|
|
Of Pandas and People - A Reader's Guide
A Reader's Guide to
Of Pandas and People
by Richard P. Aulie
shipcoveaulie@yahoo.com
Part One:
WHAT INTELLIGENT DESIGN MEANS
"Even now, thanks to writings set down by hand, it is yet
possible for you to hold converse with Plato, Aristotle,
Hippocrates, and the other Ancients...Aristotle is right when he
maintains that all animals have been fitly equipped with the best
possible bodies." Galen, ca. AD 165-175. Uses of
the Parts, I,3, 59.
Preface
Introduction
A New Lexicon
Two Evangelical CampsTwo
Responses To Evolution
The Central Issue Is
Avoided
Richard Dawkins
Three Defining Statements
Vexing Question
Philosophical
and Theological Enigmas
What Does
Intelligent Design Mean
Phillip E Johnson
How Do Biology Teachers
React
Historical Antecedents
Plato, Aristotle and Galen
Footnotes
References
Of
Pandas & People Part Two
Of Pandas
& People Part Three
PREFACE
A Note to the Reader from the Writer: Richard P Aulie
The two essays that I include here are my review of the book, Of
Pandas and People, which is a product of the anti-evolution
movement in the United States. This book recommends
"intelligent design" as a better explanation of
biological diversity than the theory of biological evolution.
Many proponents of this movement endeavor to introduce
"creation science" or "creationism" into
biology courses in the public schools. Although the authors of
the book I review do not use these terms, their effort must be
viewed as part of the on-going "creationist" movement,
which seeks to obstruct the teaching of biological evolution.
For many years I have followed the anti-evolution movement
from the perspective of my own specialty, the history of science,
and from time to time I have published articles, pointing out its
shortcomings. I view creationism, not only as a threat to the
integrity of American science education, but also, no less, a
caricature of the theological doctrine of creation that is
central to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In my two essays,
herein enclosed, I develop the argument that the only alternative
to evolutionary theory available to the champions of
"intelligent design" is the pre-Darwinian view, which
arose, not from the Bible, but from Greek thought, notably from
the works of Plato, Aristotle, and Galen. The historical record
affirms moreover that the theory of biological evolution, far
from being a denial of theism, is actually a logical extension of
the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic theological doctrine of creation.
Indeed even the title of Darwin's famous book could not have been
conceived save in a culture long accustomed to the concepts of
divine origin and linear time.
In the first essay, I put forward a definition of
"intelligent design" that is consistent with the
historical record. Since I am familiar with the views held by
evangelicals, I also examine the permutations to be found in the
two opposing views held among themsome evangelicals have a
liking for creationism, others readily accept evolution.
Anti-creationist biology teachers on the university level,
however, need not point fingers at any evangelical support they
might see; they themselves are not free of complicity in the hold
that creationism has on the American publicas I point out
in several places.
In the second essay, I take up the time-honored "design
argument." I first of all show how the pre-Darwinian view of
biology arose from the works of Aristotle and Plato. Then I
examine in considerable detail the numerous passages in Of
Pandas and People that can easily be traced to these Greek
sources, including also to the works of Galen.
In the anti-evolution movement the theological doctrine of
creation has been equated willy-nilly with the biology of a
by-gone day. In this, theism and biology both suffer
misinterpretation.
Chicago
December 1998
Part One
INTRODUCTION
For many years, those who actively oppose evolution have
maintained that in the interest of fairness "scientific
creationism" should be taught along with evolution in the
high school biology classes of the land.(1) So far, obtaining a
place for scientific creationism, if not equal time, has remained
an elusive goal; it is easy to see why. In order to compete with
the already established high school biology texts that come with
well-written chapters on evolution, a text opposing evolution
must satisfy two requirements. It must achieve acceptance on its
own because of its scientific merits, and at the same time it
must avoid the charge that it introduces a religious
interpretation of origins into public school classrooms.
An especially attractive candidate for this genre is Of
Pandas and Peoplethe Central Question of Biological
Origins published by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics in
Richardson, Texas, in 1993 (1989). Edited by Charles B. Thaxton,
written by Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, and with a final
"Note to Teachers" by Mark D. Hertwig and Stephen C.
Mayr, this well-designed book has the unique feature of
discussing origins and opposing evolution without once using any
traditional religious languagewithout a single reference to
God, the Creator, the Bible, the creation, or even to creation
science.
A NEW LEXICON
Instead, the major theme of Pandas is "intelligent
design," which is heralded as an especially potent argument
against evolution. Pandas employs in fact some fifteen new
terms, of which this word couplet is the most prominent, forming
a new lexicon of creationist terminology. The other terms are:
"design proponent," "designing agent,"
"designing intellect," "engineer,"
"intelligent agency," "intelligent agent,"
"intelligent cause," "intelligent designer,"
"intelligent activity," "intelligent
intervention," "master intellect," "primeval
intellect"a curious term, surely, "outside
intellect," and "common designer." The function of
this lexicon is to demonstrate that evolution can be opposed
without using religious language.
Pandas can be regarded therefore as a pragmatic
maneuver in the present-day controversy; its lexicon is thought
to immunize it against the legal challenges that arise from the
charge that introducing a religious interpretation of biological
origins is indeed its primary objective.
Intended as a supplement to biology texts, Pandas
examines the origin of life, genetics, the origin of species,
fossils, homologies, and biochemistry, in each case declaring
that "intelligent design" is a better explanation than
the theory of evolution. It is clear that the makers of Pandas
have given much thought to presenting intelligent design in the
most cogent manner possible. With beguiling analogies and
ingenious illustrations, they politely engage the reader in
reconsidering the answers that Darwin gave to fundamental
questions of biology. To this end, even the font styles are well
chosen. Whether Pandas becomes a trend setter in
creationist publications, it represents a serious initiative in
efforts to present creationism in the best light, and deserves
fair scrutiny, especially by those who regard themselves as
evangelical.
TWO EVANGELICAL CAMPSTWO
RESPONSES TO EVOLUTION
Although evangelicals are often associated in the public mind
with creationism, opposition to evolution has long been a
divisive feature of American Protestantism as a whole. Ronald L.
Numbers, in his definitive work, The Creationists, brings
this out in a chapter entitled, "Creationism in the
Churches." Surveying creationist sentiment among mainline
denominations, he reported the Gallop Poll of 1991 "that 47
per cent of Americans professed belief in a recent special
creation" (1993, p. 300). This is an astonishing number that
includes more than evangelicals.
As for those who identify themselves as
"evangelical" per sewhether Catholics,
Pentecostals, independents, or members to be found in all the
mainline Protestant denominationsI have long been aware of
the deep divisions among them concerning evolution. In my
experience I have observed that "evangelicals"
frequently go to the same churches, sing the same hymns,
cooperate in the same missionary endeavors, and on election day
they often vote the same way. Yet when the subject of evolution
comes up they promptly segregate themselves into two opposing
camps, as follows.
Arrayed on the one side are opponents of evolution, among
which at least three subgroups hold forth. (a) In one of these
subgroups are the full-time, activist and visible creationists
who are indefatigable in seeking to introduce creationism into
the public schools. (b) Then, a sizable group of followers and
sympathizers, fearing that evolution is ungodly but don't know
why, are puzzled that all evangelicals do not agree that
evolution is a menace to the public good. (c) And lastly, the
fence-sitters, many of whom are leaders in Christian
organizations, such as editors of evangelical magazines and of
publishing houses and talk show hosts of evangelical radio
programs, are glad to provide a hearing for creationist views,
but stop short of fully endorsing what they hear; they wish to be
regarded as up-to-date on science but hope that creationism is
true.
Pandas finds a goodly market among these
evangelicals.
In the other camp are the non-creationist evangelicals. As a
whole they are a rather more placid, even inchoate lot, who
likewise can be found in three subgroups. (a) Many are active in
science and are found typically in the American Scientific
Affiliation and in biology departments of colleges and high
schools across the length and breadth of the land. They wonder
how anyone can see any theological difficulty with evolution;
they teach it commendably, and then go to church on Sunday, pray,
and repeat the Apostles' Creed. (b) Many others are embarrassed
by creationism, hoping that by keeping quiet the controversy will
go away, but of course it does not go away. (c) And a minuscule
fraction is outspoken, and, wondering why evangelical leaders do
not recognize the theological eccentricities in creationism,
regard it as a caricature of the Christian gospel and a threat to
science education.
Pandas has no future in this mixed lot of
evangelicals.
Alas for the hopes of Pandas' makers, critical reviews
of intelligent design early on pointed out that the scientific
shortcomings of this word couplet are manifold. (2) These
reviews, besides bringing to light recent trends in evolution
studies, reveal the exasperation felt by many biology
teachersincluding many biologists who are
evangelicalthat the creationist movement today remains
skeptical of what they regard as the clear results of biological
research; and moreover, exasperation that creationism is
cultivated by those who themselves have professional standing in
science.
THE CENTRAL ISSUE IS
AVOIDED
At this point it is pertinent to observe that within the larger
context of American society today, neither Pandas nor its critics
deal head-on with what is really the central issue in the
controversy. Pandas makes no mention of this issue, which is not
centrally about origins. What is at issue is that large numbers
of ordinary church-goers believe that evolution is too often
presented, not only as a biological theory, but as an all
encompassing world-life view. In a valuable study, God's Own
Scientists Creationists in a Secular World(1994), Christopher
P. Toumey has brought out the strong hostility to evolution felt
by so many critics of science; they feel that evolution, indeed,
is even "involved with immorality" in American life (p.
52, 257 passim). (3)
We must allow that Mr. and Mrs. Ordinary Church-goer have
something when they voice this fear. It is perfectly true that
various secular scientists in public life today do advance the
view science is the only reliable source of knowledge. In
articles, books, and lectures they readily imply or openly
declare that science proves that Genesis is falseand then
with the next breath marvel at the ignorance of creationists.
Much of the creationist agenda indeed has arisen from the fear
that teaching evolution promotes an anti-Christian philosophy of
life.
RICHARD DAWKINS
For example, Pandas (p. 67) charges Richard Dawkins' Blind
Watchmaker with advancing this view, I think with substantial
reason. Take Dawkins' peroration in his Scientific American
article, "God's Utility Function," in November 1995 (p.
85). He wrote:
"The universe that we observe has precisely the
properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no
purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless
indifference."
There's little doubt that Dawkinswho makes free with the
adjective "ignorant" for some creationiststhinks
that science leads to this view. But it can be regarded,
actually, as a fundamental tenet of the secular religion that is
widely practiced today by various opponents of creationism. The
statement represents a secular Weltanschauun, does it not,
with religious presuppositions. So here we have the premier
scientific journal, reaching the general public every month in
drug stores and K-Marts everywhere with the latest in science,
publishing a statement such as this with no editorial comment.
Can there be any doubt why the creationist movement opposes
evolution?
Dawkins has the right to promulgate his secular religious
sentiment, of course; and Scientific America to display
its bias in this matter. But to understand the portent of the
Dawkins religious view and the bias to be found in prominent
quarters of American science, we need only imagine the clamor
that would erupt in the science community, if the editorial
staff, having experienced metanoia, had amended the
Dawkins statement to read as follows:
"The universe that we observe has precisely the
properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, divine
creation, with abundant evidence of design, purpose, good, and
nothing but the love of God."
Now, what principle of logic, pray, renders the Dawkins
statement scientific, but not my amendment of it? So much for
disinterested science. The Dawkins position together with the Scientific
American anointment of it go far to account for the hold that
creationism has on the American public.
Thus it is that, just as Pandas avoids what is at issue,
neither do the aforesaid secular proponents of evolutionism
suffer themselves to distinguish between evolution as a
scientific theory and evolution is as the world-life view
they espouse. We might regard them as "secular
fundamentalists," such as Dawkins; they are to be found
primarily in university sanctuaries. This failure to communicate
effectively by the "creationists" and the corresponding
inability or unwillingness to comprehend their legitimate
concerns on the part of secular "evolutionists" forms a
disquieting background against which the present-day evolution
controversy thrives.
Neither the advocates of creationism nor their secular
opponents bother to make the elementary distinction between
evolution as the biological theory it is and the naturalistic
Weltanschauung that is said to be its inevitable result.
THREE DEFINING
STATEMENTS
As an index of the importance attached to intelligent design,
this word couplet is used some sixty-five times in Pandas.
With regard to its meaning, three defining statements go far to
reveal the conceptual orientation represented by this term.
First, it is defined (p. 150) as "the theory that
biological organisms owe their origin to a preexistent
intelligence," God presumably being this preexistent
intelligence. Now, all that this definition asserts is that the
makers of Pandas subscribe to the Nicene and Apostles'
Creed. They join hands therefore not only with Christians but
also with Jews and Muslims in affirming the preexistence of the
Creator and the divine authorship of all living creatures.
Only when Pandas reaches for precision do we see what
its makers have in mind; we see, in fact, the main outlines of
what the creationist movement has to offer.
Second, observing that "Darwinian evolution locates the
origin of new organisms in material causes, " Pandas
declares that (p 14):
"Intelligent design, by contrast, locates the origin of
new organisms in an immaterial cause in a blueprint, a plan, a
pattern devised by an intelligent agent."
Taking these first two statements together, I believe that we
can infer the principal position taken by Pandas: the
biblical doctrine of creation perforce means belief in
intelligent design. And it is this position to which evangelicals
are committed when they approve of Pandas. That is, those
evangelicals who say that creation is opposed to evolution and
who see in Pandas a commendable response to what they
regard as the evils of evolution in the public schools and a
worthy antidote to the cultural ills of our national life, also
declare that belief in creation means belief in intelligent
design, whatever that is.
And third, in a discussion of fossils, a further
declaration offers yet more precision (p. 99-100):
"Intelligent design means that various forms of life
began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their
distinctive features intactfish with fins and scales, birds
with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc."
This is an explicit statement and it makes two points: natural
causes do not account for the origin of life; and no evolution
has occurred. Today, large numbers of evangelicals readily
agreeGod created the animals and plants in the beginning.
There's been no evolution, they'll say, well, maybe a little
variation within a species, but there's the end of iteven
without inquiring into the meaning of the various terms in this
statement. On the other hand, many evangelicals, of course, do
not agree.
Aside from its pedagogic merits, which I grant are
substantial, Pandas is actually a useful guide that helps
us puzzle out the ideological impasse that now separates
evangelicals, one from another, in the two camps I've described
above. Moreover, the three definitive statements I have quoted
define rather well what it is that evangelicals actually believe
or do not believe with respect to the question of creation and
evolution. Pandas helpfully albeit inadvertently defines what is
meant in either case.
For instance, take that large, inchoate, and usually silent
group of evangelicals I've described; they see not the slightest
antithesis between creation and evolution. We have in Pandas a
theological statement of their position when they subscribe to
the first statement above, on creation; and in the second and
third statements, on creationism, we see what it is they
reject. Believing in the doctrine of creation, as do Jews,
Christians, and Muslims alike, they will never in the world
regard "intelligent design" as a credible alternative
to the theory of evolution for an explanation of biological
diversity.
The evangelicals in my other camp, on the other hand, cannot
fathom how any evangelical can possibly believe in creation and
accept evolution at the same time. Much less can they possibly
accept the historical evidence that the doctrine of creation
actually opened the way for the emergence of the biological
theory of evolution. Neither can numerous secular evolutionists,
for that matter, comprehend such a verdict of the historical
recordthat the theory of evolution is a logical extension
of the theological doctrine of creation. For this particular
group of evangelicals, at any rate, opposition to evolution is an
index of theological orthodoxy. Their position can be expressed
by a rhetorical question: Does not creation by definition
foreclose evolution?
In promulgating intelligent design as an alternative to
evolution, Pandas I think has rendered an unintended and
unforeseen service, not only in reminding us that these two
opposing positions are extant among evangelicals today, but also
in describing the views to which evangelicals are actually
committed when they oppose the teaching of evolution.
VEXING QUESTIONS
While the three statements above qualify as definitions, they
reveal surely more than the authors could have anticipated. They
do, though, help us understand how the term is used in Pandas.
As stated, Jews, Christians, and Muslims subscribe to the first.
Then in the second, we learn that apparently this
"blueprint" was acted upon by "an immaterial
cause," which with its indefinite article would appear to
exclude God.
PHILOSOPHICAL
and THEOLOGICAL ENIGMAS
Vexing questions at once arise. What is this "immaterial
cause"? And where is this "blueprint"? Does this
"blueprint" exist from all eternity as a substance that
is separate from God? It is actually a reminder of the nineteenth
century archetype which, by means of the Platonic Ideas, existing
it was said beyond the natural realm, sought to explain the
enigmas of vertebrate homologies. Of this, I shall have more to
say anon.
Before proceeding with intelligent design itself, two similar
terms, used in the second and third definitions that I have
identified above, deserve a moment of scrutiny: "intelligent
agent" and "intelligent agency." Possibly they are
used as synonyms for God. But I do not think so, inasmuch as
"agent" and "agency" also carry the meaning
of a person who acts on behalf of another. And since the makers
of Pandas hardly have in mind a human person, then, in
context, this "agent" and "agency" of theirs
seem to suggest that an immaterial and incorporeal divine deputy
of some sort is on duty somewhere in nature acting on behalf of
God. More precisely, the way these two terms are used raises the
question of whether the makers of Pandas are not
declaring, if inadvertently, that it was not God acting directly
at the creation, but an immaterial and non-spatial entity that
brought forth life. Is this the sort of thing that evangelical
adversaries of evolution are anxious to believe?
If my analysis is far-fetched, then what are "intelligent
agent" and "intelligent agency" supposed to mean?
But if I am correct, then certain pertinent questions arise. Are
they sentient entites? Are they eternal and co-existent with God?
If they are, would they not compromise the oneness of God? Or
does God, like the creation, consist of parts? Or were they
created? Nit-picking, someone will say. But I had thought that
evangelical readers of Pandas who esteem theological
orthodoxy might take notice of "blueprint,"
"intelligent agent," "intelligent agency,"
and "intelligent cause" and wonder what on Earth they
mean.
Moreover, the action of "intelligent design" is
described as occurring primarily in the origin of living things
and their biological systems, but says nothing about its action
in present day organisms. Is one permitted to observe that this
emphasis therefore savors of deism? This is a charge that its
authors would deny with indignationas though simply denying
deism means making its absence so. And how intelligent
design acted in origins, we are not to know.
Whatever the labors, location, or characteristics that Pandas
attributes to these terms, they are not without theological
difficulties for the consistent theist.
WHAT DOES
INTELLIGENT DESIGN MEAN
To return to intelligent design itself. This word couplet has
acquired a certain vogue among evangelicals. An entire book has
been devoted to the subject: Creation Hypothesis, Scientific
Evidence for an Intelligent Designer, edited by J. P.
Moreland, in 1994. A chapter is entitled, "On the Very
Possibility of Intelligent Design," by William A. Dembski;
and Stephen C. Meyer makes frequent use of the term in his
chapter, "The Methodological Equivalence of Design &
Descent: Can there be a scientific 'Theory of Creation?'"
Without doubt Meyer also brought "intelligent design"
to the notice of many sympathetic readers of The Wall Street
Journal with his Op-Ed piece, "A Scopes Trial for the
'90s," of 6 December 1993. (It was this article that first
alerted me to "intelligent design.") The next year, on
14 November, a front page article in The Wall Street Journal,
by Eric Larson, heralded Pandas with a headline that
trumpeted, "A Textbook Proposes `intelligent design.'"
Besides appearing in these publications, from time to time
intelligent design has been the main subject of a number of
seminars and meetings that have been open to the public. One of
these was held at Wheaton College in April of 1997. Sponsored by
the Science Department, the subject was "Information in the
Living CellA Question of Design in Nature." Two of the
four speakers on the panel were a historian of science and a
biochemist from Chicago universities.
I should like to point out that proponents of intelligent
design never cite biology textbooks that are used in introductory
courses in high school and college. Yet, both in Pandas
and in the above books and articles, they seem to think that the
theory of biological evolution is taught in the public schools in
a way that is inimical to Christian theism. As far as I can see
in creationist literature, however, no one ever undertakes to be
specific. We are never told which biology department, which
public school, or which textbook uses evolution to promote an
anti-religious bias. We are not to be made happy with the
citation of even one passage in a biology textbook that affirms
the alleged terrible things. One is entitled to infer therefore
that the intelligent design people do not know how evolution is
taught in the public schools.
PHILLIP E. JOHNSON
At any rate, there is little question that "design
proponents" feel that they have something worthwhile. For
instance, Phillip E. Johnson, taking a liking for intelligent
design, has made it familiar to a wide evangelical audience. He
used the term five times in his Darwin on Trial (1993,
1994); four times in his Christianity Today article of 10
October 1994; and eleven times in his Reason in the Balance
(1995); and again in his Easy to Understand Guide for
Defeating Darwinism. Opening the Mind, in 1995. Finding the
term entirely agreeable to his purposes, he professes surprise,
however, that so many evangelicals of an academic persuasion do
not find it agreeable at all. In his view, just because
intelligent design implies "a supernatural entity" is
no reason why it should not be a candidate for "scientific
consideration"(Reason 1995, p. 90-91); especially,
one gathers, among evangelicals. Aside from announcing here that
God is an "entity, "Johnson nowhere indulges his
readers with a definition of what he thinks intelligent design
might mean.
Of course, Johnson is unhappy with the way he thinks evolution
is taught. But he, too, never cites a biology textbook or a
biology department, of which he has knowledge, that he finds does
not present evolution as the scientific theory it is.
Johnson inadvertently brings out the cleavage separating
evangelicals on the topic of evolution and creationism. In his
book Reason in the Balance, apparently he is distressed
that all evangelicals do not share his view, inasmuch as he
announces that such people are "deceiving themselves"
because they have given themselves up to naturalism (1995, p.
206). And in Christianity Today (10/24/94, p. 26), he
decides it is "astonishing" that many Christian
academics are actually "defenders of Darwinsm." In his
view, their trouble is that, even though they are in the sciences
and have studied these matters for many years, they do not have a
proper understanding of natural selection, and as a lawyer he is
glad to give them instruction to remedy this deficiency.
In 1993, two searching critiques from an evangelical point of
view exposed the philosophical and theological shortcomings of
Johnson's position. The one article entitled, "Phillip
Johnson on Trial: A Critique of His Critique of Darwin," was
by Nancey Murphy, at Fuller Theological Seminary, in the March
issue of Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith; the
other, "God and Evolution: An Exchange," was by Howard
Van Till, at Calvin College, in the March issue of First
Things. Both of these articles examine Johnson's
understanding of natural selection and "naturalism."
Their articles are definitive in their analyses of Johnson's
published views, and make plain that his position is far from
representing the mainstream of evangelical thought. Murphy,
reviewing Johnson's Darwin on Trial, wrote that "it
may create an inaccurate impression of the status of evolutionary
biology." Van Till, reviewing Johnson's article,
"Creator or Blind Watchmaker," wrote that Johnson's
view ensures "that the gulf between the academy and the
sanctuary will only grow wider." (See references below)
Notwithstanding Johnson's criticism of evangelicals (those
described in my second camp above), who otherwise might be his
allies, he is performing a much needed public service by his
outspoken critique of the well connected secular academics who
proclaim that science is the only reliable source of knowledge.
In books and lectures, in season and out of season, he challenges
the assumptions and logic of these apostles of
"secularism," among whom he names biologists Francis
Crick, the aforesaid Richard Dawkins, Douglas Futuyama, Donald
Johanson, and William Provine; physicists Paul Davies and Steven
Weinberg; and astronomer the late Carl Sagan (Reason 1995,
p. 9, 76, 213, 217). His critique is timely and warranted, even
taking into account his uncritical embrace of intelligent
designwithout troubling himself to vouchsafe a definition
of this word coupletand his fallacious reasoning that
"evolutionism" and "naturalism" are the
inevitable consequence of evolutionary theory (e.g., in 1993, p.
116-117; and 1995,p. 211).
HOW DO BIOLOGY
TEACHERS REACT?
A pertinent question at once arises. The secularists whom Johnson
rightly identifies are widely influential in the public
understanding of science. But what effect do their views have on
the way the subject of evolution is presented in a biology
classroom? My impression is that the effect is minimal. High
school biology teachers are busy people. They count it an
achievement to get through four or five classes per day. They
have no energy and little inclination to add to their work by
promulgating an ideology, even if they had the time to read and
figure out what those secularists are driving at. Moreover, as I
have stated above, neither Johnson nor anyone else among the
intelligent design people, as far as I am aware, has troubled to
cite a connection between the views of one of these secularists
and the actual wording of a passage that can be regarded as
anti-theistic in a biology text. One sighs for a citation.
On the other hand, the creationists quite possibly are already
capturing wide swaths of science education. High school biology
teachers, busy people that they are, feel that they can make do
without controversy. Accordingly, to be on the safe side many
simply skip the chapters on evolution, and that's that. Those
evangelicals who think this is a victory might ponder how the
elimination from the science curriculum of the major organizing
principle of biology can advance the state of American science
education.
While an explicit definition of intelligent design apparently
is not to be forthcoming, not from Phillip Johnson, at any rate,
and possibly does not exist even among its proponents, anyone who
is familiar with the anti-evolution literature of the last
quarter century or who is conversant at all with the historical
precursors of creationism should have no difficulty in
recognizing the similarity of "intelligent design" to
the pre-Darwinian doctrine of "special creation."
According to this doctrine, the species we see around us today
have not changed appreciably since their creation by the
deliberate and special acts of God.
HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS
In a series of published studies, I have already examined the
historical antecedents of this doctrine (See Aulie 1972, 1974-75,
1982, 1983). In these articles, I took up the design argument,
the fixity of species, micro- and macroevolution, and
"blueprints" and archetypes, all of which are inherent
in Pandas. I pointed out that "special
creation," as a scientific concept, arose in the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries in the work of the naturalists John Ray
and Carolus Linnaeus; that the conceptual and philosophical
orientation of creationism is rooted, not in the
Judaeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, but in ancient Greek thought,
especially in the works of Plato and Aristotle. I showed how
Platonic and Aristotelian ideas led to creationism, creatio ex
nihilo to evolutionary theory; and observed that orthodox
Christian theology in the late nineteenth century on both sides
of the Atlantic offered a congenial reception for Darwin's
theory.
My position is that the biological theory of evolution, far
from being inimical to theism, is a logical extension of the
Judaeo-Christian-Islamic doctrine of creation.
One can easily substitute the words "special
creation" for "intelligent design" in the three
passages I have quoted above with no loss of meaning. While Pandas
eschews religious language, "intelligent design" is
redolent of the concepts and controversies of pre-Darwinian
biology, in which the doctrine of special creation held sway.
Whereas the authors have succeeded, as they intended, in avoiding
religious language, including the avoidance of the language of
Christian theism, they have unknowingly but inevitably attached
their anti-evolutionary views to historical roots whose
nourishment came, not from Christian theism, as they must surely
wish to have been the case, but from ancient Greek thought.
Although creationism frequently is chided by its secular
opponents for its scientific shortcomings, Pandas merits a
more spacious appraisal because it offers a valuable opportunity
not only to enlarge upon those historical roots but also to
examine in what sense Darwinian evolution constituted a
revolution in thought.
In all of this, Pandas marks out the unusually sharp
contours of the cardinal dilemma springing up in the present-day
evolution controversy: that of balancing the requirements of
science education with the necessity of nourishing religious
values, and that in a predominantly secular culture.
PLATO, ARISTOTLE, and
GALEN
Withal, the makers of Pandas have prepared for us a
surprise, for sprinkled across the pages of their well-crafted
book, in a manner that perhaps is a surprise to themselves, are
unmistaken artifacts of the achievements of three prominent
figures of Greek antiquity. On page after page we can stumble
upon remnants of Plato and the Republic; of Aristotle and
his Parts of Animals especially, and also his History
of Animals and Metaphysics; and, yes, there's Galen
and his Uses of the Parts. Actually, emblems of their
presence everywhere should not be regarded as a surprise. Plato
and Aristotle, whose views were codified and sanctified by the
second century physician Galen, are the wellsprings of the
conceptual orientation that characterizes the present-day
creationism movement with its pre-Darwinian doctrine of
"special creation." This is the doctrine that,
willy-nilly, perforce had to energize, albeit inadvertently, the
making of this attractive book.
It is not too much to say, therefore, that Pandas
provides us with the edifying reminder that, absent the
biological theory of evolution, the explanation of biological
variability that is derived from Greek thought is the only
alternative explanation available. Thus it was that the Darwinian
revolution was waged indeed between two contending views of
nature, not between science and Christian theism, as we are so
often asked to believe. Such is the unforeseen and unintended
demonstration wrought by Pandas.
But in order to sort out these matters and make them clear we
must first acquaint ourselves with some metaphysics and biology
from the ancient world. The presence of Plato, Aristotle, and
Galen in Pandas will be the subject of my next effort.
FOOTNOTES
1. By "scientific creationism" I mean the views of
those who oppose the teaching of the theory of biological
evolution in the public schools, and who have it in their heads
that evolution is against creation. In opposition to evolution,
creationists maintain that at the creation God acted in a special
way in the origin of the major groups of animals and plants,
including humans; and that since the creation species have varied
only within limits. Scientific creationism is also called
"creationism" and "special creation."
Creationism as an ideology represents a complex belief system
that frequently goes beyond biblical proof-texts and views about
the age of the Earth. Its origin dates from the 17th and 18th
centuries and was made possible by the views of John Ray and
Carolus Linnaeus, and should be distinguished from the
Judaeo-Christian-Islamic doctrine of creation. I therefore reject
any evolution-creation dichotomy. One does not "believe in
evolution. One "believes in" God
2. For example, (a) Scientific American, July 1995,
Science and the Citizen: "Darwin Denied";
(b) Gould 1992;
(c) Review of Pandas, in Science Teacher, April
1990;
(d) "Why Pandas and People? and "A View From the
Past," in BookWatch Reviews, National Center for
Science Education, vol. 2, Number 11, 1989;
(e) "Phillip E. Johnson Makes His Case," Newsletter of
the California Committee of Correspondence, First Quarter 1994;
(f) Unpublished: Sonleitner, F. J., "Intelligent Design
According to Pandas," and "The New PandasHas
Creationist Scholarship Improved," University of Oklahoma,
Norman; McKown, D. B., "Of Pandas and People: A Logical
Analysis," Auburn University.
3. In chapter four, "Moral Interpretations of
Evolution," Toumey elaborated felicitous distinctions among
four groups of American Protestants as to their anti-evolutionary
views and "different moral interpretation of
evolution." Admiring this classification, I came up with my
"Two Evangelical CampsTwo Responses to
Evolution," which I've vouchsafed above.
REFERENCES
Aulie, R.P., The doctrine of special creation. American
Biology Teacher, April, May 1972.
, The origin of the idea of the mammal-like reptile. American
Biology Teacher, November, December 1974; January 1975.
, 'The post-darwinian controversies,'An extended
book review essay. Journal of the American Scientific
Affiliation (Perspectives of Science and Christian Faith),
March, June, September, December 1982.
, Evolution and special creation: Historical antecedents
of the controversy. Proceedings of the American Philosophical
Society, December 1983.
Cavanaugh, M.A., Scientific creationism and rationality. Nature,
May 1985, p. 185-189.
Davis, P., Kenyon, D.H. & Thaxton, C.B. (Academic Ed.)
1993 (1989). Of Pandas and People, The Central Question of
Biological Origins (2nd Ed.). Dallas, TX: Haughton Publishing
Company.
Dawkins, R., God's utility function. Scientific American.
November 1995, p. 80-85.
Gould, S.J., Impeaching a self-appointed judge, Book Review of
Darwin on Trial, in Scientific American , July
1992.
Johnson, P.E., Evolution as Dogma; the Establishment of
Naturalism. First Things. October 1990, p. 15-28, with
replies.
, A reply to my critics: The evolution debate continued.
First Things. November 1990, p. 50-52.
, 1993 (1991). Darwin on Trial. Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity Press.
, "Shouting 'Heresy' in the Temple of Darwin,
Naturalism has become the civil religion of our universities: A
game plan for Christian response. Christianity Today, 24
October 1994, p. 22-26.
, (1994). Defeating Darwinism: Opening the Mind.
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
, Creator or blind watchmaker. First Things.
January 1995.
, (1995). Reason in the Balance: The Case
Against Naturalism in Science. Law & Education. Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
, (1995). Defeating Darwinism, Opening the
Mind. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
, The unraveling of scientific materialism. First
Things, November 1997, p. 22-25.
, (1997). An Easy-to-Understand Guide for Defeating
Darwinism by Opening Minds. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press.
Larson, E., Darwinian struggle, instead of evolution, A
textbook proposes 'Intelligent Design.'Wall Street Journal,
14 November 1994.
Meyer, S.C., A Scopes Trial for the '90s. Wall Street
Journal, 6 December 1993.
Moore, J., "Keeping faith with Darwin," reviews of
three books, in Times Higher Education, 3 November 1995: (a)
Niles Eldredge, Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary
Debate; (b) Daniel C. Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea:
Evolution and the Meanings of Life; and (c) David Amigoni and
Jeff Wallace, editors, Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species:
New Interdisciplinary Essays.
Moreland, J.P. ( Ed.) (1994). The Creation Hypothesis,
Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer. Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Murphy, N., Phillip Johnson on trial: A critique of his
critique of Darwin. Perspectives on Science and Christian
Faith, March 1993, p. 26-36.
Numbers, R.L. 1993 (1992). The Creationists: The Evolution
of Scientific Creationism. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
, (1993). The evolution of Scientific Creationism. In M.
Bauman (Ed.) Man and Creation: Perspectives on Science and
Theology (pp. 31-73). Hillsdale, MI: Hillsdale College Press.
Toumey, C.P. (1994). God's Own Scientists: Creationists in
a Secular World. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Van Till, H.J., Is special creationism a heresy? Christian
Scholar's Review, p. 380-395.
, God and evolution: An exchange (between Van Till and
Johnson). First Things, June/July 1993, p. 32-41.
, "The Creation: Intelligently Designed, or
optimally equipped," Manuscript, 1998.
|
|