by Terry Scambray<\/p>\n
New Oxford Review<\/em><\/p>\n A review of\u00a0What Darwin Got Wrong<\/em>\u00a0by Jerry Fodor and\u00a0 Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini (Farrar, Straus & Giroux. 179 pp.)<\/strong><\/p>\n Modernism is built on Charles Darwin’s idea that the world made itself. So when Darwin’s idea is discredited, then the materialist and reductionist foundations of Marxism, Freudianism and atheistic humanism have been discredited along with their various sub-cults like so-called multiculturalism, feminism, environmentalism, postmodernism and so on.<\/p>\n In a word, if Darwin is wrong, modernism is reduced to a faith position.<\/p>\n Thus, the so-called Darwin wars are not a parochial sideshow between Biblical fundamentalists and science, but rather a \u201cfundamental\u201d controversy in the profound sense of that word.<\/p>\n A Brief Review<\/strong><\/p>\n Charles Darwin noticed that offspring from the same parents will vary among themselves. Next he surmised that the best or most successful of these “random variations” had necessarily survived assorted pressures or threats existing in their environment. This process which permitted the fittest to survive, he called “natural selection” which occurred over relatively short or vast periods of time. This trial and error, winnowing out process caused humans as well as all the rest of nature to adapt, change and progress on up to our present condition.<\/p>\n Darwin Was Egregiously Wrong<\/strong><\/p>\n But this is precisely\u00a0What Darwin Got Wrong<\/em>, which is the title of a succinct new book by Jerry Fodor, a philosopher, and\u00a0 Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, a scientist.<\/p>\n Indeed, Messieurs Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini thrash natural selection by saying that it is not “remotely plausible,” and then they pile on at every opportunity, calling it, “utterly implausible, empty, and internally,\u00a0 fatally and irredeemably flawed.\u201d<\/p>\n However, natural selection is the indispensible part of\u00a0 Darwin’s narrative. \u00a0After all, the original title of Darwin’s controversial book was\u00a0On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life<\/em>. Remove natural selection from Darwin’s explanation of how life arose and developed and what is left of Darwin’s corpus are merely fossilized remains of the 19th century Whiggish belief in the inevitability of progress.<\/p>\n Natural Selection Only Stabilizes Populations<\/strong><\/p>\n The most cited example of the power of natural selection is the so-called “Darwin’s finches” of the Galapagos Islands whose\u00a0average<\/em>\u00a0beak size fluctuated due to changes in the finches environment. But not only were the changes in the beak sizes of these tiny birds\u00a0microscopic<\/em>, but the average beak size returned to normal when the food supply returned to normal and foraging was easy once again even for finches with smaller beaks.\u00a0 In other words, nature, as it usually does, stabilized itself.<\/p>\n So natural selection in this case did not lead to any progressive and\u00a0irreversible<\/em>change of the finches into, say, an eagle or even something closer in its morphology like a robin. Natural selection in this case was a conserving force which occasioned a minor modification, thus permitting the finches to temporarily adapt, then reverse back to their former state so that they could survive intact.<\/p>\n For that matter, the tiny teeter-totter changes of adaptation within a population occur endlessly in nature. Such changes can be something as common as getting a sun tan at the beach which is nature’s way of protecting a person’s skin; or adaptation happens when a cat sheds its hair in order to adjust to the summer heat.<\/p>\n In other words, organisms will change ever so slightly in order to\u00a0stay the same<\/em>and, thus, survive in their particular niche or environment. Besides if an organism were to change too much, as, for example, a fish which by virtue of a mutation acquired nascent legs, the fish would quickly die because it could not survive out of water or, in its helpless state, it would be eaten by predators.<\/p>\n So beyond such adaptations or adjustments, natural selection is incapable of any innovative, irreversible changes in an organism such as a leg changing into a wing, or the scales on a trout changing into the feathers on a thrush. As Fodor and Piattelli-Palmerini concisely put it: \u201cWe think of natural selection as tuning the piano, not as composing the melodies.\u201d<\/p>\n As these co-authors go on to indicate, natural selection is not a creative force because it depends on \u201cexogenous\u201d, external environmental pressures which turn out to be simplistic non-explanations for the\u00a0coordinated, multiple<\/em>\u00a0changes that large scale evolution requires. For example, tacking a pair of wings on a salamander won\u2019t make it an eagle, for too many other profound differences exist between the two creatures, differences in pulmonary systems, skin, metabolism, and on and on. As our co-authors write, \u201cexogenous selection hardly ever operates on mutually independent traits.\u201d<\/p>\n Natural Selection Is Dead<\/strong><\/p>\n So natural selection \u2014 the creative force that supposedly made the cosmos, the dynamic that philosopher Daniel Dennett audaciously calls \u201cthe single, best idea anyone has ever had\u201d and also the force which Darwinian materialists insist we must believe is our true creator upon pain of being ridiculed and marginalized \u2014 is now defunct.<\/p>\n Though this may be news to many, the truth is that natural selection has been discredited at least since Darwin\u2019s time. No less than Thomas Huxley, for one, told Darwin to avoid relying on natural selection as the engine of evolution.<\/p>\n More significantly, thoughtful people have consistently pointed out that natural selection is an empty tautology with no predictive power. It is a verbal disguise which appears to say something important but really says that nature will merely select\u00a0whatever<\/em>\u00a0it selects:\u00a0que sera sera.<\/em><\/p>\n And finally, \u201cnatural selection\u201d in truth amounts to \u201cselective death.\u201d That is, natural selection is by definition a \u201cselecting,\u201d a sorting out of what is already there; it is incapable of making anything new and, not surprisingly, has never been shown to do so.<\/p>\n Because of such problems, several hundred PhD scientists and biologists have publicly indicated their skepticism of natural selection, and one can only imagine how many others agree but are intimidated into silence.<\/p>\n So Fodor and Piattelli-Palmerini have arrived late, extremely late, to the dance. But, once again, nothing new in that since the Darwinists have a record of insisting that they have discovered something that proves evolution which, when the inevitable repudiation comes, they quietly discard and move on to some other claim to distract the public.<\/p>\n Critics who point out such bait and switch operations are routinely castigated by Darwinists as \u201cpeople who are ignorant about how science works.\u201d<\/p>\n Philosophy Disguised as Science<\/strong><\/p>\n But if natural selection is defunct, Darwinian materialism is not according to our authors. And since \u201cthere probably isn\u2019t a God or a Tooth Fairy or any divine causes or final causes,\u201d as our authors categorically write, then mindless, materialistic forces are the only available choice to be our true creators.<\/p>\n So despite Darwin being specifically wrong about the creative power of natural selection, he was correct that some natural process could explain how nature had made itself.<\/p>\n This assumption is made clear in the book’s opening epigraph as taken from Noam Chomsky’s work:<\/p>\n It is perfectly safe to attribute this development to\u00a0 ‘natural selection’ so long as we realize that there is no substance to this assertion; that it amounts to no more than a belief that there is some naturalistic explanation for these phenomena.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So Professor Chomsky concedes here as he has done elsewhere that no real evidence exists for the creative power of natural selection; it is a tabula rasa awaiting whatever story or scientific sounding rationale one can improvise in order to explain how we got here \u2014 just so the explanation offers a materialistic or naturalistic accounting.<\/p>\n Science and Truth<\/strong><\/p>\n But science is the search for truth.\u00a0 Limiting the quest for truth to materialistic answers sounds like a way to satisfy a philosophic predilection. Indeed, it is unscientific and reeks of bigotry.<\/p>\n Apparently, though, it is permissible when someone like Professor Chomsky admits that Darwinism is more philosophy than science. But when Phillip Johnson, the Berkeley law professor, makes the same point, he is ruled out of line. As Professor Johnson writes:<\/p>\n Darwinian theory finds its basis in the philosophy of scientific naturalism rather than in an unprejudiced examination of the evidence. In other words, the theory that is itself the most important supporting pillar for the modernist system is itself supported by that very system, in a classic example of circular reasoning. If that \u00a0\u00a0 analysis is correct, then scientific naturalism itself is the product of a faith commitment rather than an irresistible inference from the facts provided by scientific investigation. *<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Genes Do It<\/strong><\/p>\n Nonetheless, having dispensed with a literal reading of Darwin, our progressive authors, Fodor and Piattelli-Palmerini, lay claim to a \u201cdiversity\u201d of alternative explanations as the forces which \u00a0drive evolution.<\/p>\n And, indeed, our co-authors come up with a series of \u201cendogenous,\u201d inside the organism forces, having to do with accidental and tandem genetic factors which they offer as our creators. The book then proceeds to explain such forces as gene regulatory networks, entrenchment, master genes, morphogenetic explosions, plasticity, epigenetics, jumping genes and so on.<\/p>\n To be sure each of these dynamics is interesting and even fascinating. Take, for example, the explanation of the creative power of master genes:\u00a0 \u201cthe 0txI \u2018master\u2019 gene controls the development of the larynx, inner ear, kidneys and external genitalia and the thickness of the cerebral cortex . . .\u201d<\/p>\n Another force for change is \u201cmorphogenetic explosions\u201d which occur when new life forms appear over short periods of geologic time. This explanation attempts to account for such facts as the abrupt appearance of most all of the basic body plans during the so-called Cambrian Explosion and the consistently abrupt appearance of fully formed organisms in the fossil record, implacable facts which refute the gradualism predicted by Darwin.<\/p>\n And further, Fodor and Piattelli-Palmerini write that all organisms from worms to humans \u201care riddled with the ubiquitous genomic mechanisms of turnover (replicative transposition, inversion, duplication)\u201d which power \u201cmolecular drive.\u201d\u00a0 These dynamics spread through populations and over many generations cause evolution to occur.<\/p>\n Question Begging<\/strong><\/p>\n However, claims for the creative power of such genetic forces have been made for many years.\u00a0\u00a0 But so far, as Professor Chomsky writes above, they remain as just-so-stories, explanations that might be true but which lack empirical verification.<\/p>\n Michael Behe’s 2007 book,\u00a0The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism<\/em>, is one of the more recent studies that topples the claim that natural selection can make anything new. As Behe, the Lehigh University geneticist, persuasively demonstrates, natural\u00a0 selection is capable of achieving two things: rearranging genetic information within organisms and destroying genetic information when it helps an organism survive in a poisonous environment as when, for example, an antibiotic threatens a bacterium. In the latter case, the bacterium purges parts of its own DNA in order to preserve its energy in a desperate attempt to survive.<\/p>\n Certainly these dynamics of reproduction and chemical resistance are impressive, as Behe points out. But these adaptations are a dead end, more like a cliff at the end of a short peninsula, a deafening halt to further progress; they are decidedly not that narrow isthmus of tiny, incremental change that opens onto a continent of expansive possibilities that Darwin speculated about.<\/p>\n Besides all of this, the most glaring trouble with the claims made by Fodor and Piattelli-Palmerini\u00a0 is that they ignore the Boeing 747 parked in the driveway. That is, what is the source of these genes themselves and all the other bio-chemicals involved in cellular life with their complex, information rich coding, and sophisticated storage systems which are the basis for life itself?<\/p>\n Have our co-authors been hoist with their own petard by merely showing how the piano is turned, but not who created the melodies, not to mention who crafted the piano?<\/p>\n “Adaptedness”<\/strong><\/p>\n For their part, Fodor and Piattelli-Palmerini write with admirable clarity and candor about the problem they face in explaining the complexity of life as a product of accidental, un-intelligent, material forces. They cite the dean of Darwinism, the late Ernst Mayr, rhapsodizing: \u201c. . . When you begin to think about this deeply, you begin to wonder how this admirable world of life could have reached such perfection. . . .\u00a0 the adaptedness of each structure, activity and behavior of every organism to its inanimate and living environment.\u201d<\/p>\n And our co-authors admit that the \u201ccanonical literature on evolution\u201d is full of such passages. Which it most certainly is.<\/p>\n Skinner and Darwin<\/strong><\/p>\n Fodor and Piattelli-Palmerini begin the book with a comparison between B. F. Skinner\u2019s behaviorist materialism and Darwin\u2019s evolutionary materialism. Our co-authors conclude their discussion by writing: \u201cDarwin was right; evolution really is mindless. But Skinner was wrong; learning is not.\u201d<\/p>\n But if Skinner is wrong in reducing learning to a mere thoughtless, conditioned response to stimuli, how much more egregiously wrong is Darwin in saying that life itself is a product of mindless, unintelligent, material “forces,” be they genetic forces or whatever?<\/p>\n Fodor and Piattelli-Palmerini must surely see that in overextending unintelligent, materialistic explanations, they are making the same mistake that they criticize Darwinists for who ignominiously exaggerate the power of natural selection.<\/p>\n Such reductionism in the name of “science” is incapable of explaining the myriad, complex \u201cadaptedness\u201d in nature.<\/p>\n Fear of Being Outed<\/strong><\/p>\n But it is revealing that Fodor & Piattelli-Palmerini insist that despite their deviationist skepticism about natural selection, they are not part of \u201cthe Forces of Darkness.\u201d<\/p>\n So the fear of being mistaken for enemies of Darwinian materialism explains why our co-authors make certain early on that they establish their\u00a0bona fides<\/em>\u00a0as \u201ccard carrying, dyed-in-the-wool atheists.\u201d<\/p>\n Whew ! What a relief it was to read that. I certainly wouldn\u2019t want any believer in \u201cthe Tooth Fairy, the Great Pumpkin, God or the Forces of Darkness,\u201d as our co-authors put it, to mislead me.<\/p>\n But why would Fodor and Piattelli-Palmerini ignore the fact that, since science developed exclusively in the Christian West, the founders of science and most scientists since then have believed in God? Though, to be scientific about it, I don\u2019t have any figures on their belief in the Tooth Fairy or the Great Pumpkin so my understanding may be skewed.<\/p>\n Perhaps, though, our co-authors cannot afford to entertain such thoughts, recognizing as they do that they are already under the gun for heterodox thoughts. Indeed, they inform us that they know that they are under suspicion for their atheistic denial of natural selection, Darwin\u2019s equivalent of the prime mover.<\/p>\n But in fairness, many of their science colleagues had the integrity to tell Fodor and Piattelli-Palmerini that they were correct in admitting that the story of natural selection as our creator is a myth. Nevertheless, our co-authors also admit that their science colleagues told them to shut the hell up about it. Integrity has limits, apparently.<\/p>\n Authoritarian Science<\/strong><\/p>\n Our co-authors then immediately insist that they too hate \u201cthe Forces of Darkness, whose goal is to bring science into disrepute.\u201d<\/p>\n And who might that really be?<\/p>\n Perchance could \u201cthe Forces of Darkness\u201d be those same individuals who wish to keep the findings of science in-house for fear that the truth will be known?<\/p>\n Such authoritarians seem likely candidates for the role.<\/p>\n * Phillip Johnson, “Nihilism and the End of Law”,\u00a0First Things<\/em>, March, 1993.<\/p>\n by Terry Scambray New Oxford Review A review of\u00a0What Darwin Got Wrong\u00a0by Jerry Fodor and\u00a0 Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini (Farrar, Straus & Giroux. 179 pp.)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false}}},"categories":[87,354,85],"tags":[218,289,559,557,556,336,558,494,1073,398],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p466Sb-lO","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":7573,"url":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/book-review-a-genius-for-destructive-change\/","url_meta":{"origin":1352,"position":0},"title":"Book Review: A Genius for Destructive Change","author":"victorhanson","date":"June 17, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"by Terry Scambray \/\/\u00a0New Oxford Review, May\u00a02014\u00a0 Darwin: Portrait of a Genius. By Paul Johnson\u00a0 \u00a0Viking. 176 pages. $25.95. \u00a0 It is a measure of the cultural contamination of materialism, given great impetus by Charles Darwin, that even a giant like Paul Johnson can be infected and attenuated by it.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Reviews"","block_context":{"text":"Reviews","link":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/ahref=\/index.php\/categories\/angry-reader\/categorylink\/a\/opinion\/reviews\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/06\/download-7.jpeg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":6666,"url":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/book-review-intelligent-design-or-unintelligent-design\/","url_meta":{"origin":1352,"position":1},"title":"Book Review: Intelligent Design or Unintelligent Design?","author":"victorhanson","date":"October 24, 2013","format":false,"excerpt":"by Terry Scambray \/\/\u00a0New Oxford Review, October 2013\u00a0 Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design, Stephen C. Meyer. Harper One, 2013. 