Darwin's HostagesA decision in Kansas to question evolution dogma has given rise to hysteria and intolerance.

In 1995 the National Academy ofSciences, through its NationalResearch Council arm, issued aset of national science education

standards calling for "dramaticchanges" intheway science istaught ingrade schools and high schools. Severalyears laterthe Kansas StateBoardofEducation appointed a panelofscientists and academics to advise it on

bringing state guidelines into conformity with the national standards. Asthe time drew nigh for the board tovoteon accepting the revised guidelines, however, a problem cropped up.Alerted by concerned parents, theboard discovered that the National

Academy had aggressively promotedevolution intoacentral "unifying concept" of science education, on a parwith such fundamentals as "evidence"

and "measurement." Students were to

be tolddefinitively that"Naturalselectionand its evolutionary consequencesprovide ascientific explanation forthefossil record ofancient life forms." Even

in themurkiest areas ofbiology such asthe origin of life, the academy madeclearin its pamphlet Science and Cre-ationism (free when you ordera copy ofthe sciencestandards) thatskepticismwas not to be countenanced. The acad

emy explicitly warned schools that"'biological evolution' cannotbeeliminated from the life science standards."

Michael J. Behe, professor ofbiochemistry at Lehigh University and afellow oftheDiscovery Institute, is theauthor o/" Darwin's Black Box:TheBiochemical Challenge toEvolution(Free Press).

MICHAEL J. BEHE

Last August the Kansas boardbalked. Led by board member SteveAbrams, a doctor of veterinary medicine, a 6-4majoritydeclined toadoptthe academy'sstandards on speculative aspects of Darwin's theory,although students' knowledge of"microevolution" —small changescaused bynatural selection thatcanbeobserved in the laboratory—wouldstill be tested.

That minimal act of defiance triggeredan explosion ofscomand rage,whose intensity canbestbegauged bythe chilling suggestion of John Ren-nie, editor ScientificAmerican, thatKansas schoolchildren beheldhostageuntil the boardacquiesces. He urgedcollege admissions officers to

Makeit clear that in lightof the newlylowered education standards in Kansas,thequalifications ofanystudents applying from that state in the future willhave to be considered very carefully.Senda clearmessage to theparents inKansas that this bad decision carries

consequences fortheirchildren.Ifkids in Kansas aren'tbeingtaught

properly aboutscience,theywon't beable to keep up with children taughtcompetently elsewhere. It's called survival of the fittest. Maybethe BoardofEducation needs to learn about nat

ural selection firsthand.

Rennie's threats aren't an isolated

overreaction. Aninfluential segmentofacademia, withsympathizers in thepress and elsewhere, regards public gacceptance of Darwinian evolution ias strictly nonnegotiable. Even First cAmendment guarantees of fireedom 2

December ipppljanuary 2000 --.The American Spectator

ofreligion take aback seat to the requirement for everyone toaffirm evolution. Trumpeting what heviewed as the inevitablevictory ofDarwinism, in his 1995 book Darwin's DangerousIdea—cited bytheNational Academy asa reading resource—theprominentatheist philosopher Daniel Dennett made ambitious plans. Religions should becaged, hewrote, like dangerous wild animals. "Save theBaptists! Yes, ofcourse, butnotbyallmeans. Not ifitmeans tolerating thedeliberate misinformingofchildren about the natural world."

How Do You Know?Whatisitaboutthetopic ofevolution thatdrives somany people nuts? Why does a change in a farm state's high schoolexamination policy callforth damning editorials all the wayfrom London, England, and have normally staid editors threatening children? The answer is convoluted, butseveral tightlyintertwined fectors can beteased apart. Thefirst, ofcourse,is religion. Some nonbelievers and adherents to minorityfaiths holdChristianity in contempt, and fight frantically tominimize thepublic influence ofAmerica's majority creed.The second factor ispolitics. Since activist opponents ofevolutionare asa mle politically conservative, anymoveagainstDarwinism istreated bysome overwrought folks asthefirst stepon the path tofascism, with a flat tax and a banonabortionsoon to follow. So the camel's nose must be shoved back withthe same vigor andtactics as was the Supreme Court nomination ofRobert Bork.

A final factor is more fimdamental than the others, andmore fateful. It's a question about knowledge itself—a clashover what we think we know and how we think we know it.Although seemingly esoteric, itcan spark real trouble. Peoplecan getsupremely irritated when other folks justwon't listen toreason, especially ifthey think they have the unvarnished factsontheir side. One reason for agitation is thataperson's self-imageis often wrapped up in what he thinks he knows about theimportant questions oflife. Richard Dawkins, theprominentDarwinian popularizer, wrote that "Darwin made itpossible tobeanintellectually-fulfilled atheist," andfew people give uptheirintellectual fulfillment quietly Atamore banal level, many manage tofeel good about themselves by feeling superior tocreationists. While onemay nothave aclueabout thesubtleties oftheevidence for orproblems with Darwinism, he isautomatically part ofthe smart set when heaccepts evolution.

The knowledge conflict is played for high stakes whengovernment bureaucracies orprofessional organizations gainthepower todecide what we officially know. As Dennett andRennie showed, thesidewith enoughculturalpower may tryto coerce the assentof whoever is vulnerable, such as children

i inpublic schools and their parents. At that point real knowl-! edge hardly matters; rather, the imperative ofpower is to force

others to accept your premises. For example, the Nationali Academy ofSciences is the bureaucracy that decides what we

officially know about evolution. Yet even while admittingthat the problem is "seemingly intractable," the academynonetheless dictates the premises for public discussion oftheoriginoflife:

The American Spectator • December 2000

Forthose whoare studying the originof life, the question is nolonger whether life could have originated by chemical processesinvolving nonbiological components. The question instead hasbecome which ofmany pathways might have been followed toproduce thefirst cells.

Bureaucracies with power donotrelinquish iteasily.Conflictaside, a serious evaluation ofwhatweknow about

a question as complex as evolution has to examine not onlyfacts, butpremises too. For the segmentofthe public that is conscientiously trying to sort through theevolution controversy, thedifficulty is that the two poles dominating public discussion—scientific atheism and biblical literalism—both have strongphilosophical views thatcolor anydiscussion ofthe facts. Sowhen reading the arguments ofeither side, onehas to worrywhether the conclusions come mostly from the facts or thepremises. This usually isn't difficult todo inthe case ofbiblicalliteralism, sincein the wake ofKansas there isno shortageofcommentators willing tobringproblems with its presumptions to our attention. On the other hand, critical probes ofDarwinism by the major media are rare. So let's focus onsomeproblems ofDarwinian literalism.

Problems, ProblemsDarwin fleshed outhistheory inseveral hundred pages oiTheOrigin ofSpecies, butthe main idea is easily summarized. Darwin saw variation everywhere in life—some individuals ofaspecies are bigger than others, some faster, some brighter incolor. After reading Malthus, Darwin realized thatthere was notenough food toallow allanimals that were bom tosurvive. Sohe reasoned that those members of a species whose chancevariation gave them an edge inthe stmggle to survive would tendto live toadulthood and reproduce. If the variation could beinherited, then over time the characteristics of the speciesmight change. And over eons, whole new kinds ofanimalsmightarise.

Itwas, andremains, an elegant theory. From justa few factors—variation, inheritance, and a struggle tosurvive—everythingseems to follow. Infact, to some tiie theory is so compellingitseems as though it just has toberight Richard Dawkins haswritten poetically of"universal Darwinism," courageously predicting that wherever life exists intheuniverse, we will find ithasevolved byDarwinianmeans.

Yet from the be^nning Darwin's theory has had its problems,and they are notgetting fewer with time. The theory's biggestembarrassment is the profound mystery of the origin of life.Toavoid thesubject, some Darwinists coyly say thatthetheory doesn't deal with life's origin; itconcerns changes once lifehas started. But, asthe National Academy's premise-bullyingmakes clear, Darwinists care very much about the origin oflife. Because they wantto retain control of the premises ofknowledge, they need thepublic conversation topresume thatunguided natural forces are responsible for all aspects oflife onEarth. Otherwise, ifnature neededa littleboost togetlife started, then who's to saythat factors different from the onesevolutionists study didn'thave a role in shaping life? And ifDar-

33

winism has to prove its just-sostories instead ofhaving themaccepted as the default explanation,itwould effectively loseits privileged position inWest-em intellectual society.

A classic Darwinian problem is the fossil record. In hisown day Darwin recognizedthat it did not square with hisexpectation of innumerabletransitional forms. It stilldoesn'tAlthough Darwinism expectedanatomical differences betweenclasses ofanimals tostart outsmall andthen getgreater with time,the opposite is often true—as arule very different forms oflifeappear within abrieftime, and only later do variations within thedeeper categories show up. New forms oflife typically appear inthe geological record with no obvious precursors, persist essentially unchanged for a time, and then disappear. Stephen JayGouldoncewrote that"theextreme rarity oftransitional foraisinthe fossil record persists as the trade secret ofpaleontology."Aghast atGould's bluntness, in Science and Creationism theNational Academy made a stab atdamage control. It quotedGould calling persons who cited his remark "dishonest," becausehe intended "to discuss rates of evolutionary change, not todeny the feet ofevolution itself." Yet whatever he personallywanted toaffirm ordeny, his factual observation ofthelack oftransitional fossils stands.

Recently Darwinism has suffered aseries ofembarrassmentsas textbook examples ofevolution have tumed out to be not whatthey seemed. The most serious reversal was in developmentalbiology. Based on nineteenth-century drawings, the embryos offish, amphibians, birds, and mammals were thought to look virtually identical. Much was made ofthe resemblance as evidence for evolution. Probably the majority ofAmerican schoolchildren inthe past 50 years have seen drawings ofthe embryosin their biology textbooks. Carl Sagan once wrote inParademagazine (circulation in the tens ofmillions) that humanembryos have "something like the gill arches ofa fish or anamphibian." And eminent scientists declared that the greatsimilarity only made sense inthe light ofevolution.

But the embryos don't look like that. Recent research hasshown thatthese century-old drawings, by Ernst Haeckel, anadmirer ofDarwin, are quite misleading. Inreality theembryosare significantly different firom each other (although thereare similarities). This turns out tobe a real puzzle. If fishevolved into amphibians, then the program that turns a fertilized egg into afish had to have changed into the programthat makes an egg into an amphibian. Drawing on Haeckel swork, scientists tiiought they understood how that could happen: Crucial early development was conserved, while later, lessimportant stages could vary. But now that scenario has beenfalsified.

In trying to decide whatwe know aboutevolution and how weknow it, the embryo fiasco is quite instructive. Thescientists

34

Because ieymnt to I'etain eontrol of the

premises of knowledge, Danvimsts need the public

convemtion to pmnme that unguided natural

foiw are responsible for all aspects of life on Earth.

and textbook authors who toutedthenineteenth-centurydrawings with utter confidence arenow exposed as clueless. (Theyinclude the president of theNational Academy ofSciences,BruceAlberts, whosetextbookMolecular Biology of the Cellprominently cites Haeckel'swork.) Theyassured thepublicthat theyhad strong evidencefor evolution, but they didn'teven know what the embryos

looked like. Their "facts" didn't

come firom nature,but from theirDarwinian premises.An axiomatic evolutionary idea to mninto trouble recently is

the conceptofan "arms race"—one involving predators and preyAn improvement in the ability ofthe prey to avoid being caughtsets the stage for an improvement inthe predator to catch it.Then the prey improves again, and so on. Like natural selectionitself, the idea ofanarms race seems like something that just hastobetrue.Inhisinfluential bookT^ie BlindWatchmaker, RichardDawkins averred that"thearms-race idearemains byfor themostsatisfectory explanation for the existence ofthe advanced andcomplex machinery that animals and plants possess."Yethowevertempting such an explanation may seem, there is little biologicalevidence for it. Recently aresearch team from the University ofChicago looked in aplace thought to be avery likely candidatefor anarms race—genes for disease susceptibilityorresistance inplants. When no supportingevidence was found, these researchersdeclared; "We reject thearms race hypothesis."

The dry results with plantdiseases have implications for alivelier subject—sex. It turns outthat sex is a big puzzle for Darwinian theory. Infeet, aliteral interpretation ofthe theory predicts that sexual reproduction should notexist. Here's theproblem. Given two organisms, ifboth are asexual, both canreproduce. Ifboth are sexual, only one (the female) can bearyoung. Alitde math shows that asexual organisms should rapidly outbreed sexual ones and dominate the world. But sincesexual species actually dominate, Darwinism has some explaining to do. In the past century dozens ofguesses have beenmade as towhy, against straightforward expectations, sex predominates. The currentfavorite is thatsexhelps in a putativearms race against parasitic diseases. But ifthe idea ofanarmsrace isitselfindoubt, then sex, thecore ofDarwinian evolution,remains anenigma. Atheory ofevolution that predicts mostspecies should beasexual is like atheory ofgravity that expectsthings tofall up.

Not Even theShadowKnowsTheaudacious claim that unguided natural forces organizednonliving matter into cells and then produced the complexbiological systems we see today is as solid as Swiss cheese.When treated with even the mildest skepticism, the mightyDarwinian citadel fedes into aPotemkin village. No wonder thatthe National Academy brooks no discussion of the theory's

December IJanuary aooo""" The American Spectator

Danvinians Against CompetitionMostAmericans have longrecognized thatclaims byscientistsabout global warming, nuclear winter, overpopulation, stem cellresearch, andsoon can't justbe takenat face value. Scientists arepeople too and suffer firom the same defects as everyone else,including hubris, self-interest, and wishful thinking. This goes forscience organizations as well. The National Academy ofSciencescan be asbiasedin itsrecommendations on sciencepolicyastheAmerican BarAssociation canbeonlegal matters. Onthe other hand, sciencedoes come up with important findingson occasion, suchasthe linkbetween smoking and health. Sohow is one to sift the useful information fi'om the hype? Thebest(although notperfect) way todothatistohavea wide-opendiscussion. In controversial scientific matters no less than inpolitical ones, theresponsibility for persuasion thenrests with theadvocates ofa position. The publichas no moral obligation toblindly trust science groups. Ifa majority of the public disbelieves theNational Academy ofSciences, thenthatshould betheacademy's problem, notthepublic's.

AGallup poll taken after theKansas decision showed only aminority ofrespondents wanted theteaching ofevolution eliminated fi:om schools. A strong majority, however, respondedpositively when asked ifboth evolution and creation should betaught. It's likely that theresponse tothecanned poll questiontranslates into an attitude somethinglike "be less dogmaticaboutteaching evolution; point outproblems ofthetheory and

premises—premises are just about allit's got. Yet some peopleareeager to join theDarwinian team, even though thatmeansgoing well beyond thefacts—taking a leap offaith.

Leaps offaith canturninto pratfalls when what we think weknow isn't true. And so it was that much dubious wisdom was dispensed following Kansas by savants whose knowledge ofDarwin'stheory stops atthatbumpersticker ofa fish with feet Whilesmitingbiblical literalists hip and thigh, film critic Roger Ebertweighed in with, "I am encouraged byevolution, which suggests that things keep improving"—a view that would driveStephen Jay Gould todistraction. Gould andanyother evolutionist worth his saltwill tellyou thatnatural selection isaslikelytolead toregress asprogress. Apro-evolution Seattle columnistwrote of'X,ucy, thefamous 3.2 million year old Ethiopian mummyonceadmired byPresident Clinton." Lucy, however, isa fossil,nota mummy; Clinton's eyes sparkled for a 500-year-old mummified Incan maiden (aged 13 years atdeadi), not(yet) for ihefossilized hominid. Echoing the official line, columnistEllenGoodmanwrote, "There's noserious dispute aboutthe fact ofevolution.... There isscientific dispute aboutthe theoryofevolution—how andwhy andwhen life began andspecies evolved."But the National Academy insists discussion of the "how" bestrictly confined to unintelligent, unguided, wholly naturalprocesses. Inafijnny piece indie Washington Post, Gene Wein-garten wrote that "the genes that have made [the Kansas board]such pinheads will be eliminated through natural selection.Because that ishowit works." Weingartenshouldsober upand take hisown scenariomore seriously: Ifdumbgenes haven't beeneliminated since Lucy's day, why does hethink selection can do it, let alone make Unfortursmart genes?

Weshouldn't be too hard on the pundits, though,becauseeventhe experts gettheir conclusions from their premises.Several years ago I argued in Darwin'sBlackBox that many of the exceedinglycomplex molecular machines that science has unexpectedly discovered in thecell appear to have been purposelydesigned, because of the way theirpartswork together. On the PBS show "Think-Tank," Ben Wattenberg asked RichardDawkins—Mr. Darwinism—for his TRov\/e Pric(response. With his trademark charm, for our free kitDawkins choked that I was being "cow- payout from yoiardly" and "lazy" for invoking adesigner. retirement planNonetheless, he admitted that since he explains the pnwasn't a biochemist, he couldn't answer the distributiontheargument. Yet ifhedoesn't know howevolution might have made the basicmachinery of life, how can he be surethat Darwinism is a complete explana-tion for life? And if Richard Dawkins ^r more informatiidoesn't know, who does? And if nobodyknows, why teach children thatwe do?

Switching Jobs Can Have AnUnfortunate Effect On Your Retirement Savings.

•I TAj^Lm

Don't Lose 40% Or More Of Your Retirement Plan To Taxes And Penalties.

Call For Your Free Information KitToday.

T. Rov\/e Price can help. Callforour free kiton managing thepayout from your former employer'sretirement plan.The kitclearlyexplains the pros and cons of allthe distribution options, so you

Invest With Confidence (

TRoweR-ice

can decide what's best for

you. Becausewe'd hate tosee your retirement plan goall to pieces.

1-800-541-8335

Formore informatiMi, including feesand expenses, request a prospectus. Read itcarefully t)efore investing,I Rowe Price Investment Services, Inc., Disi'ibutor. irifg5083i

The American Spectator • Decemher i999/]anuary 2000

include alternative views." Yetthis entirelysensible position isanathema to most evolutionists,who seem to argue both thatDarwinism is a compellingexplanation and that it has tobe shielded from rival ideas.

Twoobjections aremostfre-quendy raised against teachingalternatives to Darwinism in

the publicschools. The first isthat science classes shouldteachonlywhatscientists thinkaboutscientific topics, andfew scientists doubt evolution. Science classes,however, should notlimit themselves towhatmostprofessional scientists think anymorethanEnglish classes shouldteachonlywhattheModemLanguage Association approves. Experience shows thatentireprofessions cangetstuck inan intellectual rut Inordertoprepareschoolchildren tobe citizens overseeing competing segment ofsociety, the scope ofa class should intentionally bewiderthan the mindset ofitsprofessional practitioners.

Avariant ofthisobjection isthat it'sokay todiscuss evolutionalternatives in social studies class, but not in science class.(Thisseems tobe the spot where VicePresident Gorelandedafter unexpectedly announcing hissupport for teaching cre-ationism.) That, however, is intellectual compartmentaliza-tionat its worstThe point ofstudy istoseek thetruth,oratleasttobecomeaware ofwhatotherpeoplethinkmaybe true. Ifthetopic ofa class ishow life on Eartharose, then all ideas aboutthatquestion should bediscussed in anyclass where the subject is raised. To do otherwise wouldonly teach students thatknowledge hastoconform tobureaucratic guidelines.

Asecondobjection isthatdiscussing alternatives to evolution would open the floodgates to innumerable theories onthe origin oflife, with every person's pet idearequiring equaltime. But this objection is just a scare tactic. Other classescopewith the situation all the time. Forexample, there arecountless political viewpoints. Nonetheless, forthe mostparthighschool history classes manage todiscuss the major ideasthathaveshaped nations withoutgettingbogged down in, say.Warren Beatty's personal political theories.

Religion in the ClassroomThe National Academy ofSciences hasa planto end the conflict over theteaching ofevolution. Taking a pagefirom DanielDennett'sbook, theywanttoput religions in cages. Notabolish them, you understand—just make them safe, and stopthem from misinforming children about the natural world.The idea isto getanyone whostillwants to believe in somethingtosubscribe to"theistic evolution"—which to the academy means that whatever some god may or may not havedone, ithad tohave happened before theBig Bang, left nophysicaltraces, andbeindistinguishable from die random workingofnatural law. As theacademy encouragingly points outinScience and Creationism, "Manyreligious persons, including

36

The publie has no moral oblivion to blindly trust

science groups. If amajority of the public (lisb^

lieves the National Academy of Sciences, ienthat

should be the academy's problem, not the public's.

many scientists, holdthatGodcreated the universe and thevarious processes driving physicaland biological evolution."Happily, theistic evolution"reflects the remarkable andinspiring characterofthephysical universe revealed by [science]." Bestof all, though, isthat "this belief.. .is not in dis

agreement with scientificexplanations ofevolution."The leastworrisome aspectof

the academy's remarkable statement isthe tenuous grasp on logic that the nation's leadingscientists areshown topossess. Ifthere is indeeda God who"createdtheuniverse," how isonetoguarantee thathewouldn'tinteractwithit in ways the academy woulddisapprove? Andifhe mighthave donesomething besides settheball rolling,shouldn't that be a matter for evidence to decide, rather thanpremises?

The most worrisome aspect is that a quasi-governmentalagency with substantial influence onpublic policy hasgottenheavily into thereligion business. Notcontent toadvise thepublic on mundane matters ofhowthephysical world works, theacademy isacting topromote a theology thatcauses the leasttrouble to Darwinism. While adults maybe able to tell theacademy thatthey will make iiptheir own minds abouttheir religious beliefe, thankyou very much, the academy will helpmakeup the mindsofschoolchildren.

Although not an official partof the national science education standards, theacademy's religious philosophy expressedinScience andCreationism will getwide distribution among science teachers and willinfluencemanya lesson plan.Reasoningfrom theacademy's premises, themore consistentstudentswillsee that, ifGod isforbidden to act in history, miracles areout Saint Paul's encounterwith God on the road to Damascus,forexample, isbestexplained asa hallucination brought on bya small cerebral accident Indeed, since the Resurrection itselfmustbeamyth, thenasSaintPaulsays, their&ith isinvain. Bettertoleave suchirrationality far behind. Eventually thefight overteaching evolution will beover.

Most Church-State conflicts are at the very for marginsoF"establishing a religion"—whether parochial students canridepublicschoolbuses, whethera creche can be displayedin a public park, and soon. The evolution conflict isat theheart:Anagency of the federal government isattemptingtoinculcate a religious premise intochildren using the publicschools. The premise—that God would not act in history,would notaffect the physical world—isn't an observation ofscience, buta theological presupposition thatstands againstChristianity andother religions. Given allthescientific problems with Darwin's theory, it's not surprising thattheNational academy wants no classroom discussion of its dubiouspremise. How heartening to see the people of Kansas andother states fighting back. ^

December iggg IJanuary 2000 • TheAmerican Spectator