An Illusion Of Reality - The Darwinian Perspective

DARWIN’S ILLUSION

SUBMITTED BY: DENNIS B. LINTHICUM NOVEMBER 27, 2007

Introduction Two children were dancing across the front lawn. They were ecstatic at the news. Mom had just purchased tickets to see an Illusionist, who was going to do amazing ‘magic.’ Now, these two happy dancers had no idea what an Illusionist was, but ‘magic’ certainly had its appeal. Mom insisted that this wasn’t really a ‘magic’ show, and that this man, the Illusionist, would simply have it appear that what he accomplished he really did accomplish. The children were excited regardless of any shenanigans that might occur. Part of the intrigue for the children was the anticipation of the event. This was going to be exciting. Both kids studied the flyer, wondering, “How is this man going to accomplish these various feats?” They would see a lady floating through the hula-hoop; could he defy gravity? Could he escape the chains, the rope, and the straightjacket? The brochure ensured everyone that he could. Mom continued to remind them—it would be trickery— but the kids couldn’t wait. In a Natural History article, Richard Dawkins used the phrase illusion as a criticism of the Intelligent Design perspective. Dawkins wrote: Charles Darwin… discovered a way in which the unaided laws of physics—the laws according to which things “just happen”—could, in the fullness of geologic time, come to mimic deliberate design. The illusion of design is so successful that to this day most Americans (including, significantly, many influential and rich Americans) stubbornly refuse to believe it is an illusion. To such people, if a heart (or an eye or a bacterial flagellum) looks designed, that’s proof enough that it is designed.1 I think that Dawkins is wrong. Intelligent Design holds a stronger position. The scientific story of macroevolution is the real myth. It survives and spreads only by means of artful illusion. I will identify several specific patterns needed by the Illusionist to promote a successful production. This paper will carefully consider these patterns as they relate to the common mass1

Natural History Magazine, Inc., all rights reserved, Copyright © 2005. (Accessed: 23 Nov 2007) < http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/1105/1105_feature1.html>

media presentations of macroevolution. These methods are notably present in all major media presentations on the subject, as well as, most major textbooks in grade school, middle school, and high school, including university and graduate level course material.

Defining the Scene An Illusionist depends upon several distinct and identifiable strategies for creating a successful presentation and ensuring a continuing performance schedule. These include: 1) Successful Promotion a) Generating Audience Expectations 2) Array of dazzling Props/Images 3) Sleight-of-hand/Distraction 4) Public Relations Follow-up/Encore a) Promoting Audience Amazement b) Generating Respect for the Performer

1) Successful Promotion First, successful promotion is the key to the long-term viability for the performer. The promotional material does not have to be true, it only needs to generate excitement, interest, and a sense of be newsworthiness. Each of these characteristics exists in all levels of scientific endeavor—especially in the research arena for Darwinian evolution. The November 2004 issue of National Geographic Magazine has a cover that is a perfect illustration. The cover article asked a question that appeared to provide the stage for a profoundly serious inquiry, “Was Darwin Wrong?”2 Yet, as the story behind the cover unfolds, the question was pure rhetoric. However, the promotional goal was achieved. This issue, along with countless others, generated interest, promoted the excitement of the discoveries, and appeared entirely

2

National Geographic Society, all rights reserved, Copyright © 2004. (Accessed: 23 Nov 2007) < http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/index.html>

newsworthy. Yet, as this analysis continues, I will show that this article, along with others, is missing a key requirement of trust worthy news—unbiased objectivity.

2) Array of Dazzling Props/Images Dazzling photographs, artistic images and extraordinary video footage is the second element that lends credence to both our Illusionist performer and the amazing story of macroevolution. The real strength in using drawings, photographs, and video, is that a simple narration appears to be describing the scene. Yet, our minds have a built in method for categorizing information based upon presuppositions, and expectations. This provides a powerful opportunity to—lead the witness. Leading the witness is a phrase used to describe how an attorney might entice an individual to give an answer that agrees with details stated in the question. The subtle problem here is that the witness does not provide the court with eyewitness details. Rather the attorney provided the details, in his leading question. The court’s purpose, to determine the truth via eyewitness testimony, would constantly be in jeopardy if this tactic were not prohibited. The problem that the court system addresses does not receive its due attention in the development of news and media-magazines, or in textbook development. “A picture is worth a thousand words,” is a powerful conceptual ally in the efforts of a public relations endeavor. The narrator can set the context, provide perspective and control the direction for the typical thought patterns of an intellectually diverse audience. The audience, unsuspecting of any political or commercial manipulation, concentrates on the images. The audience is not fully cognizant of the propaganda, its truth or validity, or the degree that he, or she, has been influenced.

Herbert Schlossberg describes the key element required for bypassing critical thinking skills. That element is the use of assumptions rather than arguments, or facts. Assumptions, in fact, are more powerful than assertions, because they bypass the critical faculty and thereby create prejudice… A false assumption can be combined with an unassailable argument, which then proves the truth of what is false. The false assumption is additionally beguiling because it often appeals to one of the worst instincts—the desire to be fashionable or at least to avoid being associated with the unfashionable or unpopular.3 This method for influencing perspectives is very powerful when combined with artistic imagery. “Understanding transcends mere content awareness. Understanding is the faculty of comprehension. When you understand something, it makes sense to you; you see its connections and implications.”4 This illustration (Figure 1.), from a Wired Magazine article, The Crusade Against Evolution, does not require evidential justification; it simply represents an artistic rendition.5 Nonetheless, it draws the observer along a path, creating connections, and implications that are not scientifically justified. The vast majority of information absorbed by students in a high school science class comes from impressive artistic

Figure 1. “Teach the Controversy,” by Kenn Brown © 2004

portrayals in the typical textbook, or from the beautiful photographs in magazines like the National Geographic.

3

Herbert Schlossberg, Idols for Destruction, (Crossway Books, Wheaton, IL) 1990 p. 210 Winfried Corduan, Philosophia Christi, (La Mirada, CA) 2001, Series 2, Vol. 3, No. 1, p. 213 5 Evan Ratliff, The Crusade Against Evolution, Wired Magazine, Oct 2004, p. 154-203 4

3) Sleight-of-hand/Distraction The Illusionist purposefully distracts the observer while executing this technique flawlessly. The observer does not realize, that she did not see what actually happened, but she only saw what she thought happened. Again, this is closely associated with leading the witness. The goal is to prevent the casual observer (student) from thinking “outside of the box.” In science, this sleight-of-hand is not specifically oriented toward deceit, but is more associated with the drawing of unjustified conclusions. In philosophical terms, these conclusions are hasty generalizations or compositional errors; where first, the sample is too small to support the inductive generalizations, or second, the attributes that exist for the parts do not support the whole. An outstanding illustration comes from Time Magazine, Face-Off: Darwinians vs. AntiDarwinians, August 15, 2005. The Intelligent Design perspective for the development of the eye includes the following, “How could a process of gradual improvements produce a complex organ that needs all its parts—pinhole, lens, light-sensitive surface—in order to work? It is no accident.”6 Granted, Michael Behe’s pointed question does not provide any empirical evidence, but he does raise legitimate inquiries. The article continues with an evolutionist giving a response, “Nonsense, say biologists. It’s easy to imagine how a random mutation might have produced a patch of light-sensitive cells that helped a primitive creature tell day from night. You can also imagine how another mutation might have bent this patch of cells into a concave shape that could detect the direction a light or shadow was coming from—helping creatures with the mutation stay clear of predators.”7

6 7

Claudia Wallis, The Evolution Wars, Time Magazine, August 15, 2005, p. 30 Ibid.

Notice that the evolutionary perspective does not contain any empirical evidence either. It relies on a leap into the realm of our imaginations. The phrase “imagine” has no scientific merit, but in this news article it is used as fact, instead of empirical data. Worse, if one could easily imagine how something “might occur,” it is just as easy to imagine how something “might not occur.” Where does this equivocation between evolutionary science and imagination lead the casual reader? Unfortunately, the reader draws unjustified

Figure 2. Time Magazine © 2005, all rights reserved.

conclusions based upon the constant populist appeal for evolution, combined with an array of impressive images that are strategically included with the article (Figure 2.) Additionally, title of this article is biased: Face-Off: Darwinians vs. Anti-Darwinians. There is an inherent slant against the Intelligent Design position. Those individuals who adhere to design concept are ‘Anti-Darwinians’, not scientific investigators pursuing an alternative paradigm. Additional prejudice surfaces on the cover to this issue of Time Magazine as the description for the problem is identified as, “The push to teach ‘intelligent design.’”8 This lack of objectivity does not promote serious thought for the appropriate justification of various scientific perspectives, but instead, encourages an irrational response. This sleight-of-hand tactic is pervasive in pro-macroevolutionary literature. The following excerpt regarding insect pollination is from the November 2004 issue of National Geographic: 8

Ibid.

One species that caught Darwin’s eye was the Madagascar Orchid Angraecum sesquipedale, with its 11-inch long nectar receptacle. Darwin predicted that somewhere in Madagascar, a place he had never visited, must live a moth with a proboscis 11 inches long, adapted to harvest the orchid’s nectar. Forty years later two entomologists revealed the Madagascan sphinx moth Xanthopan morganii praedicta, confirming Darwin’s forecast. Such mutual adaptation—the moth to the flower, the flower to the moth—is called coevolution. This article’s conclusion is entirely unwarranted. There is no scientific justification for labeling these observations as coevolution. The intelligent design enthusiast could have easily made a similar prediction—after finding an orchid with an 11-inch nectar receptacle, he could predict the discovery of a moth that was designed to harvest the orchid’s nectar receptacle. Later, when the sphinx moth is discovered, is the designer’s position now proven? This article is also accompanied with exquisite photographs adding visual weight to the effective distraction.9 Another frequently used technique is also present in this excerpt. The technique is to provide details to the reader that promotes misdirection through the use of irrelevant minutiae. Here, the reader is distracted by the use of the scientific genus and specie. The inclusion of the Latin scientific nomenclature lends credence to the factual basis for this ‘scientific discovery,’ yet the underlying assumption is not proven by the accuracy of the facts. This distraction is so pervasive that David Griffin, a professor of the philosophy of religion, at Claremont College decided to track down the various ‘scientific claims.’ He confesses, in Religion and Scientific Naturalism: There are… evolutionists who have described how the transitions in question could have occurred. When I ask in which books can I find these discussions, however, I either get no answer or else some titles that, upon examination, do not in fact contain the promised accounts. That such accounts exist seems to be something that is widely known, but I have yet to encounter someone who knows where they exist.10 9

National Geographic Society, Op. Cit. referring to Robert Clark Photography (Brooklyn, NY, 2007) < http://www.robertclarkphoto.com/> Category: Things (Accessed: 23 Nov 2007) 10 William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution, (InterVarsity Press, Sownerss Grove, IL 2004), p. 215 Refering to David R. Griffin, Religion and Scientific Naturalism, (Oxford University Press, 1998)

Richard Dawkins is continually using this same tactic, promoting hasty generalizations instead of empirical evidence. Dawkins is one of the most prolific supporters of the macroevolutionary perspective. He has written several books promoting the acceptance of the concept that gradual, small changes in an organism will amount to astronomically large changes over time. In Climbing Mount Improbable, Dawkins provides volumes of scientific information. He continually names genus and specie. He provides appropriate credit to the scientists who are doing the actual work. He promotes a wide variety of academic institutions; crossing numerous fields of scientific endeavor, yet, he continual relies on conjecture. A specific example comes from Climbing Mount Improbable, in Chapter 5 – The Forty Fold Path to Enlightenment: Two photocells capture more photons than one. Three capture more than two, and so on up the slope of Mount Improbable. Advanced eyes like ours have millions of photocells densely packed like pile in a carpet, and each one of them is set up to capture as many photons as possible…[A human photocell] has an elegant array of membranes, lined up with military precision… I count ninety-one layers of membrane…The point is that ninety-one membranes are more effective in stopping photons than ninety, ninety are more effective than eighty-nine, and so on back to one membrane, which is more effective than zero. This is the kind of thing I mean when I say that there is a smooth gradient up Mount Improbable.11 For the casual reader, his empirical data is beautiful and the drawing in the text illustrates an enormous amount of detail. However, his logical analysis—one is better than none, and millions are the best of all— does not provide any empirical support for the claim that the modern eye is the result of a series of complicated changes that occurred over enormous amounts of time. William Dembski summarizes the problem posed by this dilemma; “Darwinism has a burden of proof that intelligent design does not have. Darwinism is a theory of process and

