Phillip E. Johnson June 29, 1992 The Religion of the Blind Watchmaker [Stephen Jay Gould p
Phillip E. Johnson
June 29, 1992
The Religion of the Blind Watchmaker
[Stephen Jay Gould published a 3-page attack on Phillip E. Johnson and
his book Darwin on Trial in the July, 1992 issue of Scientific American.
Editor Jonathan Piel refused to publish this response -- or any letters
on the subject.]
"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of
having been designed for a purpose." So writes Richard Dawkins, author
of The Blind Watchmaker. As a Darwinist [sic], Dawkins maintains that
the appearance is deceptive, and that living organisms are actually the
product of purposeless material forces -- random genetic variation and
natural selection. This "blind watchmaker thesis" is the [sic] most
important claim of evolutionary biology. If scientists were able to say
only that primitive fish "somehow" became amphibians, and then mammals,
and finally humans, nobody would be very impressed. Absent a credible
mechanism, the transformation of a fish into a human being is nearly as
miraculous as the creation of man from the dust of the earth. What makes
the story of evolution impressive is that Darwinist [sic] scientists
think that they know how such transformations occurred, through natural
processes requiring no divine guidance or non-material orienting force.
The blind watchmaker thesis has enormous religious significance because
it purports to explain the history of life without leaving any role to a
supernatural creator. "Before Darwin," writes Stephen Jay Gould, "we
thought that a benevolent god had created us." After the acceptance of
Darwinism [sic], that belief became intellectually untenable. According
to Gould.
"No intervening spirit watches lovingly over the affairs of nature
(though Newton's clock-winding God might have set up the machinery at the
beginning of time and then let it run). No vital forces propel
evolutionary change. And whatever we think of god, his existence is not
manifest in the products of nature." [From "In Praise of Charles Darwin,"
Discover, 1982]
God as a remote First Cause remains a possibility, but god as an active
creator is absolutely ruled out by the blind watchmaker thesis. That is
why Richard Dawkins exults that "Darwin made it possible to be an
intellectually fulfilled atheist." That doesn't mean that Darwin made it
impossible to be anything but an atheist. For example, Darwinism [sic]
and theism can easily be reconciled by those who, like Asa Gray and
Charles D. Walcott, misunderstand Darwinian [sic] evolution as a
benevolent process divinely ordained for the purpose of creating humans.
(Gould himself has been particularly emphatic in correcting that sort of
misunderstanding.) On the other hand, Darwinism [sic] does give atheists
and agnostics a decisive advantage to the extent that belief in god's
existence is a matter of logic and evidence.
Those who really understand Darwinism [sic], but still have spiritual
inclinations, have the option of making a religion out of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky -- Gould's prime example of a Christian
evolutionist -- actually exemplified the religious dimension of Darwinism
[sic]. Dobzhansky discarded the traditional Christian conception of god,
spiritualized the evolutionary process, and worshipped the glorious
future of evolution.
Gould writes that religion and science should not conflict, "because
science treats factual reality, while religion struggles with human
morality." But this statement implies a distinction between morality and
reality which does not exist, and which Gould himself would never observe
in practice. Does the morality of racial discrimination, for example,
have nothing to do with the factual reality of human equality? The
author of The Mismeasure of Man didn't seem to think so. And what gives
Gould the authority to proclaim that religion may not concern itself with
the factual reality of god? God can't have any moral authority unless He
really exists, and if god really exists he might take a hand in creation.
When a scientific elite claims exclusive authority to decide what is
"real," it is asserting control over science, religion, philosophy, and
every other area of thought.
Religion, like science, starts with assumptions or conclusions about
reality. If we were created by god for a purpose, that is one starting
point. If we are the accidental product of blind natural forces, that is
a very different starting point. In the former case we try to learn the
will of our creator, and in the latter case we discard that "intervening
spirit" as an illusion and proceed to chart our own course. Thus Gould
himself, in the concluding sentence of Wonderful Life, proceeds directly
from a Darwinist [sic] starting point to the religious conclusion that we
are morally autonomous beings who create our own values:
"We are the offspring of history, and must establish our own paths in
this most diverse and interesting of conceivable universes -- one
indifferent to our suffering, and therefore offering us maximum freedom
to thrive, or to fail, in our own chosen way."
The author of all those statements castigated me for suggesting that
Darwinism [sic] is tied to naturalistic philosophy and opposed to any
meaningful theism. David Hull, reviewing Darwin on Trial for Nature, was
equally severe with me for refusing to concede that Darwinism [sic] has
finished off theistic religion for good. Hull emphatically proclaimed a
Darwinist [sic] doctrine of god:
"What kind of god can one infer from the sort of phenomena epitomized by
the species on Darwin's Galapagos Islands? The evolutionary process is
rife with happenstance, contingency, incredible waste, death, pain and
horror.... The god of the Galapagos is careless, wasteful, indifferent,
almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort of god to whom anyone
would be inclined to pray."
So much for Darwinism's [sic] religious neutrality. Now to the more
important question: Is the blind watchmaker thesis true? To put the
question another way, does natural selection really have the fantastic
creative power which Darwinists [sic] claim for it? That seems an
appropriate question, but persons like Gould, Dawkins, and Hull insist
that the very definition of "science" rules the question out of order.
They say that science is inherently committed to naturalistic premises,
that Darwinian evolution is the best scientific (i.e. naturalistic)
theory of biological creation that we have, and even that Darwinism [sic]
possesses a virtue called "consilience of induction" -- meaning that it
explains a lot if we assume that it is true. One way or another,
Darwinists [sic] meet the question "Is Darwinism [sic] true?" with an
answer that amounts to an assertion of power: "Well, it is science, as we
define science, and you will have to be content with that."
Some of us are not content with that, because we know that the empirical
evidence for the creative power of natural selection is somewhere between
weak and non-existent. Artificial selection of fruitflies or domestic
animals produces limited change within the species, but tells us nothing
about how insects and mammals came into existence in the first place. In
any case, whatever artificial selection achieves is due to the employment
of human intelligence consciously pursuing a goal. The whole point of
the blind watchmaker thesis, however, is to establish what material
processes can do in the absence of purpose and intelligence. That
Darwinist [sic] authorities continually overlook this crucial distinction
gives us little confidence in their objectivity.
Examples of natural selection in action, like Kettlewell's observation of
population shifts in the peppered moth, actually illustrate cyclical
variation within stable species that exhibit no directional change. The
fossil record -- characterized by sudden appearance and subsequent stasis
-- is notoriously reluctant to yield examples of Darwinian
macroevolution. The therapsid reptiles and Archaeopteryx are rare
exceptions to the general absence of plausible transitional intermediates
between major groups, which is why it is important to understand that
even these Darwinist [sic] trophies are inconclusive as evidence of
macroevolution. No wonder that prominent authorities like Stephen Jay
Gould and Lynn Margulis have yearned for a new theory, on the ground that
the evidence contradicts the neo- Darwinist [sic] claim that
macroevolutionary innovation results from the accumulation of small
genetic changes by natural selection.
The point is not whether "evolution" in some vague sense is true.
"Evolution" has certainly occurred, but the scientific and religous
importance of this statement is slight when evolution is defined vaguely
as "change" or modestly as "shifts in gene frequencies." No doubt the
pattern of relationships among plants and animals invites an inference
that there was some process of development from a common source. But how
much do we know about this process of development?
Perhaps one day scientists will be able to test some macro- evolutionary
mechanism, involving changes in the rate genes or whatever, that will
explain how a four-footed mammal can become a whale or a bat without
going through impossible intermediate steps. The difficulties should be
honestly acknowledged, however. What evolutionary theory needs is a
reliable creative mechanism, capable of building highly complex
structures like vision and breathing systems again and again in diverse
lines. Speculation about how an occasional jump might occur won't do the
job.
Readers who know the score will understand why I feel honored that
Stephen Jay Gould could find no better response to my challenge than a
vitriolic attack that evades the main points and instead wanders through
the book in search of something to complain about. (Compare what I wrote
on page 16 of Darwin on Trial with Gould's complaint about
"recombination," and you will see how hard he worked to find a nit to
pick.) I welcome criticism on specific points; that is why I circulated
preliminary drafts to many distinguished scholars, including Gould. The
subject in controversy, however, is my argument that the blind watchmaker
thesis is not supported by the evidence -- i.e., that science does not
know how life could have evolved to its present complexity and diversity
without the participation of preexisting intelligence. If Gould had a
convincing answer to that argument, you may be sure that he would have
stated the issues clearly and met the main line of reasoning head on.
The review itself merits no further response, but what requires
explanation is the hostility. What divides Gould and me has little to do
with scientific evidence and everything to do with metaphysics. Gould
approaches the question of evolution from the philosophical starting
point of scientific naturalism, which denies a priori that a non-material
being such as God could influence the course of nature. From that
standpoint the blind watchmaker thesis is true in principle by
definition. Science may not know all the details yet, but something very
much like Darwinian evolution simply has to be responsible for our
existence because there is no acceptable alternative. If there are gaps
or defects in the existing theory, the appropriate response is to supply
additional naturalistic hypotheses. Critics who disparage Darwinism
[sic] without offering a naturalistic alternative are seen as attacking
science itself, probably in order to impose a religious straitjacket upon
science and society. One does not reason with such persons; one employs
any means at hand to discourage them.
But maybe Darwinism [sic] really is false -- in principle, and not just
in detail. Maybe mindless material processes can't create
information-rich biological systems. That is a real possibility, no
matter how offensive it is to scientific naturalists. How do Darwinists
[sic] know that the blind watchmaker created the animal phyla, for
example, since the process can't be demonstrated and all the historical
evidence is missing? Darwinists [sic] may have the cultural power to
suppress questions like that for a time, but eventually they are going to
have to come to grips with them. There are a lot of theists in America,
not to mention the rest of the world, and persons who promote naturalism
in the name of science will not forever be able to deny them a fair
hearing.
Scientific naturalists who think that Darwinism [sic] can be defended by
waging ideological war against the critics are free to follow the example
of Stephen Jay Gould. Others may prefer to take the path of Michael Ruse
and the Darwinist [sic] scientists who participated in an academic
symposium on the issues raised by Darwin on Trial in March, 1992, at
Southern Methodist University. These persons learned that it is possible
to debate metaphysical differences in an academic setting in a
fair-minded and mutually respectful manner. In the end, the entire
scientific community will have to acknowledge that honest discussion --
with assumptions identified and terms precisely defined -- is the only
method for resolving disagreement that is consistent with the best
traditions of science itself. When scientists defend a cherished
doctrine by obscuring the issues and shutting out criticism, it is a sure
sign that what they are defending isn't science.
Phillip E. Johnson
School of Law, University of California, Berkeley CA 94720
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank