Devolved Debate

Ben Stein's attack on evolution is the same old tired, mindless debate, says Abid Mujtaba

By: Abid Mujtaba

Posted: 4/29/08

It has been 126 years since Charles Darwin entered the void or met his maker (oh dear, the first sentence and already we have struck a matter of contention). Well over a century later, the majority of the species homo sapiens is still unable to digest his discovery and put this tired debate to rest.

The issue has come up again thanks to the documentary "Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed," written, starred and directed by Ben Stein. After much dreaded anticipation, I finally watched the movie and came out seething.

Let me begin by saying that as a member of the scientific community, I would like to apologize to those who believe that Darwinian Evolution is a sham. We are sorry, we have failed you miserably. Only someone completely lacking basic knowledge of biological science and rational thought could have come up with such drivel or agreed with Ben Stein on the wrong side of an issue long resolved.

"Expelled" begins with a decent enough premise: some scientists in the United States are being persecuted for espousing a belief or interest in intelligent design. I don't agree with some of the verbs used, but it is a decent hypothesis. Stein talks to these poor scientists and generates sympathy. If the claims of these people are true (check local blogs for counter opinions), then it is definitely a tragedy - curtailing scientific inquiry, no matter how misguided, is anathema to scientific progress. Well done, Ben Stein.

If the documentary had ended here, after the first 10 minutes, it would have been a reasonable venture. But Ben "David" Stein then takes on Big "Goliath" Science and uncovers the awesome conspiracy of atheists, eugenics-proponents, Nazis and anti-Semites of all varieties, Planned Parenthood, the courts, the media and the government to collectively promote "Darwinism" and squash intelligent design.

Let one thing be clear: the consensus opinion of the scientific community is that the theory of neo-Darwinism is absolutely valid and represents our best explanation for the diversity of life on the planet.

Charles Darwin, in a magnificent leap of intuition unmatched in human experience, came up with a theory - the theory of evolution by natural selection. The theory, in its breathtaking simplicity, says that the diversity of life our planet exhibits can be explained by one very simple process: organisms give rise to slightly varied offspring and nature favors the ones better suited to the environment, leaving the rest to die. The successful survive and procreate, and so organisms vary over time.

Pay particular attention to the word "neo-Darwinism." Contrary to popular opinion, our current understanding of evolution by natural selection is much more subtle than the original claim by Darwin. During the past century, we have identified DNA as the carrier of genetic information and therefore the entity that enables evolution.

Please don't let the word "theory" in theory of evolution fool you - this is just semantics. The "theory" of evolution is more accurate than Newton's "law" of gravity (which was surpassed by the theory of general relativity).

Evolution explains a vast variety of observations including, but not limited to, the taxonomical classification of organisms, embryology, genetics, the fossil record, molecular biology and bio-chemistry, to name a few. The hallmark of a great theory is its inherent simplicity and the breadth of observations it can explain. By this standard, the theory of evolution is peerless.

No student of biology can make significant headway toward understanding the subject without accepting evolution. It is the glue that holds together our understanding of living organisms.

Evolution works over a massive timescale and does not concern itself with the beginning of life. It simply explains what happens afterwards. The study of how life began out of the inanimate is called "abiogenesis." No physicist knows why gravity is present or acts the way it does, but we all believe in it; evolution should be regarded in the same vein. Some very smart people are looking into both origin questions, but we have some way to go and some interesting theories to work with.

So what is the fuss about? This is what happens. We find ourselves in this reality in which we exist, call it what you like (I prefer the "universe"). As sentient beings, we are driven by a curiosity concerning our existence and the nature of reality. We ask a number of important questions: Who are we? Where do we come from? Where are we headed? What is the Universe? How does it function?

If you are a Douglas Adams fan, then you already know the answer: it is 42. If you are more serious-minded, then you give each of these some thought. The universe, which one might define as the physical aspect of the reality in which we find ourselves, is the particular field of scientific study. The primary question science is trying to answer is: How does the universe function? Only lately has science begun to attempt to answer the question: How did the universe begin?

Here is where the conflict comes in. Modern science is based primarily upon Cartesian skepticism and rational inquiry. It is empirical in nature. Scientists observe a phenomenon, they come up with a hypothesis and they devise experiments and observations to test the hypothesis. If it fails, they discard it and move on to the next idea; if it passes, they keep testing it until it fails.

The ability to test ideas is crucial to science. So here are the options:

(a) There is a God, He/She controls the universe completely and intimately and evolution, gravity and the like are just figments of our imagination that happen coincidentally to agree with observation. If you hold this view, science is not for you.

(b) There is a God. He/She created and possibly controls the universe via inviolate physical laws that humans can come to understand.

(c) There is no God.

Options "b" and "c" are conducive to science. Why? Because science cannot digest the supernatural. For instance, one could postulate that the planets go around the Sun because angels are pushing them. As far as ideas go, it is plausible, dare I say possible, but it is not falsifiable. There is no experiment you could come up with that could test this idea. Furthermore, there is no practical application for such an idea. You cannot send astronauts into space on the whim of angels.

Put bluntly, claiming "God did it" as an explanation for a phenomenon is not the answer to any question - it is a statement of ignorance. It does not shed light on the issue and effectively blocks further inquiry. We, as human beings, have found ourselves remarkably adept at understanding and harnessing nature. This has come about as a result of requiring a secular explanation for reality. Science hopes to push the bubble of our understanding as far out as it can. Once science reaches its limit, we might find God watching us from the outside. Then again, we might not.