Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

My op-ed piece in The Calgary Herald – Albertans right to reject Darwinian evolution

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

My op-ed piece published in The Calgary Herald, Saturday, August 16, 2008, responding to radio host and commentator Rob Breakenridge, with links to sources:

In rebuttal – Theory needs a paramedic, not more cheerleaders

Denyse O’Leary

Re “What is it about evolution theory that Albertans don’t get?” (August 12, 2008), Rob Breakenridge has cobbled together key talking points of the American Darwin lobby. The resulting column is an excellent illustration of why one should not write about big topics without basic research.

The 2005 Judge Jones decision in Pennsylvania, to which Breakenridge devotes much of his column, has not crimped the worldwide growth of interest in intelligent design. That is no surprise. A judge is not a scientist, and Jones cannot plug gaping holes in Darwin’s theory of evolution. Evolution is—contrary to its (largely) publicly funded zealots— in deep trouble, for a number of reasons.

The history of life has not been the long, slow “survival of the fittest” transition that classical evolution theory requires. Life got started on Earth soon after the planet cooled. All the basic divisions of animal life took shape rather suddenly in the Cambrian seas, about 550 million years ago. Later, there was, for example, the “Big Bang” of flowers and the Big Bang of birds, where many life forms appear quite suddenly.

Modern human consciousness is one of these leaps, judging from the superb cave paintings from recent millenniums. The creationists whom Breakenridge derides may be wrong on their dates, but not on much else.

Breakenridge hopes that we can enlighten backward Albertans by teaching more “evolution” in Alberta schools. But that won’t help. Textbook examples of evolution often evaporate when researchers actually study them (instead of just assuming they are true).

For example, the peacock’s tail did not evolve to please hen birds; hens don’t notice them much. The allegedly yummy Viceroy butterfly did not evolve to look like the bad-tasting Monarch (both insects taste bad). The eye spots on butterflies’ wings did not evolve to scare birds by resembling the eyes of their predators. Birds avoid brightly patterned insects, period. They don’t care whether the patterns resemble eyes. Similarly, the famous “peppered moth” of textbook fame has devolved into a peppered myth, featuring book-length charges and countercharges.

And remember that row of vertebrate embryos in your textbook years ago? It was dubbed in the journal Science one of the “most famous fakes” in biology—because the embryos don’t really look very similar. And Darwin’s majestic Tree of Life? It’s now a tangleweed, or maybe several of them.

We seldom see evolution happening. Michael Behe’s Edge of Evolution (2007) notes that for decades scientists have observed many thousands of generations of bacteria in the lab. And how did they evolve?

Well, they didn’t. Worse, when evolution is occasionally observed (and widely trumpeted), it often heads the wrong way. For example, bacteria evolve antibiotic resistance by junking intricate machinery, not by creating it. Cave fish lose their eyes. But we don’t need a theory for how intricate machinery gets wrecked. We need a theory for how it originates and how it develops quite suddenly. Evolution, as we understand it today, apparently isn’t that theory.

We aren’t going to improve science education by teaching Darwinian fairy tales.

Breakenridge informs us that in a recent Angus Reid poll, “A shockingly low 37 per cent of Albertans supported the position that humans beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years.” Well, good, let’s drive the numbers lower still. That position is an article of atheist dogma. Evidence for it is hailed as a truth we must all embrace; evidence against it is shrugged off as a temporary setback. Try doubting the dogma, and you could end up starring in Ben Stein’s Expelled, Part II.

Breakenridge also frets, “An even greater number of Albertans—40 percent—agreed that humans were created by God within the last 10,000 years.” That’s easy to explain. It was the only other option (barring “don’t know”). The ever-popular “God uses evolution” choice wasn’t offered.

Forced to choose between excluding God and including him, I’d pick option two, even though I accept NASA’s estimate of our Earth’s age (4.5 billion years) and consider common ancestry a reasonable idea.

My guess is, Albertans diverged from the national norm because they considered the question more carefully than some folk. History, anyone?

This summer a meeting of key evolutionists took place at Altenberg, Austria, to revise the theory. So, Albertans, if you haven’t started believing it yet, don’t bother. Right now, the theory needs a paramedic, not more cheerleaders.

Denyse O’Leary is a journalist and blogger who is the author of By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy and co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist’s case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

(Note: I put this opinion piece up because I was beginning to receive correspondence about it, but could not find a link to the Herald, and in any event wanted to link readers to my sources. Thanks to Jane Harris-Zsovan for the scan.)

Comments
Breakinridge laments the fact that Albertans embarrassingly trail the rest of the country in belief in evolution and thinks we need better science teaching to offset our, presumptively, religious leanings. http://www.gov.ab.ca/home/NewsFrame.cfm?ReleaseID=/acn/200506/18222E5E141E6-155B-4508-A7FC779EA9C93636.html
June 15, 2005 Alberta Students Score Number One in National Science Test "These results show that Alberta has the highest percentage of students in Canada achieving higher than expected standards of knowledge and skills in science," said Gene Zwozdesky, Minister of Education. "Alberta students continue to lead the nation, which is a credit to our educational system."
Charlie
August 18, 2008
August
08
Aug
18
18
2008
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT
-----O'Leary: "But the average person who says “God works through evolution” has no intention of saying “evolution works without God.” Of course, the Christian Darwinists can console them by insisting that both propositions are true at the same time.StephenB
August 18, 2008
August
08
Aug
18
18
2008
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT
-----nullasalus: "....if darwinism gets associated with a process that is absolutely unguided, without purpose, and spawned purely from unintelligent causes… I would not be surprised to find more and more people who doubt darwinism (or evolution, if it’s unfortunately mislabeled as such) after learning about the processes and mechanisms" Exactly right. Most Darwinists agree that evolution is a purposeless, mindless procss. In other words, it doesn't know where it is going. Some of its heaviest hitters are up front with that. On the other hand, some of the leaders of the movement, while agreeing, try to fool the public by smuggling in an artificial notion of purpose by insisting that natural selection "is not random." Since it is a law, one gathers, it has the power to direct in the name of the environment. What they don't mention is the fact that the environment is as purposeless as the organism, meaning that it too doesn't know where it is going and it hardly in a position to direct anything. So, it is still a purposeless, meaningless process.StephenB
August 18, 2008
August
08
Aug
18
18
2008
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
"The creationists whom Breakenridge derides may be wrong on their dates, but not on much else." ----------------- Just give us time........ :)ellijacket
August 18, 2008
August
08
Aug
18
18
2008
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT
nullasalus, that is a very good point. Many people will accept Darwinism as a subset of design (accurately or otherwise), and I presume that is why they check off the "God works through evolution" view. But the average person who says "God works through evolution" has no intention of saying "evolution works without God." Forced into that, many who have read the question carefully will simply default to a view that offers a more hands-on role for God - hence the Alberta results. Historically, the province of Alberta has often been in conflict with Ottawa (our national capital) because Albertans realized that the implications of national policies were often unfavourable to them. They learned to read the question carefully.O'Leary
August 18, 2008
August
08
Aug
18
18
2008
05:02 AM
5
05
02
AM
PDT
I thought I'd share this, since it seems appropriate. On another forum (Unnamed, not an ID/evolution forum, but very popular) I frequent, I saw a thread in the science forum with a post titled 'Tell me what I really need to know about evolution.' The responses poured in immediately - and the first and most important lesson was 'Evolution is purposeless and unguided! It doesn't produce anything for any reason at all, it's all meaningless! That is the most important lesson to learn!' Putting aside how tirades like that aren't science, but philosophy in a cheap suit... if darwinism gets associated with a process that is absolutely unguided, without purpose, and spawned purely from unintelligent causes... I would not be surprised to find more and more people who doubt darwinism (or evolution, if it's unfortunately mislabeled as such) after learning about the processes and mechanisms. At whatever level they are examined, it seems vastly more plausible to ascribe what's seen to design rather than the lack of it. People may grouse and debate about whether it's perfect design, or pleasant design, but it's hard to get around the appearance of design itself. Darwinists insisting that one cannot believe in both design and darwinism should not be surprised if the result is people rejecting darwinism.nullasalus
August 17, 2008
August
08
Aug
17
17
2008
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT
What is it about evolution theory that Albertans don’t get? Maybe it's what Albertans do get about evolution theory that is causing them to be skeptical. I really get tired of these guys writing anti-ID opinion pieces when they obviously know next to nothing about the subject.GilDodgen
August 17, 2008
August
08
Aug
17
17
2008
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT
Thanks, Russ. What I would like to know is why Angus Reid (polls), Inc., decided to DUMP the "theistic evolution" option, forcing a divide between theism and non-theism. I have - as you may know - written critically about certain bastardized types of theistic evolutionism. But I am reasonably sure that most Canadians don't follow any of that stuff. If they were given the option of saying "God works through evolution" we would have seen a spread closer to 3-3-3-1, breaking out as follows: (= nat evo/God + evo/just God/just don't know). I am not sure if this is a push poll aimed against Christians/theists/traditionalists - but one way of doing a push poll is to eliminate middle-of-the-road options.O'Leary
August 17, 2008
August
08
Aug
17
17
2008
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT
Wow. That was a great piece, Denyse. A very nice summary of the issue. Thank you.russ
August 17, 2008
August
08
Aug
17
17
2008
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply