Your Turn Letters to the Editor

The missing Darwinists

As a professor of biology at VCU whose research focuses on understanding the mechanisms of evolutionary change from a mathematical perspective, I felt it necessary to provide some perspective on the recent op-ed letter entitled “Darwinism: Philosophy, not science.” It is my opinion that Mr. Belden’s sophomoric regurgitation of misinformation espoused by fringe groups is characteristic of a larger anti-science movement in contemporary American society. My purpose here is not to begin a debate about the merits of evolutionary theory, as we have over a century of sound scientific research that has continued to support this fundamental component of biology. Rather, I would like to explore two of the underlying themes in the original letter.

Let’s begin by examining the use of the term “Darwinism.” It is amazing how much this word is thrown around in certain segments of society. However, in all the years I have been studying how evolution works, I have never actually heard any biologist refer to themselves as “Darwinists.” This is not too surprising as we do not refer to physicists as “Newtonians,” and I doubt Mr. Belden would call himself a “Turinista.” In fact, you will only hear this term from people who do not understand evolutionary biology. Let’s make no mistake about it: The term “Darwinist” is purely pejorative. It has absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary theory and everything to do with demonizing “those people.” After all, how many evolutionary biologists do you know?

Perhaps we can find some more clues as to Mr. Belden’s motivation by looking at the second sentence of his article that states, “…evolution in and of itself does not infer anything about the existence or non-existence of a creator….” I fully agree with this statement and I have never seen any mention of a creator in any college text on evolutionary theory. In fact, if one was to go to the library and look up the number of times the term “God” or “Creator” was used in an article published by the journal “Evolution” (as this is where these so-called Darwinists probably publish their stuff), you will find a single reference in the 5,000 or so papers that are cataloged in the database since 1965 and this paper is a perspective on the effects of “Creation Sciences” on the curricula of North American public schools. Interesting.

So where are these “Darwinists” whose philosophy should be elevated to that of a religion? From the American Heritage Dictionary, the term “religion” is defined as (a) Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe or (b) A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. Are there really people in the Richmond metropolitan area who think Charles Darwin possessed supernatural power or somehow was involved in the creation of the universe? It sure isn’t any biologist that I have ever met. So if the biologists aren’t the ones that see Charles Darwin as a deity and the study of evolution has nothing to do with the existence of a divine power, then whom are we really talking about? Perhaps this is simply a canard and the issue goes beyond evolutionary biology.

The demonization of science in this country goes far beyond evolutionary biology, reaching all branches of scientific inquiry. When people use the derogatory terms “Darwinism” and “Darwinist” they are really referring to anyone who believes that the scientific method may lead to any conclusion that might contradict a literal interpretation of their particular religious text. You don’t have to go any further than last semester’s seminar by Dr. Scott Walsh, a member of the MCV faculty in the OB-GYN department (a bastion of evolutionary theory no doubt) to see an excellent example of this. Dr. Walsh, a Young Earth Creationist, included physicists, mathematicians, geologists, chemists and biologists in his vitriolic characterization of “Darwinism.”

Let’s close by examining Mr. Belden’s obviously non-condescending statement, “Any American with a single open-minded nerve cell in their brain will recognize that intelligent design as a scientific theory wields a great wealth of merit.” Ignoring the obvious anthropomorphizing of ‘open-mindedness’ to a single nerve cell (you don’t really believe that some of your nerve cells are more open-minded than others do you) this argument from incredulity has one of two possible motivations. Either Mr. Belden has yet to learn what a scientific theory is, or he is purposefully perpetuating the demonization of science. You will have to decide for yourself which one is more likely, but from the perspective of a professor here at VCU both are equally troubling.

Rodney J. Dyer, Ph.D.
Department of Biology

Rebutting a minister

I want to go ahead and speak for everyone who would prefer that we keep religion out of biology classes and textbooks. I accept Chris Daniel’s offer (made in a letter to the editor on Thursday) to exclude the intelligent design hypothesis from the empirical science of biology. As he said, “the theory of intelligent design is indeed a scientific one … but the scientific method applies only to empirical sciences, not to historical sciences. Empirical sciences, like chemistry and biology, look at how things function by nature (and thus are repeatable and look only to naturalistic explanations). Historical sciences, like archaeology and forensic science, look at particular past events and ask: ‘How did this arise?’ (allowing for both natural and intelligent causes and reconstructing rather than repeating the historical event)?”

Although I seriously doubt that many forensic scientists would accept his classification of intelligent design as synonymous with their pursuits, I do accept Daniel’s generous concession to scientific endeavor. But that leaves us with another quandary: Intelligent design needs a separate branch of “science” to fully study the historical beginnings and development of existence. I wonder what kind of school would provide that class? Oh, I’ve got it! A seminary! Or maybe Liberty University is looking to expand its curriculum.

I could just leave it there, but since I’m on the subject let me point out the other inconsistencies of Daniel’s argument. He claims that the world is irreducibly complex; a motor doesn’t appear out of thin air. He’s right. The knowledge that allows us to build internal-combustion engines evolved. We have developed many skills and processes to build engines, and it didn’t happen in seven days.

His final point, that DNA is a message from an intelligent designer, was the dead giveaway that Daniel’s defense segued into an argument for religion (particularly Christianity, funny enough) and not a sincere effort to expand the knowledge base of science. It always comes back to the “Trojan horse” (see Andrew Babb’s editorial cartoon from Thursday). DNA is a series of molecules that code for both functional and structural proteins from which we get organic compounds. It is a chemical and biological process that developed over a long time (like the motor, but with a lot less human input).

Yet, here we get to the leap that religionists will make every time. In their anthropocentric worldview humankind is perfection made in the image of God. So, DNA has become God’s message writ in our very cells. (In the not-so-distant past, evidence of DNA would have been heresy. Go figure.) DNA is a physical structure that begets other physical structures. It is only religion that insists it is a message from heaven. This is exactly the imposition of a religious point of view on secular, scientific study that should be excluded from serious debate or, as Daniel suggested, subjugated to its own “academic” pursuit.

– Jack Lavelle