I can’t say I much regret having missed this AEI event on “Darwinism and Conservatism.” According to The Weekly Standard‘s account, the panelists grappled with such “knotty questions” as:
Does reality have an ultimate, metaphysical foundation? Is there content to the universe?
Maybe I’m betraying my roots in an analytic department, but I’m pretty confident that these are questions on the order of “Do colorless green ideas sleep furiously?”—gramatically well-formed, but quite lacking in any actual coherent meaning. (Perhaps they should have asked, in a slightly more Gödelian mode: Is there content to this inquiry?)
Still, I was glad to read the summary if only for the sake of this closing passage, which quotes tech guru–cum–Discovery Institute fellow George Gilder:
Thus Gilder offered a concession by way of a compromise: “Darwinism may be true,” he said, “but it’s ultimately trivial.” It is not a “fundamental explanation for creation or the universe.” Evolution and natural selection may explain why organic life presents to us its marvelous exfoliation. Yet Darwinism leaves untouched the crucial mysteries–who we are, why we are here, how we are to behave toward one another, and how we should fix the alternative minimum tax. And these are questions, except the last one, that lie beyond the expertise of any panel at any think tank, even AEI.
This is, when you think about it, a fairly odd thing to say, insofar as an evolutionist would probably tend to regard it as both true and not worth saying. It’s equally true of, say, meteorology, which also provides an alternative explanation to “God just did it” for natural phenomena, but it would not normally occur to anyone to make this point about meteorology. Mostly because nobody imagines that meteorologists think a model of the motion of cold fronts tells us anything about how we should live or why there is Something instead of Nothing.
Now, the thing is, believers in evolution who have a modicum of sophistication don’t believe anything of the sort about evolutionary theory either. It’s invariably anti-Darwinists who seem convinced we take “survival of the fittest” as a substitute Golden Rule rather than a simple description of how nature operates. The realms aren’t as utterly distinct as in the case of meteorology, of course: Evolution can say something about why, in general, we have certain sorts of urges and desires and ethical impulses, what kind of average shape they’ll tend to take, what their limitations are apt to be, and so on. But that’s just data. It doesn’t say which impulses we ought to cultivate and which suppress, or entail that our own lives have to be guided by the mindless pseudo-teleology of our selfish genes.
What’s going on here, I think, is that people get anxious about evolution because they’re applying the bundling embedded in their own worldviews to ours: Since the account of human origins in my theory is part of a single narrative that also gives an account of ethics and human meaning, so must it be in this other theory. It’s interesting to see where and how this holds: It seems to go for origin stories, but not process stories like meteorology. Gilder frames his little closing epiphany as, in essence, a recasting of evolution as a process story that displaces the origin story to some other account. The next step is to recognize that it just doesn’t matter—your story about meaning and morality doesn’t need to be an epiphenomenon of either a physical process or origin story.
26 responses so far ↓
1 stizzle // May 23, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Julian,
You’re failing to fathom the depth of error of ID advocates and consequently making them seem less dishonest than they are.
In truth, they’re just philosophizing backwards. (e.g., God must exist; he must be the author of Creation.) Starting from the conclusion, they simply refuse to follow the facts.
Now in defending their assumption (rather than endeavoring to honestly prove it) they will go through every twisting machination, some of which will begin to resemble a (flawed) type of reasoning. Do not be fooled: there is no method to their madness. It’s just that the Fairy Tale believers are beginning to squirm underneath the Light of Reason as the case for God whithers away like a slug under salt. (I like mixed metaphors.)
As a side note, it would be nice if the troglodytes Creationists Bible Believing demagogues would acknowledge that there’s a good evolutionary reason for the Golden Rule; it’s called Reciprocal Altruism. Someone should insert toothpicks underneath Gilder’s eyelids and force him to read Robert Trivers.
2 Adam // May 23, 2007 at 5:29 pm
I dunno, I think Julian kind of nails it. Gilder’s formulation is very similar to a formulation I remember hearing as an undergraduate. The people espousing this view were not, I am quite certain, creationists or anything even close. But there was a sort of weird ideological compulsion to their insistence that evolutionary theory, while true, wasn’t all that big a deal.
I remember one woman in particular insisting that Darwinism was “shallow” because it failed to explain the basic structure and purpose of the universe. This seemed like a somewhat unfair bar for Darwin or anyone else to have to meet. But of course, it isn’t really a difficult bar for God to meet, and that presumably was her unstated point.
3 LP // May 23, 2007 at 5:39 pm
“…believers in evolution who have a modicum of sophistication don’t believe anything of the sort about evolutionary theory…”
This seems not true. I personally know several biologists, medical researchers, biochemists, etc. who believe wholeheartedly in evolution, but also believe that evolution was created by God as a mechanism for creating a beautifully diverse and wondrous universe for us to inhabit. Surely these people have a sophisticated understanding of evolutionary processes; they also have brains good at compartmentalizing. As the Catholic Church eventually figured out, rather than resisting scientific progress, it’s much easier simply to absorb it into your theology and claim it made sense all along.
4 Julian Sanchez // May 23, 2007 at 5:56 pm
LP-
Sorry, maybe I was unclear. I meant “evolutionists with a modicum of sophistication understand that the theory in itself does not provide, or purport to provide, a cosmology, an ethics, or a view about the meaningful human life.” Your friends are incorporating evolution into their metanarrative, but they’re not *making* evolution the metanarrative.
5 Chris // May 23, 2007 at 6:02 pm
It’s funny that you think Gilder needs to read up on Reciprocal Altruism, because the essence of his book “Wealth & Poverty” is a defense of capitalism and free-markets as precisely that.
6 thoreau // May 23, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Well said, Julian.
7 matthew hogan // May 23, 2007 at 10:17 pm
I think there are alot of people who adhere emotionally to evolution precisely because it is counternarrative to supernaturalism in the origins of life, the universe, and everything; and not merely because it is the best, true , explanation of things. And there are alot of people who will explain ethics as “well we evolved that because….” rather than as something metaphysical (not necessarily supernatural) like reason or mathematics.
8 mediageek // May 24, 2007 at 1:42 pm
I’ve made this point to several creationist types before. Essentially stating that assuming evolution is true, it does not change the inherent truths espoused by Jesus.
Their reactions to this tend to be determined by the level of literalism they apply to the Bible.
9 Garth // May 24, 2007 at 6:29 pm
As a whole, modern scientific theory — even when it disagrees within and among itself — does a heck of a lot better job explaining the whys, whats and hows of the universe from big bang to now than any religious theory put forth to date (though I remain fond of thinking it’s “turtles all the way down”)
And the fact of the matter is that the fruits of evolutionary theory (from advances in genetic research, combating diseases of many stripes, animal husbandry, and simply plain understanding of biology) and its amazing predictive powers have done more for man in the past century than any number of angels you can fit on a pin.
Lastly, clinging to the white-bearded-curmudgeon in the sky is simply evidence that one has problems “getting” really really big numbers — like the age of the universe and the probabilities that any x or y might happen over such a stretch.
10 Luka // May 24, 2007 at 10:44 pm
It would be interesting to see what the author of the first quote, the questions about a metaphysical foundation and content of the universe, would say if they were pressed to explain what they mean by those questions. It’s always fun (and maybe a bit sad) to hear people try to make sense out of their own utterances of nonsensical sentences. Especially when it has to do with “deep” issues like these.
11 reflections // May 25, 2007 at 4:02 am
I’m sure everything that was said at the seminar was utterly banal. But I don’t think that its correct to say that:
Does reality have an ultimate, metaphysical foundation? Is there content to the universe?
… is a nonsensical train of thought. It is phrased in a way shows their allegiance to strands of philosophy born in inter-war Europe, but these are certainly questions that (suitably translated) occupy analytic philosophers as well.
12 Gene Callahan // May 25, 2007 at 4:48 am
“Maybe I’m betraying my roots in an analytic department…”
You are.
