assumptions when it is placed on the table for examination rather
than being taken for granted as "the way we think today."
The problem with scientific naturalism
as a worldview is that it takes a sound methodological premise of natural
science and transforms it into a dogmatic statement about the nature of the
universe. Science is committed by definition to empiricism, by which I mean that
scientists seek to find truth by observation, experiment, and calculation rather
than by studying sacred books or achieving mystical states of mind. It may well
be, however, that there are certain questions-important questions, ones to which
we desperately want to know the answers-that cannot be answered by the methods
available to our science. These may include not only broad philosophical issues
such as whether the universe has a purpose, but also questions we have become
accustomed to think of as empirical, such as how life first began or how complex
biological systems were put together.
Suppose, however, that some people find
it intolerable either to be without answers to these questions or to allow the
answers to come from anyone but scientists. In that case science must provide
answers, but to do this, it must invoke scientism, a philosophical
doctrine which asserts arbitrarily that knowledge comes only through the methods
of investigation available to the natural sciences. The Soviet Cosmonaut who
announced upon landing that he had been to the heavens and had not seen God was
expressing crudely the basic philosophical premise that underlies Darwinism.
Because we cannot examine God in our telescopes or under our microscopes, God is
unreal. It is meaningless to say that some entity exists if in principle we can
never have knowledge of that entity.
With the methodology of scientism in
mind, we can understand what it means to contrast scientific "knowledge" with
religious "belief," and what follows from the premise that natural science is
not suitable for investigating whether the universe has a purpose. Belief is
inherently subjective, and includes elements such as fantasy and preference.
Knowledge is in principle objective, and includes elements such as facts and
laws. If science does not investigate the purpose of the universe, then the
universe effectively has no purpose, because a purpose of which we can have no
knowledge is meaningless to us. On the other hand, the universe does exist, and
all its features must be explicable in terms of forces and causes accessible to
scientific investigation. It follows that the best naturalistic explanation
available is effectively true, with the proviso that it may eventually be
supplanted by a better or more inclusive theory. Thus naturalistic evolution is
a fact, and the fact implies a critical guiding role for natural selection.
Scientism itself is not a fact, however,
nor is it attractive as a philosophy once its elements and consequences are made
explicit. Persons who want naturalistic evolution to be accepted as unquestioned
fact must therefore use their cultural authority to enact rules of discourse
that protect the purported fact from the attacks of unbelievers. First, they can
identify science with naturalism, which means that they insist as a matter of
first principle that no consideration whatever be given to the possibility that
mind or spirit preceded matter. Second, they can impose a rule of procedure that
disqualifies purely negative argument, so that a theory which obtains some very
modest degree of empirical support can become immune to disproof until and
unless it is supplanted by a better naturalistic theory. With these rules in
place, Darwinists can claim to have proved that natural selection crafted moths,
trees, and people, and point to the peppered-moth observation as proof.
The assumption of naturalism is in the
realm of speculative philosophy, and the rule against negative argument is
arbitrary. It is as if a judge were to tell a defendant that he may not
establish his innocence unless he can produce a suitable substitute to be
charged with the crime. Such vulnerable rules of discourse need protection from
criticism, and two distinct rhetorical strategies have been pursued to provide
it. First, we have already seen that the direct conflict between Darwinism and
theism has been blurred, so that theists who are not committed to biblical
inerrancy are led to believe that they have no reason to be suspicious of
Darwinism. The remaining objectors can be marginalized as fundamentalists, whose
purportedly scientific objections need not be taken seriously because "everybody
knows" that people like that will believe, and say, anything.
The second strategy is to take advantage
of the prestige that science enjoys in an age of technology, by asserting that
anyone who disputes Darwinism must be an enemy of science, and hence of
rationality itself This argument gains a certain plausibility from the fact that
Darwinism is not the only area within the vast realm of science where such
practices as extravagant extrapolation, arbitrary assumptions, and metaphysical
speculation have been tolerated. The history of scientific efforts to explain
human behavior provides many examples, and some aspects of cosmology, such as
its Anthropic Principle, invite the label "cosmo-theology." What makes the
strategy effective, however. is not the association of Darwinism with the more
speculative aspects of cosmology, but its purported link with technology. Donald
Johanson put the point effectively, if crudely: "You can't accept one part of
science because it brings you good things like electricity and penicillin and
throw away another part because it brings you some things you don't like about
the origin of life."
But why can't you do exactly that? That
scientists can learn a good deal about the behavior of electrons and bacteria
does not prove that they know how electrons or bacteria came into existence in
the first place. It is also possible that contemporary scientists are insightful
upon some matters and, like their predecessors, thoroughly confused about
others. Twentieth century experience demonstrates that scientific technology can
work wonders, of course. It also demonstrates that dubious doctrines based upon
philosophy can achieve an undeserved respectability by cloaking themselves in
the mystique of science. Whether Darwinism is another example of pseudoscience
is the question, and this question cannot be answered by a vague appeal to the
authority of science.
For now, things are going well for
Darwinism in America. The Supreme Court has dealt the creationists a crushing
blow, and state boards of education are beginning to adopt "science frameworks."
These policy statements are designed to encourage textbook publishers to
proclaim boldly the fact of evolution-and therefore the naturalistic philosophy
that underlies the fact-instead of minimizing the subject to avoid controversy.
Efforts are also under way to bring under control any individual teachers who
express creationist sentiments in the classroom, especially if they make use of
unapproved materials. As ideological authority collapses in other parts of the
world, the Darwinists are successfully swimming against the current.
There will be harder times ahead,
however. The Darwinist strategy depends upon a certain blurring of the issues,
and in particular upon maintaining the fiction that what is being promoted is an
inoffensive "fact of evolution," which is opposed only by a discredited minority
of religious fanatics. As the Darwinists move out to convert the nation's school
children to a naturalistic outlook, it may become more and more difficult to
conceal the religious implications of their system. Plenty of people within the
Darwinist camp know what is being concealed, and cannot be relied upon to
maintain a discreet silence. William Provine, for example, has been on a crusade
to persuade the public that it has to discard either Darwinism or God, and not
only God but also such non-materialistic concepts as free will and objective
standards of morality. Provine offers this choice in the serene confidence that
the biologists have enough evidence to persuade the public to choose Darwinism,
and to accept its philosophical consequences.
The establishment of naturalism in the
schools is supposedly essential to the improvement of science education, which
is in such a dismal state in America that national leaders are truly worried. It
is not likely, however, that science education can be improved in the long run
by identifying science with a worldview abhorred by a large section of the
population, and then hoping that the public never finds out what is being
implied. The project requires that the scientific establishment commit itself to
a strategy of indoctrination, in which the teachers first tell students what
they are supposed to believe and then inform them about any difficulties only
later, when it is deemed safe to do so. The weakness that requires such
dogmatism is evident in Philip Kitcher's explanation of why it is "insidious" to
propose that the creationists be allowed to present their negative case in the
classroom:
There will be ...much
dredging up of misguided objections to evolutionary theory. The objections are
spurious-but how is the teacher to reveal their errors to students who are at
the beginning of their science studies? ...What Creationists really propose is a
situation in which people without scientific training-fourteen-year-old
students, for example-are asked to decide a complex issue on partial evidence.
A few centuries ago, the defenders of
orthodoxy used the same logic to explain why the common people needed to be
protected from exposure to the spurious heresies of Galileo. In fairness, the
creationists Kitcher had in mind are biblical fundamentalists who want to attack
orthodox scientific doctrine on a broad front I do not myself think that such
advocacy groups should be given a platform in the classroom. In my experience,
however, Darwinists apply the same contemptuous dismissal to any suggestion,
however well-informed and modestly stated, that in constructing their huge
theoretical edifice upon a blind commitment to naturalism, they may have been
building upon the sand. As long as the media and the courts are quiescent, they
may retain the power to marginalize dissent and establish their philosophy as
orthodoxy. What they do not have the power to do is to make it true.
(Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma:
The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson,
Texas, 1990, pp1-17)
Phillip
Johnson Files
|