412 pp. \u00a0Stephen Meyer has followed his highly acclaimed,\u00a0Signature in the Cell, with a worthy sequel.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0The sequel,\u00a0Darwin's Doubt,\u00a0blends the findings from molecular\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Reviews"","block_context":{"text":"Reviews","link":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/ahref=\/index.php\/categories\/angry-reader\/categorylink\/a\/opinion\/reviews\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":404,"url":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/silenced-partner-two-books-on-alfred-wallace\/","url_meta":{"origin":1352,"position":2},"title":"Silenced Partner: Two Books on Alfred Wallace","author":"victorhanson","date":"October 14, 2012","format":false,"excerpt":"by Terry Scambray Touchstone A review of: Alfred Russel Wallace's Theory of Intelligent Evolution: How Wallace's Theory of Life Challenged Darwinism\u00a0by Michael A. Flannery (Erasmus Press, 2008.\u00a0 216 pp.) Includes an abridged version of Wallace's\u00a0The World of Life, with an Introduction by Flannery and a Forward by William A. Dembski.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Reviews"","block_context":{"text":"Reviews","link":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/ahref=\/index.php\/categories\/angry-reader\/categorylink\/a\/opinion\/reviews\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":2389,"url":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/god-is-not-dead\/","url_meta":{"origin":1352,"position":3},"title":"God Is Not Dead","author":"victorhanson","date":"September 4, 2011","format":false,"excerpt":"A Review of Cornelius Hunter's trilogy. by Terry Scambray The Chesterton Review Darwin\u2019s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil\u00a0(Brazos Press, 2001, 189 pp.) Darwin\u2019s Proof: The Triumph of Religion over Science\u00a0(Brazos Press, 2003, 168 pp.) Science\u2019s Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism\u00a0(Brazos Press, 2007, 170 pp.) According\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Reviews"","block_context":{"text":"Reviews","link":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/ahref=\/index.php\/categories\/angry-reader\/categorylink\/a\/opinion\/reviews\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":1167,"url":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/evidence-against-the-evidence\/","url_meta":{"origin":1352,"position":4},"title":"Evidence Against the Evidence","author":"victorhanson","date":"October 24, 2010","format":false,"excerpt":"Meyer's new book reveals the irrational about evolution by Terry Scambray New Oxford Review A review of\u00a0Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design\u00a0by Stephen C. Meyer.\u00a0 Harper One, 2009. In a scene that could be straight out of a Henry James novel, Stephen Meyer, then an\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Terry Scambray"","block_context":{"text":"Terry Scambray","link":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/ahref=\/index.php\/categories\/angry-reader\/categorylink\/a\/our-contributors\/terry-scambray\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":1563,"url":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/beyond-the-scopes-trial\/","url_meta":{"origin":1352,"position":5},"title":"Beyond the Scopes Trial?","author":"victorhanson","date":"June 12, 2010","format":false,"excerpt":"Singham's new book misses the Christian foundation of law and much more. by Terry Scambray New Oxford Review God vs. Darwin: The War between Evolution and Creationism in the Classroom\u00a0by Mano Singham (Rowman & Littlefield, 2009). You can judge this book by its cover. Or at least by its title.\u00a0\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Terry Scambray"","block_context":{"text":"Terry Scambray","link":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/ahref=\/index.php\/categories\/angry-reader\/categorylink\/a\/our-contributors\/terry-scambray\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1352"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1352"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1352\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1353,"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1352\/revisions\/1353"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1352"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1352"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1352"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}