I wouldn’t bother responding to Ross Douthat’s Inherit the Wind except that TNR saw fit to publish it–and did so less that one week after publishing Jerry Coyne’s The Faith that Dare Not Speak Its Name.
On 11 August 2005 TNR offered us perhaps the single best essay on intelligent design, evolution and science education in America. But certainly the discussion should not be limited to eminently qualified and highly articulate scientists such as Jerry Coyne or H Allen Orr.
So on 16 August 2005, TNR showcased a promising young conservative, Ross Douthat, who served up apology after distortion after evasion after fallacy to fault “liberals” for why so many conservatives have campaigned against science.
I’ll do what I can with the few unpaid hours I have to devote–but as Nick Matzke observed in an immediately related context:
[Michael] Behe's 46-word blurb took about 2474 words to thoroughly refute (I get about 1778 if you exclude quotes). First you have to figure out what Behe was thinking when Behe was reading Sermonti, and then explain Behe's mistakes there; then you have to look at Sermonti and look at his mistakes and misinterpretations; and then you have to explain the real science, looking up technical papers and translating them into popular language.
Exactly. Only in this case, not only does Douthat get the science (of which he seems gloriously ignorant) wrong, but Douthat takes it upon himself to lecture (read: all but libel) “liberals,” advise George Bush, impugn the National Academy of Sciences, and whitewash the conservative support for intelligent design. All the while claiming the high moral ground.
This young man will go far. Shame that his reasoning and evidence bears only a tangential relationship to reality.
Where even to begin?
Douthat avers that
For conservative intellectuals in general, it [intelligent design] offers hope that Darwinism will yet join Marxism and Freudianism in the dustbin of pseudoscience.
I'll just let go of the mysterious–and let me add, oft repeated--association of evolution with Marxism and Freudianism. Let's deal with Douthat's major claim--that “conservative intellectuals in general . . . hope” evolution might be proven pseudoscience.
Start with the fact of evolution: “the genealogical connection among all earthly organisms, based on their descent from common ancestor, and the history of any lineage as process of descent with modification.” [ref]
Fact, not theory. Because the evidence from DNA to morphology to the fossil record to observed speciation is overwhelming. Evidence gathered, tested and examined from tens of thousands of examples over decades of scientific research.
To dispute the fact of evolution–to be so woefully scientifically illiterate and generally incapable of critical thought–entails that one largely forfeit any claims to be an “intellectual.” An intellectual of any political stripe.
So if I’m being charitable, the best interpretation of Douthat is that his “conservative intellectuals in general” are arguing about particular theories concerning evolution–the explanations that scientists offer to explain the fact of evolution. Hence whatever Douthat thinks he means by “Darwinism.”
For intelligent design, Douthat avers,
began as a critique of Darwinian theory, pointing out aspects of biological life that modification-through-natural-selection has difficulty explaining.
Right.
“Darwinism,” as I’ve previously remarked, seems at best a shorthand for evolutionary theory and at worst a distorted definition thereof–one that few to none working biologists would accept or endorse. We have the second case here.
Douthat knows neither Darwin's own work, the modern synthesis, nor current developments in evolutionary theory. Let’s start with Darwin, since Douthat confidently but mistakenly believes his definition of evolutionary theory can be ascribed to Darwin.
In his 1872 edition of Origin of Species, in an effort to correct not so much the scientists as the public intellectuals of his day, Darwin pointedly replied (emphasis mine):
As my conclusions have lately been much misrepresented, and it has been stated that I attribute the modification of the species exclusively to natural selection, I may be permitted to remark that in the first edition of this work [1859], and subsequently, I placed in a most conspicuous position–namely, at the close of the Introduction–the following words: “I am convinced that natural selection has been the main but not the exclusive means of modification.” This has been of no avail. Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.
Great indeed is the power of steady misrepresentation, as witnessed by Douthat repeating in 2005 what Darwin specifically rebutted in 1871.
But if Douthat can’t bother to even get Darwin right on “Darwinism,” what about the nearly century and a half of science since? Turns out that no evolutionary biologists hold that natural selection and random variation alone can explain the fact of evolution or account for the complexity of life.
The definition of "Darwinism" that Douthat ascribes to evolutionary theory simply is not–and has never been–accepted by mainstream scientists since Darwin. As RPM at Evolgen noted
no one in the mainstream establishment thinks in such simple terms such that they disregard all other evolutionary mechanisms. We are open to alternative explanations such as neutrality, meiotic drive, niche construction, and the effects of genome structure.
Likewise, PZ Myers wonders if pundits like Douthat
never heard of Brian Goodwin, Stuart Kauffman, Lynn Margulis, or Mary Jane West-Eberhard? These are all respected voices in the scientific community who have been actively offering challenges and alternatives to unadorned natural selection (which, by the way, is not synonymous with evolution).
Finally, Sean Carroll reports on Biology's third revolution–the most recent developments in research and evolutionary theory.
Douthat’s version of “Darwinism” does not apply to Darwin himself, the modern synthesis, or the “third revolution.” So what, exactly, is intelligent design offering a critique of?
Douthat doesn’t know. But worse yet, he doesn’t know that he doesn’t know. He’s not bluffing or posturing–the poor soul actually believes he’s making sense.
Consider Douthat’s seemingly sensible disclaimer
Even if the existence of a designer is a reasonable inference to draw from the complexity of, say, a bacterial flagellum, one would still need to explain how the flagellum moved from design to actuality.
Before trotting out Michael Behe’s ten-year-old canard as a plausible “reasonable inference,” it might help first to review the literature on Behe’s bacterial flagellum.
Likewise, Douthat warns his fellow conservatives that
unless George W. Bush imposes intelligent design on American schools by fiat and orders the scientific establishment to recant its support for Darwin, intelligent design will eventually collapse–like other assaults on evolution that failed to offer an alternative–under the weight of its own overreaching.
Was George W. Bush elected as Joseph Stalin? Though surely William Dembski would make a fine Trofim Lysenko. Douthat should write a second essay as to how George W. Bush could impose intelligent design by fiat. Douthat, like certain Counterpunch contributors, seems to think we’re already living in a fascist dictatorship.
Not yet. Equally remarkable is Douthat’s claim that “intelligent design will eventually collapse.” If you’re holding your breath waiting, you can exhale now. The more interesting issue here: why Douthat maintains that intelligent design has scientific merit.
As H Allen Orr observed:
Though people often picture science as a collection of clever theories, scientists are generally staunch pragmatists: to scientists, a good theory is one that inspires new experiments and provides unexpected insights into familiar phenomena. By this standard, Darwinism is one of the best theories in the history of science: it has produced countless important experiments (let's re-create a natural species in the lab--yes, that's been done) and sudden insight into once puzzling patterns (that's why there are no native land mammals on oceanic islands). In the nearly ten years since the publication of Behe's book, by contrast, I.D. has inspired no nontrivial experiments and has provided no surprising insights into biology
Or, in the immortal words of Gertrude Stein, “there’s no there there.” As an attempt at science, intelligent design has already collapsed and for reasons other than overreaching.
Yet again, Douthat has no clue. Which brings us to one of his most egregious errors. The scientific community is not supporting Darwin. First, Darwin is dead. Second, Darwin offered several theories to account for evolutionary change.
Now, nearly a century and half later, some of Darwin’s ideas are still part of evolutionary theory. Natural selection, for example, has withstood the test of time and repeated scrutiny. Random variation, likewise. But excepting perhaps Douthat’s “conservative intellectuals in general,” no one–not even Darwin in his day–holds that these are the only evolutionary forces at work, and that natural selection and random variation alone account for the complexity of life.
Evolution, again, is fact not spin. Currently evolutionary theory is nothing like what Douthat describes. The scientific community is supporting not Darwin but intellectual integrity and a general commitment to methodical study of shared objective reality.
We’ve established, I hope, my earlier claim that Douthat–like most “conservative intellectuals”, I’m sad to say–is gloriously ignorant when it comes to evolution in particular and science in general.
For Douthat’s concern is not with science or even science education but elsewhere:
If liberals play their cards right, this collapse could provide them with a powerful rhetorical bludgeon.
Yes, you knew somehow liberals were to blame.
A few quick remarks before we untangle what amounts to Douthat’s reasoning. I’ve provided at Societas varying accounts of conservatives making fools out of themselves ranting against evolution in particular and science in general. Far worse, this ranting has translated into policy and practice. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) points out the tip of this iceberg; Chris Mooney, what's underneath in The Republican War on Science.
This is not a rhetorical problem. This is a reality problem. But Douthat –a postmodernist(?)–won't recognize the difference.
For his contribution to the conservative cause, Douthat targets such “liberal” pundits such as Maureen Dowd and Jacob Weisberg. (What Dowd, Weisberg and Douthat have in common, incidentally, is that I can enjoy a few too many pale ales and then piss away more than what they collectively know about evolution and intelligent design). With great seriousness, Douthat examines the rhetoric of MSM players and pundits, and tracks who covers the issue and how.
Without mentioning the scientist-author Jerry Coyne, Douthat notes in scare quotes that “this week’s TNR makes the pretty-much-airtight ‘case against intelligent design’”–but TNR also said this, the NYT said that, a Newsweek cover story said so-and-so, the San Francisco Chronicle, et cetera.
So really, what is truth?
For Douthat, what matters is political and rhetorical: what matters is “spin” to the exclusion of science. Hence why Jacob Weisberg @ Slate and Maureen Dowd @ NYT get named attention. Whereas credit for the work of the Jerry Coyne, one of the very best at what he does with evolution and population genetics, goes to TNR.
It’s not that Douthat–when he’s not delightfully suggesting that George Bush just drop any pretense of respecting the Constitution–doesn’t at least sense the difference: “The ‘design inference’ is a philosophical point, not a scientific theory.” It’s just that he has liberals to bash and conservatives to exonerate, and as such mere truths and reasoned distinctions (along with the Bill of Rights, science education in America, etc.) get in the way.
So on to the liberal bashing. Douthat worries that (numbers mine):
[1] on any issue that remotely touches on science, a GOP that’s obsessed with downing Darwin will be easily tagged as medieval, reactionary, theocratic. [2] And this formula can be applied to every new bioethical dilemma that comes down the pike.
Right. In regard to [1], tagging the GOP as “medieval, reactionary, theocratic” has considerable truth. Evolution is fact. Evolutionary theory is mainstream science, supported by diverse and extensive evidence. Yet we have political conservatives in general–drop the “intellectual” requirement–attacking Darwinism in the same matter as Douthat: in glorious ignorance of what Darwin actually wrote and what scientists have determined since.
But wait for the joke: Douthat, whose ignorance on matters scientific seems exceeded only by his arrogance, is an enlightened and intellectual conservative who wants to shove the creationists and theocrats back in the GOP closet. Well, the Answers in Genesis crowd aren’t going to go quietly. Anymore than Tom DeLay. Did Douthat conveniently forget the Hammer’s numerous proclamations on Biblical Law?
Guess so.
Douthat suffers from cognitive dissonance regarding his own party: those “medieval, reactionary, theocratic” folks are more properly and politely referred to as “the base.” And like Dr. Video Frist, you’ll kiss their asses if you want a future.
How does Douthat get around this? Again, liberals are to blame. And scientists. Which brings us to Douthat’s concern with bioethics.
In perhaps the most vile, unfair and distorted passage TNR will publish this year, Douthat proclaims:
the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued ethical guidelines for research cloning, which blessed the creation of human-animal “chimeras”–animals seeded with human cells. New York Times reporter Nicholas Wade, writing on the guidelines, declared that popular repugnance at the idea of such creatures is based on “the pre-Darwinian notion that species are fixed and penalties [for cross-breeding] are severe.” In other words, if you’re opposed to creating pig-men–carefully, of course, with safeguards in place (the NAS guidelines suggested that chimeric animals be forbidden from mating)–you’re probably stuck back in the pre-Darwinian ooze with Bishop Wilberforce and William Jennings Bryan.
Should I share with Douthat that flu vaccines are made by growing the virus in eggs? The virus is then killed, processed, and resultant given by injection. To humans.
What is NAS dealing with in the guidelines Douthat refers to? Testing possible medical cures from human stem cells in pigs first, humans second. Why pigs? Surprisingly–if insultingly–good match. This is doing with stem cells what we have been doing with medical research to date. Both lab and animal testing.
Is animal testing wrong? Perhaps. Not that we would have post-medieval medicine without it. Indeed, for medical and other purposes, we’ve been exploiting the creatures on this planet for sometime now. (Not to mention that most of us eat them everyday).
We can decide NOT to test human stem cells in non-human creatures. Which then entails either
- testing medical stem applications directly in humans; or
- not doing stem cell research at all.
But Douthat doesn’t tell you that. Nor does he evaluate the cost of testing directly in humans. Nor the cost of not doing stem cell research. He hasn’t weighed the risks and benefits, examined the difficult decisions, and decided what should and should not be permitted. He offers no policy, procedure or guidelines whatsoever. He doesn’t have a moral position–or know a lick about bioethics.
Douthat is counting on and trading off your fear and ignorance.
He wants you to think it’s the Isle of Dr. Moreau. Douthat’s not going to provide a link to–or even directly mention–Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Let alone chapter three, Addressing Ethical and Scientific Concerns Through Oversight.
Douthat will not inform you that NAS is charted to offer recommendations on science and policy, and that the US is playing catch-up as other nations have their regulations in place and research ongoing.
No. Douthat is just posturing. Conservative values protect you from evil scientists. Ask his position on medical tort reform. Or stronger oversight of the pharmaceutical industry. Or national health care. Ask him about real issues that directly affect your health and well-being. Given his association with the rightwing Claremont Institution, I can predict for you how Douthat will likely respond.
Whatever.
Douthat wants to reassure us that scientists–and those liberals who have better things to do than crusade against Darwinism–just might know a little more about science than “conservative intellectuals in general.” Might. But still have the wrong values. Most precious, I think, is near Douthat’s ending–his advice to liberals:
The left often thinks of modern science as a child of liberalism, but if anything, the reverse is true. And what scientific thought helped to forge–the belief that all human beings are equal–scientific thought can undermine as well.
Ah, yes. The truth will out.
Douthat has a dream–and one sadly shared by still far too many “religious conservatives” and “conservative intellectuals” alike. Scientific support for racism, sexism and bigotry. Just you liberals wait.
Only a matter of time before the human genome project or string theory will–as the Holy Bible once did–provide justification for subjugation (re: slavery) based on physical differences, the subordination of women, and the persecution of homosexuals.
Just you liberals wait.
The “belief that all human beings are equal” is part of our social contract and not a matter of science. Science has been called in on this issue when people attempted to use it to justify inequalities. But Douthat, no student of history, doesn’t know that either.
Douthat concludes:
Conservatives may be wrong about evolution, but they aren’t necessarily wrong about the dangers of using Darwin, or the National Academy of Sciences, as a guide to political and moral order.
In reply,
- Conservatives are wrong about evolution.
- The National Academy of Sciences makes no pretense that its non-binding recommendations for research comprise “a guide to political and moral order.” Or, that their work is above review. Which, incidentally, is why you can read for free online the Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Not, again, that Douthat wants you to know that. Or that Douthat could be bothered providing either the citation for his source or the context for the NAS recommendations.
- Darwin was a remarkably sane, decent and gentle individual who repeatedly disavowed the non-scientific nonsense that people much like Douthat extrapolated from their misrepresentations of evolutionary theory. “Darwinism,” historically, was favored in the US by wealthy conservatives and their apologists–not progressive reformers.
Whatever, again. By implication, Douthat wants you to believe that liberals derive their moral values from his hateful and ludicrous distortions / misunderstandings of Darwin and NAS.
If it weren’t for the fact that TNR obviously intended that we take Douthat seriously, this could be quite amusing along the lines of a Jesus’ General riff on our Glorious War to Resubjugate Brown People. But “Inherit the Wind” isn’t satire.
It’s an earnest attempt by a promising young conservative thinker to deal with evolution, intelligent design, science education, bioethics, and the political and social ramifications thereof. And indeed, about the current state of intellectual conservatism in the US, nothing more damning need be said.
Ref: Stephen Jay Gould, “Introduction,” page x. Published in Carl Zimmer, Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea, Harper Collins: 2001.
Tags: Evolution, Intelligent Design, Evolutionary Theory, Darwinism, Natural Selection, Jerry Coyne, H Allen Orr, Evologen, Pharyngula, Darwin