Dinesh D’Souza as an example of why so many Christian intellectuals accept evolution

_{William Dembski

September 6, 2009

Atheism, Darwinism, Evolution}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

With my new book THE END OF CHRISTIANITY coming out shortly and with the publisher positioning it as a counterblast to the neo-atheist literature, I’m boning up on that literature as well as on the responses to it. Dinesh D’Souza’s response has much to commend it, but he drops the ball on evolution. Not only is his scholarship sloppy on this point (for instance, he fails to distinguish the younger C. S. Lewis, who largely had no problem with evolution, from the later C. S. Lewis, who did), but he justifies taking the side of evolution on the basis of an argumentum ad populum:

I am not a biologist, but what impresses me is that virtually every biologist in the world accepts the theory of evolution. While the debate goes on, it seems improbable that the small group fo intelligent design advocates is right and the entire community of biologists is wrong. Consider what two leading Christian biologists say about evolution. Kenneth Miller writes, “Evolution is as much a fact as anyting we know in science,” and Theodosius Dobzhansky famously said, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”

Unfortunately, much of the Christian intellectual world (from Christianity Today to the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities) is willing to sign off on evolution for just such reasons. It’s why we need to keep focusing on winning the younger generation.

Comments

Nonetheless Dinesh’s ad populum fallacy is there as I previously demonstrated, regardless of your perception. What did you demonstrate? I missed that. Please note that "I find X significant" is not a fallacy, no matter what X is. You also need to cite a statement by Dinesh that IDists are hiding from the battle, or retract your previous claim. I think you're confusing a paraphrase of the excerpt with a quotation of the excerpt. D'Souza has observed that ID is utterly absent in the scientific arena, and drawn the appropriate conclusions. If you really want to belabor the point, I acknowledge that he certainly could believe that ID tried to compete with science and failed, rather than deciding not to attempt to compete at all. It’s easy to talk about starting world-class laboratories when you have huge inflows of government funding (i.e., my tax money) for one side and not the other. Your comments about financial viability of any ID effort are irrelevant. How much does it cost to publish a journal on the web? Did the ID journal fail for lack of funding? How much money would Dr. Dembski need to write an article applying his design detection tools in a blind test?Learned Hand_{September 7, 2009
September
09
Sep
7
07
2009
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT}

Learned: Nonetheless Dinesh's ad populum fallacy is there as I previously demonstrated, regardless of your perception. You also need to cite a statement by Dinesh that IDists are hiding from the battle, or retract your previous claim. It's easy to talk about starting world-class laboratories when you have huge inflows of government funding (i.e., my tax money) for one side and not the other. Your comments about financial viability of any ID effort are irrelevant. Finally, sarcasm is an art. Don't try it at home.SpitfireIXA_{September 7, 2009
September
09
Sep
7
07
2009
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

Spitfire, Re: argumentii, that is a sensible approach. I am persuaded that, if D'Souza's statements were fallacious, they could be put in both categories. Because he isn't arguing that scientists' beliefs are true because they are scientists, however, I don't see a fallacy. Certainly none of them are being forced to resign from laboratories, and they would of course be welcomed with open arms into any laboratory. To adopt your sarcastic mode, let me add that they are certainly being barred by armed guards from starting their own laboratories, and jack-booted federal troops would lock Dr. Dembski up if he attempted to empirically test his design-detection tools. To abandon that mode, I will add only that even I accepted the "Expelled" meme, which I do not, it is plainly true that IDists do not need to be part of the consensus to engage in the standard scientific process. ID tried to take the right steps by, inter alia, starting its own publications. What happened to that journal? When was the last publication? Was it shut down by external forces?Learned Hand_{September 7, 2009
September
09
Sep
7
07
2009
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

Learned at 23:
There is another battle, fought with laboratories and original, empirical research. ID has retreated from that fight.
Yes, I've noticed how ID scientists have resigned and hidden themselves away in fear of being exposed as frauds. Certainly none of them are being forced to resign from laboratories, and they would of course be welcomed with open arms into any laboratory. Lame, sophist comment on your part, Learned.
D’Souza has observed how ID chooses its battles, and drawn an appropriate conclusion.
A sophist double-header on your part, Learned. Please quote the relevant portion of Dinesh's comments that states anything like this.SpitfireIXA_{September 7, 2009
September
09
Sep
7
07
2009
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT}

Ad Populum is an appeal based on quantity (majority opinion), therefore it fits Dinesh's logical error. It does not matter whether those appealed to are experts. Ad Verecundiam is an appeal based on quality (authority). This applies as well to the Dinesh statement.SpitfireIXA_{September 7, 2009
September
09
Sep
7
07
2009
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT}

"Looks like an appropriate boomerang to me, i.e. an argument that one should be vary of using, it has a tendency to find its way back" Two things, I do not think you are reading Hunter correctly but then again I do not know what you think he is saying. Second, there is no evidence for a mechanism for macro evolution. So what could boomerang, the truth. But I am already using that. No one is afraid of the truth here or any argument about evolution.jerry_{September 7, 2009
September
09
Sep
7
07
2009
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

See, while I don't currently accept universal common ancestry, I do think there is evidence to support it. DNA evidence and the fossil record are both evidence of macro evolution and common descent. Now, you may disagree with the conclusion drawn from this evidence, but to deny the evidence exists altogether is either ignorant or disingenuous.dodgingcars_{September 7, 2009
September
09
Sep
7
07
2009
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

Jerry,
because there is no science to support macro evolution. They just assume it exists. And as we know here, there isn’t any.
Not too long ago, I read on this same forum: Cornelius Hunter:
The problem with evolution is not that a few scientists are toying with a far flung idea with substantial evidential problems. The problem is that evolution is a dogma. It is held with a conviction that can match any religious movement. The problem is not that evolutionists are wrong--it is that they know they are right.
Looks like an appropriate boomerang to me, i.e. an argument that one should be vary of using, it has a tendency to find its way back. But all right then, you have tested all possible permutations and found them wanting. Duly noted.Cabal_{September 7, 2009
September
09
Sep
7
07
2009
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

Darwin wrote a mass market book and look at the result. Leaving aside the fairly obvious difficulty of comparing seventeenth and twenty-first century methods of scientific publication, modern evolutionary biology is based on quite a bit more than just Darwin's writings. Dawkins writes mass market books and he got appointed to a prestigious Oxford position. This battle is fought with mass market books. An astute point. This battle, over the currency of ID, is fought with mass market books. There is another battle, fought with laboratories and original, empirical research. ID has retreated from that fight. D'Souza has observed how ID chooses its battles, and drawn an appropriate conclusion.Learned Hand_{September 7, 2009
September
09
Sep
7
07
2009
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

Its very frustrating that you use the word "evolution" in the title of this post rather than something like "darwinian evolution". Isn't it absolutely essential to communicate that ID isn't against evolution per se, but neo-darwinian undirected evolution. I'm a big fan of this site and of Dr. Dembski, and I know the difference b/w directed and undirected evolution should be pretty clear for anyone who spends some time on UD, but mustn't we be extremely clear on some of these semantic issues?siis_{September 7, 2009
September
09
Sep
7
07
2009
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

Darwin wrote a mass market book and look at the result. Dawkins writes mass market books and he got appointed to a prestigious Oxford position. This battle is fought with mass market books. I doubt the average biologist could cite any evidence for macro evolution. Why because there is no science to support macro evolution. They just assume it exists. And as we know here, there isn't any. So I assume D'Souza assumes it exists and both he and all these biologist are ill informed.jerry_{September 7, 2009
September
09
Sep
7
07
2009
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT}

Since there are two theories of evolution, maybe D’Souza does not understand that. One is obviously very well supported and the other has no support. My guess is that all these biologists who say they support the theory do not know this distinction. I think that you are correct that "all these biologists" reject the idea that "macro" evolution is unsupported, or even that it is fundamentally different from "micro" evolution. Having read the excerpt above, why would you think D'Souza be persuaded by one fringe idea to adopt another fringe idea? It sounds to me as if D'Souza is waiting for ID to persuade the scientific community before he, as an untrained observer, bothers to take it seriously. I think this is a relatively common approach that calls into question the prevailing ID strategy of ignoring the standard scientific process in favor of writing mass-market books.Learned Hand_{September 7, 2009
September
09
Sep
7
07
2009
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT}

Theodosius Dobzhansky us to belong to the board of a very influencial eugenic lobby. If Danesh believe that this Darwinism is true because Dobzhansky say so, does it means that Danesh believe that eugenics is the way to go? No.Learned Hand_{September 7, 2009
September
09
Sep
7
07
2009
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

Dr. Dembski, Since there are two theories of evolution, maybe D'Souza does not understand that. One is obviously very well supported and the other has no support. My guess is that all these biologists who say they support the theory do not know this distinction. Tell him micro evolution is well supported and no one really contests it. Macro evolution, whether micro evolution over deep time, or by any other mechanism has no empirical basis. Maybe D'Souza should be made aware that it is this second part where the controversy is and the basis for the distinction is in the origin of information. If after that, he continues to accept macro evolution as naturalistic then there might not be much to change his mind in the short term. Most of the people who come here initially do not understand this distinction. So it is quite possible that he and most biologists are like most people in general who support Darwinian processes for all evolution and do not understand this distinction or appreciate the lack of support for any mechanism of macro evolution. To that end, we should continue to harp on that distinction here and anywhere we discuss evolution so that more and more understand the crux of the underlying debate.jerry_{September 7, 2009
September
09
Sep
7
07
2009
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

I think the the definition of terms is what makes things difficult for many Christians. I consider myself an ID proponent, but I'm not hostile to Collins, Giberson, et al (even though they are hostile to ID). I want to listen to them and hear what they have to say. I read the criticisms of common descent, but also listen to the proponents. I'm not a scientists, not an expert in biology, so I have to at least somewhat listen to the experts -- however, as a Christian, I don't consider biologists the only authority. I also listen to philosophers and theologians. I don't believe scientism is true. So where does that leave me? Honestly, I feel that much of the case for evolution is compelling. I'm not a YEC. I think the evidence for an old Earth and old universe is substantial. I'm not a concordist (sp?). I think people like Hugh Ross try to hard to read Genesis 1-3 (and the rest of the Bible) as a science book, though I respect Ross and his organization and their work very much. I think evidence does seem to point to some common ancestry (even though I remain doubtful of universal common ancestry) -- such as a house cat and a lion sharing a common ancestor. Even among ID people, it seems that the only commonly held belief is that RM + NS is inefficient to produce all the biological complexity we see and that instead, there appears to be design. Behe, if I remember, accepts universal common ancestry, for instance. I tend to agree with the ID argument. In fact, I like the way William Lane Craig put it in his debate with Hitchens. That evolution is so improbable that one would have to call it a miracle -- and that instead of it being evidence against God, is evidence for God! (He got a laugh and applause for that one). As a Christian, and one that identifies himself as evangelical, I'm ok with evolution theologically and Biblically because my own appeal to the experts (theologians and philosophers) has helped confirm that for me. So my problems with Darwinism is largely scientific.dodgingcars_{September 7, 2009
September
09
Sep
7
07
2009
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

Theodosius Dobzhansky us to belong to the board of a very influencial eugenic lobby. If Danesh believe that this Darwinism is true because Dobzhansky say so, does it means that Danesh believe that eugenics is the way to go?Kyrilluk_{September 7, 2009
September
09
Sep
7
07
2009
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

Dear Mr. Dembski, I was attracted to your site because of your comment about C. S. Lewis in this post. Having studied and written about Lewis fairly extensively (See my "Mere Theology: A Guide to the Thought of C. S. Lewis") it strikes me that your comments about Lewis's view on evolution is mistaken. I can think of no place in which Lewis retracts his theistic evolutionary stance expressed in "The Problem of Pain". Could you site a source for your contention that Lewis changed his view on evolution? Thanks, Will VausWill Vaus_{September 7, 2009
September
09
Sep
7
07
2009
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT}

Dr. Dembski, [H]e justifies taking the side of evolution on the basis of an argumentum ad populum.... The "populum" in argumentum ad populum refers to the masses, not to a community of experts. An argumentum ad populum is an appeal to a broad class of people. An appeal to the opinion of a narrow group of people, distinguished by their expert knowledge, is an argumentum ad verecundiam, or argument from authority. I have never been impressed by the soundness of D'Souza's writing. Here, though, his argument is not a logical fallacy. He does not say that evolutionary biology is true because the majority of scientists accept it. He says, "what impresses me is that virtually every biologist in the world accepts the theory of evolution." The unanimous consensus of experts on a topic is relevant to an assessment of fringe arguments against those experts. The consensus doesn't make the consensus position, but D'Souza doesn't claim otherwise.Learned Hand_{September 7, 2009
September
09
Sep
7
07
2009
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT}

Lenoxus:
A truly useless organ would in fact serve as evidence against natural selection, because organs are costly to produce and maintain.
To quote Introduction to Evolution, Moody, p. 42, 1970:
It is difficult to explain the presence of useless vestiges upon a basis of special creation without imputing to the Creator some lack of skill in planning or construction...
In other words, useless vestiges are a powerful argument for evolution and a bat with which to beat on God himself, unless they are not found to be useless, in which case they are a powerful argument for evolution. A theory that proves everything...SpitfireIXA_{September 7, 2009
September
09
Sep
7
07
2009
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

Dr. Sewell, [I]t may be instructive to note how broad the term “evolution” has become. It is so broad that Harvard paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson can say . . . . It is so broad that Jean Rostand can write . . . . Perhaps you should say could, rather than can. It is, after all, possible that neither Simpson nor Rostand are entirely current with evolutionary biology, each having been deceased for quite some time now.Learned Hand_{September 7, 2009
September
09
Sep
7
07
2009
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

I have almost every book written by D'Souza, and enjoy his writings much. He is exceptional at explaining in common terms. Having said that, he has two issues that I keep in mind when using him as a source: Logic is not his strong point, rhetoric is. Dinesh is a political animal, and has been known to hedge bets between what he says and what he thinks. In this case, his logic is clearly awful in the naked ad populum sense. To test-drive him: I am not an Iraqi, but what impresses me is that virtually every Iraqi in Iraq accepts the presidency of Saddam (99% of the vote!). It seems improbable that the small group against Saddam is right and the entire community of Iraqis is wrong. I am not an astronomer, but what impresses me is that virtually every astronomer in the world accepts the theory of geocentrism. It seems improbable that the small group for heliocentrism (Galileo and his few fringe friends) is right and the entire community of geocentrists is wrong. Reason One why I learn from Dinesh how to EXPLAIN things, and not how to DEBATE it.SpitfireIXA_{September 7, 2009
September
09
Sep
7
07
2009
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

Atom:
vesitigiality of the appendix and various glands
To the best of my knowledge, no biologist ever proposed that no function would be found for the appendix. That the appendix has some function is no surprise, and makes it no less vestigial, any more than the "functions" of the human tailbone make it non-vestigial. (Regardless, plenty of people survive just fine without an appendix, and a few are even born without it.) A truly useless organ would in fact serve as evidence against natural selection, because organs are costly to produce and maintain.
vast stretches of junk-DNA in the human genome
It remains a confirmed fact that some DNA is noncoding, and that some of this is retroviral, and some of it is unnecessary duplications. ID continues to half-heartedly "predict" that all DNA everywhere has function, and zero "junk" exists. (I say "half-heartedly" because some would hold that junk is a result of genetic entropy or, in the case of Christian creationism, corruption from the Fall). Over time, the amount of DNA that is considered "junk" can only decrease, and as far as I know, no biologist has ever drawn a line in the sand and said that all DNA with currently unknown function will remain "junk" forevermore.
the non-existence of homologous proteins, the simple/repetitive 3D structure of proteins, the exactly equal proportions of all four nucleotide bases in DNA…
I'm curious about these ones, as I'd never heard of them before.Lenoxus_{September 7, 2009
September
09
Sep
7
07
2009
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

I am not a [scientist], but what impresses me is that virtually every [scientist] in the world accepts the theory of [materialism]. While the debate goes on, it seems improbable that the small group of [non-materialists] is right and the entire community of [scientists] is wrong.
&lt/kettle-black> The near-entire community Biologists have never been wrong on an issue before, like when they were correct on vesitigiality of the appendix and various glands, vast stretches of junk-DNA in the human genome, the non-existence of homologous proteins, the simple/repetitive 3D structure of proteins, the exactly equal proportions of all four nucleotide bases in DNA...Atom_{September 7, 2009
September
09
Sep
7
07
2009
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

The link Bill Dembski provided above for the publications page at evoinfo.org should be http://evoinfo.orgEnezio E. De Almeida Filho_{September 7, 2009
September
09
Sep
7
07
2009
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

Generally, the word "evolution" is used here to mean the idea that the causes behind evolution are solely natural, "unthinking" forces, especially RM and NS. I see this as the null hypothesis, just as it is the null hypothesis in meteorology that natural forces alone are at work. As far as I know, there is still no fully-worked-out schematic of how thunderstorms form — specifically, of where the electric buildup comes from. (Even if there were, it would just be a story until someone worked out the movements of every molecule involved, and even then, it would just be a story.) Should this be taken as evidence of weather design?Lenoxus_{September 7, 2009
September
09
Sep
7
07
2009
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT}

Bill, With regard to the claim that "virtually every biologist in the world accepts the theory of evolution": it may be instructive to note how broad the term "evolution" has become. It is so broad that Harvard paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson can say "Gaps among known orders, classes and phyla are systematic and almost always large. These peculiarities of the record pose one of the most important theoretical problems in the whole history of life: Is the sudden appearance of higher categories a phenomenon of evolution or of the record only?" It is so broad that Jean Rostand can write in "A Biologist's View", "I believe firmly in the evolution of organic nature," and a few pages later, "Though we may know nothing of the actual variations which have made evolution...they must be supposed to be creative and not random..." and "A theory of evolution...must also account for organic adaptation, that is to say, for the harmony which is found in living structure. This harmony is admittedly not perfect but it is quite sufficient to suggest the idea of design or intention--of purpose, in fact." If evolution is defined this broadly, to include the possibility that new phyla really appear suddenly, and to allow for the possibility of "creative" mutations, then not only most Christians, but even most ID proponents could be considered evolutionists, including myself.Granville Sewell_{September 7, 2009
September
09
Sep
7
07
2009
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT}

senseorsensibility, outside perspectives always welcome. (Trolls not, but that needn't detain us.) Christian Darwinists do not seem to understand the nature of the problem. Darwinism is a cult, the creation story of materialist atheism. There are very good reasons for doubting both Darwinism and materialist atheism, but they are elite establishment religions now. There is no way that Darwinism is - or was ever intended to be - compatible with serious Christianity, because serious Christians think that life is meaningfully designed, based on evidence, and Darwinists think it happened to evolve, based on evidence. So the Christian Darwinist is walking over the gap on a plank that doesn't exist (= it is designed, but you can't tell). And most CDs, when challenged, plump for Darwinism. They have a silent God and a loud Darwin. A bucket of cold water might help some of them to wake up, so best of luck to this and future similar books.O'Leary_{September 7, 2009
September
09
Sep
7
07
2009
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT}

It is ironic that D'Souza cites the scientific consensus when that consensus is so grounded in an irrational 19th-century faith in physicalism. He should be alerted by the entirely faith-based assertion that natural selection accounts for all of life, being so palpably an extreme and irrational view. If he would only compare the increasingly shrill tone of the establishment's discourse on ID--dominated as it is by absurdities--with the kind of discourse the ID community is seeking to have I think he would be more cautious about advancing this argument. The marvellous trick the establishment has pulled off is to wrap up a non-scientific claim--an absurd faith-based metaphysical claim--with proper science, and then apply enough smoke and mirrors, bullying and bluster that everyone accepts it as that is the 'scientific' consensus. If you want to win folks over I think it would help if UD was more disciplined about some side issues that may well be dear to hearts of the folks here but I think somewhat narrows its appeal. BTW, I DON'T mean this kind of discussion--the theological implications of ID. The ID/fanatical-natural-selection debate is not a scientific debate, but a meta-science debate of how scientific research should be framed, and has been driven by metaphysical and quasi-religious issues. Again the discussion here, unlike in established science, strikes me as healthy and honest. I am intrigued by the End of Christianity with its up-front tackling of Theodicy. I know I perhaps should't be, but I remain astonished at the number of people that cite this as a reason for reluctantly abandoning their Christian faith. I have written an article on my blog trying to explain how I think modern habits of thought (confusion, really) are not helping. But it is written as an outsider, a Buddhist who would very much like to see folks not lose their faith, and more widely a much better appreciation and understanding of the Christian roots of our culture. It probably won't make much sense, nor will it until I get to engage with folks with a proper training in this. But it might be useful as an outside perspective and it is a start.senseorsensibility.com_{September 7, 2009
September
09
Sep
7
07
2009
04:19 AM
4
04
19
AM
PDT}

One problem (of many) with theistic evolution is that you have to construct a new theology to receive the evolution doctrine. For example, Ken Miller had to formulate some new and rather strange 'quantum' theology in order to admit his evolutionism. It seems pretty clear that his theology is a dramatic departure from the usual Thomism of the Catholic Church. Some people like the old theology. They don't feel that scientists or evolutionists are in a position to demand that they re-work all their beliefs about man and God. Ken Miller says that Darwinism and Christianity are compatible. But, in the fine print he says that you have to accept his (erroneous) theology. I don't like this kind of fine print. I think that if, for example, scientists concoct a theory that denies the existence of the human soul, then it is they who have a problem. They should go back to the drawing board and think of a better theory. The central problem to reconcile, for those who like to repeat the mantra that evolution and Christianity are compatible, is to resolve the following: Evolution says that man is an unintended byproduct of purely naturalistic processes. Christianity says that man is not. He is intended. Furthermore, according to Catholic dogma, man is both body and soul. You can't have a human being without a soul. So a supernatural act of creation is necessary with each and every human being. Darwinism or evolution is understood to be non-teleological. Right there that is incompatible with theism.Vladimir Krondan_{September 7, 2009
September
09
Sep
7
07
2009
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PDT}

Indeed... And that "younger generation" uses iPods. So I hope there'll be an audio version of TEOC.Gods iPod_{September 6, 2009
September
09
Sep
6
06
2009
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply