CONTROVERSY Darwinism Versus Intelligent Design David Berlinski & Critics PAUL R. GROSS: theory have all been given before- again in evolutionary biology and Congratulations are in order. In in the professional literature, in the mathematical physics. This, if true, his latest COMMENTARY essay on introductory biology courses of all would give it some scientific serious- "Darwinism"-as it is often called by decent colleges, in half a dozen very ness. But it is not true. There is not those who do not know much evolu- recent specialist books, on fifty one publication in recent biological tionary biology-David Berlinski flourishing scientific websites. How- journals, out of the tens of thousands seems to have reversed himself ["Has ever well intelligent-design apolo- of articles published annually-a Darwin Met His Match?," Decem- getics is doing as politics, there is huge subset of them devoted specifi- ber 2002]. He is now critical of the nothing new about its abject failure cally to evolution-that undertakes to effort to rehabilitate the ancient "ar- as science. rehabilitate the argument from de- gument from design," these days On the other hand, none of the sign. None of the intelligent- holiday-wrapped as "intelligent-de- reasons Mr. Berlinski hints at for re- design "theorists" mentioned in his sign theory." This change of mind is jecting "Darwinism" stand up. They essay has ever published the claim in all the more praiseworthy because are the familiar creationist pabulum, an original article in a regular, refer- Mr. Berlinski is not only the author supposedly demonstrating the grand eed biological journal. Nor, of course, of "The Deniable Darwin" (COM- flaws and gaps in evolutionary biol- has Mr. Berlinski himself done so. MENTARY, June 1996) but, according ogy. But these arguments, too, have As for William Dembski's lu- to his current author's note, closely been addressed in the professional cubrations on chance and probabili- associated with the Discovery Insti- literature, in tens of thousands of pa- ty-which even Mr. Berlinski now tute, the conservative Christian think pers, and in dozens of excellent, best- finds flawed-I know of no profes- tank that serves as the primary pro- selling popular science books-and sional publications (other than Dem- moter of "intelligent design." they have been soundly refuted. Un- bski's own books and his frenetic re- The manner of Mr. Berlinski's dis- fortunately, a non-biologist reader of sponses to critics) that treat them as missal is less creditable, however. His "Has Darwin Met His Match?," in- of interest for mathematical physics. argument might be paraphrased as nocent of this vast body of knowl- There are, however, a dozen point- follows: intelligent design has failed, edge, will have no notion of its con- by-point refutations of those claims, evolutionary biology has failed, and tent or even, perhaps, of its existence, many of them available on the Inter- therefore nobody has a plausible sci- and may therefore take Mr. Berlin- net, by well-known physicists, philo- entific explanation for the diversity ski's assertions as true as well as deep, sophers, mathematicians, and biolo- of life on earth. This is absurd. which they are not. gists. The reasons Mr. Berlinski gives Mr. Berlinski says that the argu- University of Virginia for the failure of intelligent-design ment from design has been taken up Charlottesville, Virginia [9] COMMENTARY MARCH 2003 MARK PERAKH: that would be troubling if Darwin- still myriad open questions today. What is perhaps most amusing ism were a theory about the origins Mr. Berlinski does not mention about David Berlinski's article is his of life. Since it is not, Mr. Berlins- Fisher or Hamilton or any of the apparent change of mind on the sub- ki's hand-wringing on the subject is other thousands of biologists ex- ject of intelligent design. Having inappropriate. ploring these open questions be- supplied rave blurbs to the books of The fruits of evolutionary theo- cause he is anxious to present evolu- such prominent advocates of this ry are disseminated in thousands of tionary theory as a fixed philosophy "theory" as William Dembski and research articles in dozens of jour- rather than a dynamic science. In- Michael Behe, he now casts doubt on nals every year. Obviously, the peo- deed, the only publishing biologist the concepts they promote. What ple charged with the responsibility he mentions is Jonathan Wells, the explains this new view? The advo- of entering their labs and solving Unification minister whose prayers cates of intelligent design are anxious problems find it useful. Numerous and conversations with the Rev. Sun to be taken seriously as scientists. complex systems have been studied Myung Moon convinced him, in From their standpoint, it may seem and the major steps of their evolu- Wells's own words, "that I should to be a step forward that Mr. Berlin- tion revealed. Where data are copi- devote my life to destroying Dar- ski gives their ideas a status equal to ous, they are all in accord with winism," which he reports as his that of Darwinism, even if only by Darwinian expectations; where mys- spur for studying biology. casting doubts on both equally. teries remain, the problem is a lack But no matter how vivid his the- The list of unsubstantiated asser- of data, not a lack of theoretical ro- ological motivations may be, Wells tions in Mr. Berlinski's paper is long. bustness. (or indeed anyone in the intelligent- Though enviably eloquent, it adds In response to all this, intelligent- design camp) will eventually have to nothing to the debate other than to design theorists fold their arms and offer an alternative explanation of try to put the failed hypothesis of shake their heads. That is their the variety we see among living intelligent design on a par with gen- right. But for all their bloated things that does not rely on the key uine science. claims and hyperbolic rhetoric, they evolutionary idea of descent with Bonsall, California have made no contribution toward modification. Furthermore, that ex- solving an actual biological prob- planation will have to be tested, and JASON ROSENHOUSE: lem. For that matter, neither has those tests will have to be scientif- David Berlinski's arguments David Berlinski. ic, not religious. against intelligent-design theory Kansas State University Here even Mr. Berlinski gets off suffer only from a lack of originali- Manhattan, Kansas the intelligent-design bus, because ty; critics have been making the he can see where it is heading. If the same points for years. Still, he gives CLAY SHIRKY: only way to defeat a scientific hy- a good picture of why most scien- David Berlinski expends a lot of pothesis is with another scientific tists find this field unpromising. energy trying to make evolutionary hypothesis, then we will never get Mr. Berlinski's ongoing antipathy theory look like religion. He men- to what he seemingly wants: a world to mainstream biology, by contrast, tions Darwin often and gestures to- where science stops trying to ex- is based on a caricature. Blubber- ward a set of beliefs called "Dar- plain things. He likes intelligent de- ing about gaps in the fossil record winism," as if Darwin were some sign for criticizing evolutionary cannot change the fact that, with sort of high priest and Darwinism a theory, but he dislikes it because it millions of fossils collected and clas- sect. But biologists do not practice is itself too much like science, and sified, not one is out of place from "Darwinism" any more than physi- may end up having to make testable a Darwinian standpoint. Also, Dar- cists practice "Einsteinism." For bi- assertions in the domain of what he winism requires continuity at the ologists, The Origin of Species is a his- calls "the ineffable inimitable." level of the genotype, not the phe- torical work, not a how-to manual. Because he cannot get his hands notype. And while it is true that in- Unlike Berlinski's "Darwinism," on the steering wheel, Mr. Berlin- formation is independent of the evolutionary theory is a field of vig- ski reaches for the brakes, asserting medium containing it, there is noth- orous and current debate. Darwin that a large domain of interest is or ing mysterious about the idea that had no idea how heredity worked- should be permanently exempt from changing the medium can alter the it took fifty years for R.A. Fisher scientific inquiry. This has been a information. Genes do mutate, and his colleagues to relate Darwin's standard plea of the religious for the thereby coding for different pro- work to Mendel's. Darwin likewise last several centuries, and Mr. teins from before, and new func- had no explanation for altruism-it Berlinski's formulation-that the tions are sometimes observed to took a hundred years and the work search for "the ineffable inimitable" arise as a result. The source of the of William Hamilton to develop a is fruitless-is a classic of the genre. code is indeed mysterious, a fact plausible hypothesis. And there are History has not been kind to those [10] DIVERSITY 'AN IMPORTANT BOOK... Convincingly and with erudition, Wood addresses what is likely to be the domestic policy issue of the first half of 2003-racial preferences. Wood's book earns a place near the top of the pile of literature debunking affirmative action." -The Weekly Standard "This is simply the best and most thorough critique of the diversity phenomenon yet written. Yet this book is not a rant;it is an even-handed account of an empty concept entrench- ing itself in a free society.