11

Richard Dawkins, Climbing Mount Improbable, (W.W. Norton & Co., New York, NY, 1996), p 144-145

therefore needs to provide convincing evidence that the processes it describes are able to bear the weight placed on them.”12 Just like those in attendance at our Illusionist’s presentation, people don’t know how the ‘magic’ happened, but they are pretty certain they witnessed something unique. There is however, residual skepticism about what the Illusionist is claiming. People feel that they might have been tricked. In the evolutionary debate, the same skepticism prevails. A CBS News public opinion survey indicates most respondents do not accept the theory of evolution: The telephone poll conducted Oct. 3-5 [2005] suggests 51 percent of those asked believe God created humans in their present form. Three in 10 believed while humans evolved, that God guided the process, and 15 percent said humans evolved independently.”13

4) Public Relations Follow-up/Encore The pro-Darwinian constituents are faced with an enormous problem—How do you get people to cast aside their skepticism, their tough questions and their constant demands for empirical evidence? The final push is a public relations strategy. It is very similar to our imaginary Illusionist performer engaging in a follow-up public relations effort and encore presentation to secure admiration from the audience. It encompasses the need to generate respect for the scientists, while creating disrespect for those in opposition. This strategy closely follows Schlossberg’s critique of the assumptions of modern public education and “the desire to be fashionable or at least to avoid being associated with the unfashionable or unpopular.”14 This strategy is illustrated in the following Life Science report for polling data similar to the 2005 CBS Poll. This poll was a worldwide survey and the bias is unmistakable: “A 12

William A. Dembski, Op. Cit., p. 252 United Press International, all rights reserved, Copyright © 2005. (Accessed: 25 Nov 2007) < http://www.physorg.com/news7500.htm> 14 Herbert Schlossberg, Op. Cit., p. 210 13

comparison of peoples' views in 34 countries finds that the United States ranks near the bottom when it comes to public acceptance of evolution. Only Turkey ranked lower.”15 In another instance, Dawkins refers to those who question evolution’s ability to perform as the “pseudoscientists of the school of intelligent design.”16 A Time Magazine cover story for the August 2005 issue also includes a prejudicial account of an imagined scene following an unfavorable federal ruling in the Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District case.17 The scene described, “strikes horror into the hearts of scientists and science teachers across the U.S., not to mention plenty of civil libertarians. Darwin's venerable theory is widely regarded as one of the best-supported ideas in science, the only explanation for the diversity of life on Earth, grounded in decades of study and objective evidence.”18 As this paper has highlighted this theory may be “widely regarded,” yet, the validity of the empirical data is still highly questionable. Furthermore, this Time report has no direct quotes or empirical evidence for the research that validates the author’s belief that scientists everywhere would be horrified. This comment represents a prejudicial opinion and does not represent the unbiased, objectivity required by a trustworthy news magazine. Yet, the objective goal—to create respect for scientists involved in the evolutionary project—is accomplished.

15

Imaginova Corp., all rights reserved © 2007. (Accessed: 25 Nov 2007) 16 Natural History Magazine, Op Cit. 17 For more information visit: < http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html> 18 Claudia Wallis, Op. Cit.

Conclusion The similarities between our imaginary Illusionist and the Darwinian evolution strategy are troublesome. The problem, of course, is not one of science. There is a fundamental problem in the nature of our presuppositions and assumptions. Schlossberg writes: The assumptions of modern public education concerning the nature of man, the function of the state, the nature of truth, and so on are such as to inculcate a set of presuppositions that can only be called religious.19 Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, apparently agrees with this paper’s assessment that the problem is not an empirical issue; “the problem is more than one of education—it goes deeper, and is a function of our country’s culture and history. The rejection of evolution is not something that will be solved by throwing science at it.”20 Ms. Scott realizes the dearth of relevant scientific data capable of overcoming the probabilities associated with the molecules to man theorem and prefers regulatory power for enforcing evolution’s dominance. Dawkins provides the final dogmatic reproach to those who disagree with the concept that we are the gradual improvement, over millions of years, of random, meaningless mutations. Dawkins creates a new word, designoid, to refer to “objects that look designed, so much so that some people—probably, alas, most people—think they are designed. These people are wrong.”21 In conclusion, it is Dawkins who is in the minority. The supposed art of macroevolutionary genius has caught a great number of people who will mistakenly consider Darwin’s trickery to be an accurate portrayal of reality. It is not—it’s just an illusion.

19

Herbert Schlossberg, Op. Cit., p. 211 Ker Than, Imaginova Corp., all rights reserved © 2006. (Accessed: 25 Nov 2007) < http://www.livescience.com/health/060810_evo_rank.html> 21 Richard Dawkins, Op. Cit., p. 6 20