In the July 1992 issue of Scientific American Stephen Jay Gould wrote a scathing review of Phil Johnson's book Darwin on Trial. After unsuccessfully ignoring the book for two years, Gould finally attempted to discredit it with a nasty review, claiming the book was full of errors. Johnson wrote a detailed response--but Scientific American refused to give him any print space. They have also refused requests from other organizations to reprint Gould's review along with Johnson's response.
So here we print Johnson's reply to Gould's review. You'll just have to go into the library and look up the July 1992 edition of Scientific American to read Gould's review and find out why he and Scientific American are so afraid of Phil Johnson.
So writes Richard Dawkins, author
of The Blind Watchmaker. As a Darwinist, Dawkins maintains that
the appearance is deceptive and that living organisms are actually
the product of purposeless material forces--random genetic variation
and natural selection. This "blind watchmaker thesis"
is the most important claim of evolutionary biology. If scientists
were able to say only that primitive fish "somehow"
became amphibians, and then mammals, and finally humans, nobody
would be very impressed. Absent a credible mechanism, the transformation
of a fish into a human being is nearly as miraculous as the creation
of man from the dust of the earth. What makes the story of evolution
impressive is that Darwinist scientists think that they know how
such transformations occurred, through natural processes requiring
no divine guidance or non-material orienting force.
The blind watchmaker thesis has enormous religious significance
because it purports to explain the history of life without leaving
any role to a supernatural Creator. "Before Darwin,"
writes Stephen Jay Gould, "we thought that a benevolent Creator
had created us."2 After the acceptance of Darwinism,
that belief became intellectually untenable. According to Gould,
No intervening spirit watches lovingly
over the affairs of nature (though Newton's clock-winding god
might have set up the machinery at the beginning of time and
then let it run). No vital forces propel evolutionary change.
And whatever we think of God, his existence is not manifest in
the products of nature.3
God as a remote First Cause remains
a possibility, but God as an active creator is absolutely ruled
out by the blind watchmaker thesis. That is why Richard Dawkins
exults that "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually
fulfilled atheist."4 That doesn't
mean that Darwin made it impossible to be anything but an atheist.
For example, Darwinism and theism can easily be reconciled by
those who, like Asa Gray and Charles D. Walcott, misunderstood
Darwinian evolution as a benevolent process divinely ordained
for the purpose of creating humans. (Gould himself has been particularly
emphatic in correcting that sort of misunderstanding.)
On the other hand, Darwinism does give atheists and agnostics
a decisive advantage tot he extent that belief in God's existence
is a matter of logic and evidence. Those who really understand
Darwinism, but still have spiritual inclinations, have the option
of making a religion out of evolution. Theodisius Dobzhansky--Gould's
prime example of a Christian evolutionist--actually exemplified
the religious dimension of Darwinism. Dobzhansky discarded the
traditional Christian concept of God, followed Teilhard de Chardin
in spiritualizing the evolutionary process, and worshipped the
glorious future of evolution.5
Gould writes that religion and science should not conflict, "because
science treats factual reality, while religion struggles with
human morality." But this statement implies a distinction
between morality and reality which does not exist, and which Gould
himself would never observe in practice. Does the morality of
racial discrimination, for example, have nothing to do with the
factual reality of human equality? The author of The Mismeasure
of Man didn't seem to think so. And what gives Gould the authority
to proclaim that religion may not concern itself with the factual
reality of God? God cannot have any moral authority unless he
really exists, and if God really exists He might take a hand in
creation. When a scientific elite claims exclusive authority to
decide what is "real," it is asserting control over
science, religion, philosophy and every other area of thought.
Religion, like science, starts with assumptions or conclusions
about reality. If we are the accidental product of blind natural
forces, that is a very different starting point. In the former
case we try to learn the will of our new creator, and in the latter
we discard that :intervening spirit" as an illusion and proceed
to chart our own course. Thus Gould himself, in the concluding
sentence of Wonderful Life, proceeds directly from a Darwinist
starting point to the religious conclusion that we are morally
autonomous beings who create our own values:
We are the offspring of history and
must establish our own paths in this most diverse and interesting
of conceivable universes--one indifferent to our suffering, and
therefore offering us maximum freedom to thrive, or to fail,
in our own chosen way.
The author of all those statements
castigated me for suggesting that Darwinism is tied to naturalistic
philosophy and opposed to any meaningful theism. David Hull, reviewing
Darwin on Trial for Nature, was equally severe with
me for refusing to concede that Darwinism has finished off theistic
religion for good. Hull emphatically proclaimed a Darwinist doctrine
of God:
What kind of God can one infer from
the sort of phenomena epitomized by the species on Darwin's Galapagos
Islands? The evolutionary process is rife with happenstance,
contingency, incredible waste, death, pain and horror The God
of the Galapagos is careless, wasteful, indifferent, almost diabolical.
He is certainly not the sort of God to whom anyone would be inclined
to pray.6
So much for Darwinism's religious
neutrality. Now to the more important question: Is the blind watchmaker
thesis true? To put the question another way, does natural
selection really have the fantastic creative power which Darwinists
claim for it? That seems an appropriate question, but persons
like Gould, Dawkins and Hull insist that the very definition of
"science" rules the question out of order. They say
that science is inherently committed to naturalistic premises,
that Darwinian evolution is the best scientific (i.e., naturalistic)
theory of biological creation we have, and even that Darwinism
possesses a virtue called "consilience of induction"--meaning
that it explains a lot if we assume that it is true. One way or
another, Darwinists meet the question, "Is Darwinism true?"
with an answer that amounts to an assertion of power: "Well,
it is science, as we define science, and you will have to be content
with that."
Some of us are not content with that, because we know that the
empirical evidence for the creative power of natural selection
is somewhere between weak and non-existent. Artificial selection
of fruit flies or domestic animals produces limited change within
the species but tells us nothing about how insects and mammals
came into existence in the first place. In any case, whatever
artificial selection achieves is due to the employment of human
intelligence consciously pursuing a goal. The whole point of the
blind watchmaker thesis, however, is to establish what material
processes can do in the absence of purpose and intelligence. That
Darwinist authorities continually overlook this crucial distinction
gives us little confidence in their objectivity.
Examples of natural selection in action, like Kettlewell's observation
of population shifts in the peppered moth, actually illustrate
cyclical variation within stable species that exhibit no directional
change. The fossil record--characterized by sudden appearance
and subsequent stasis--is notoriously reluctant to yield examples
of Darwinian macroevolution. The therapsid reptiles and Archaeopteryx
are rare exceptions to the general absence of plausible transitional
intermediates between major groups, which is why it is important
to understand that even these Darwinist trophies are inconclusive
as evidence of macroevolution. No wonder that prominent authorities
like Stephen Jay Gould and Lynn Margulis have yearned for a new
theory on the ground that the evidence contradicts the neo-Darwinist
claim that macroevolutionary innovation results from the accumulation
of small genetic changes by natural selection.7
The point is not whether "evolution" in some vague sense
is true. "Evolution" has certainly occurred, but the
scientific importance of this statement is slight when evolution
is defined vaguely as "change" or modestly as "shifts
in gene frequencies." No doubt the pattern of relationships
among plants and animals invites and inference that there was
some process of development from a common source. But how much
do we know about this process of development? Perhaps one day
scientists will be able to test some macroevolutionary mechanism,
involving changes in the rate genes or whatever, that will explain
how a four-footed mammal can become a whale or a bat without going
through impossible intermediate steps. The difficulties should
be honestly acknowledged, however. What evolutionary theory needs
is a reliable creative mechanism, capable of building highly complex
structures like vision and breathing systems again and again in
diverse lines. Speculation about how an occasional jump might
occur won't do the job.
Readers who know the score will understand why I felt honored
that Stephen Jay Gould could find no better response to my challenge
than a vitriolic attack that evades the main points and instead
wanders through the book in search of something to complain about.
(Compare what I wrote on page 16 of Darwin on Trial with
Gould's complaint about "recombination," and you will
see how hard he worked to find a nit to pick.) I welcome criticism
on specific points; that is why I circulated preliminary drafts
to many distinguished scholars, including Gould. The subject in
controversy, however, is my argument that the blind watchmaker
thesis is not supported by the evidence--i.e., that science does
not know how life could have evolved to its present complexity
and diversity without participation of pre-existing intelligence.
If Gould had a convincing answer to that argument, you may be
sure that he would have stated the issues clearly and met the
main line of reasoning head on.
The review itself merits no further response, but what requires
explanation is the hostility. What divides Gould and me has little
to do with scientific evidence and everything to do with metaphysics.
Gould approaches the question of evolution from a philosophical
starting point in scientific naturalism. From that standpoint
the blind watchmaker thesis is true in principle by definition.
Science may not know all the details yet, but something very much
like Darwinian evolution simply has to be responsible for
our existence because there is no acceptable alternative. If there
are gaps or defects in the existing theory, the appropriate response
is to supply additional naturalistic hypotheses. Critics who disparage
Darwinism without offering a naturalistic alternative are seen
as attacking science itself, probably in order to impose a religious
straitjacket upon science and society. One does not reason with
such persons; one employs any means at hand to discourage them.
But maybe Darwinism really is false--in principle, and not just
in detail. Maybe mindless material processes cannot create information-rich
biological systems. That is a real possibility, no matter how
offensive to scientific naturalists. How do Darwinists know that
the blind watchmaker created animal phyla, for example, since
the process can't be demonstrated and all the historical evidence
is missing? Darwinists may have the cultural power to suppress
questions like that for a time, but eventually they are going
to have to come to grips with them. There are a lot of theists
in America, not to mention the rest of the world, and persons
who promote naturalism in the name of science will not forever
be able to deny them a fair hearing.
Scientific naturalists who think that Darwinism can be defended by waging ideological war against the critics are free to follow the example of Stephen Jay Gould. Others may prefer to take the path of Michael Ruse and the Darwinist scientists who participated in an academic symposium on Darwin on Trial in March 1992 at Southern Methodist University. These persons learned that it is possible to debate metaphysical differences in an academic setting in a fair-minded and mutually respectful manner. In the end the entire scientific community will have to acknowledge that honest discussion--with assumptions identified and terms precisely defined--is the only method for resolving disagreement that is consistent with the best traditions of science itself. When scientists defend a cherished doctrine by obscuring the issues and intimidating the critics, it is a sure sign that what they are defending isn't science.
1. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (Longman, England 1986, p.1; hereafter Dawkins.) return to text
2. Ever Since Darwin, p.267. return to text
3. Stephen Jay Gould, "In Praise of Charles Darwin," from Darwin's Legacy, pp.6-7 (Charles L. Hamrum ed., Harper & Row, San Francisco, 1983). This essay appeared originally in Discover magazine, February 1982. return to text
4. Dawkins, supra note 1, p.6. return to text
5. See Francisco Ayala, "Nothing in biology makes sense except the light of evolution," The Journal of Heredity, vol. 68, pp.3, 9 (Jan.-Feb. 1977). Ayala described his teacher's religion as follows: "Dobzhansky was a religious man, although he apparently rejected fundamental beliefs of traditional religion, such as the existence of a personal 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. Dobzhansky held that, in man, biological evolution has transcended itself into the relam of self awareness and culture. He believed that somehow mankind would eventually evolve into higher levels of harmony and creativity." return to text
6. Nature, vol. 352, pp.485-86 (8 August 1991). return to text
7. See S. J. Gould, "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?" in Evolution Now, pp.129, 131 (Maynard Smith ed. 1982; Profile, "Lynn Margulis: Science's Unruly Earth Mother," Science, vol. 252, pp.378, 379 (19 April 1991). return to text
Copyright © 1997 Phillip E. Johnson. All
rights reserved. International copyright secured.
File Date: 6.23.97