“but I’m pretty confident that these are questions on the order of “Do colorless green ideas sleep furiously?”—gramatically well-formed, but quite lacking in any actual coherent meaning.”
As Richard Rorty remarked, analytical philosophy turned out to be a 100 year waste of time.
13 Julian Sanchez // May 25, 2007 at 3:19 pm
reflections-
Well, then let’s say the question *as phrased* is a lot of gibberish, but at least gibberish gesturing in the direction of a set of actual questions.
14 Luka // May 26, 2007 at 12:17 am
Julian,
I think you’re being too charitable in your most recent comment.
Gene,
Whether or not what Rorty claimed is true, I trust that you don’t take those quotes from Julian’s post to support that claim in anyway. Because they really don’t seem to…
15 Gene Callahan // May 26, 2007 at 10:08 am
Luka,
What Julian did was reel off the common response of an analytical philosopher when he is met with a difficult idea that he doesn’t really want to think about: You perspicaciously note that the idea with which you are refusing to grapple is “grammatically well-formed,” and then deliver the “killer”: “But what does it even mean?” (In case you doubt that this is a cliched response substituting for thought, Glen Whitman’s comment here.) Of course, you can refuse to deal with anythin this way, e.g.:
A: There’s a tree in the yard.
B: What does it even mean to say that there is a tree in the front yard?
A: Well, come over here and touch it!
B: What does it even mean to go over there and touch it?
Etc.
16 Gene Callahan // May 26, 2007 at 10:10 am
Sorry for the sloppy editing of that previous post!
17 Julian Sanchez // May 27, 2007 at 3:16 pm
That’s not really a response. Sure, one could CLAIM a meaningful sentence was just gibberish, and one would be wrong. But some things are, in fact, gibberish–the questions above and the assertion at your link among them. Pointing out that one could wrongly apply the predicate “gibberish” doesn’t establish it’s misapplied in some other case. I’d add “so by all means, explain what it means,” but you’re right: I’d rather “refuse to deal with it” because I have little patience for obvious bullshit masquerading as profundity.
18 Gene Callahan // May 27, 2007 at 4:27 pm
It would be an acceptable challenge to explain the statement except that the explanation would have to be a metaphysical statement as well, and the positivist analytical philosopher would just respond that the explanation is meaningless as well. Just as an empiricist could never “explain” what “There is a tree in the yard” means to someone who simply doesn’t want to engage with the proposition. And as far as the statement on my blog goes, Plato, Plotinus, Augustine, Aquinas, and Kepler would all understand it just fine. And I just posted a longer quote from Roderick Long saying the same thing. So, let’s see… Plato, Plotinus, Augustine, Aquinas, Kepler, and Long all think I’m talking sensibly, while Whitman and Sanchez don’t. Hmmm, eenie, meanie, minnie, mo…
19 Julian Sanchez // May 27, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Yawn. Weak.
20 Gene Callahan // May 28, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Juvenile putdowns are always useful in cases where you can’t sustain your argument, aren’t they?
21 Luka // May 29, 2007 at 5:45 am
Gene,
Julian’s right about this. Look, just because it’s a common thing for analytic philosophers to ask what something even means doesn’t mean that such a tactic is in any way the wrong move to make in a particular circumstance. I imagine you’d agree with that. But what you don’t seem to be willing to acknowledge is that there’s an enormous and relevant difference between your tree example and asking what the insane-sounding questions that started this discussion mean. You might think that those insane-sounding questions are fully meaningful. Maybe they are. Maybe my intuition about this is just wrong. But they certainly aren’t as obviously meaningful as the statements that your “B” is questioning in the example. not even close.
And, lastly, if you can’t explain what a question means to MOST very smart analytic philosophers (this would be a proper subset of analytic philosophers, of course), that’s reason to think the question don’t mean anything. Or do you think analytic philosophers just don’t have a firm enough grasp on what it means for a question to be meaningful? (Which would be odd, since they are a group of people with a reputation for focusing too much on semantics!)
22 Luka // May 29, 2007 at 5:54 am
Gene,
It also seems like you’re wrong to criticize Glen for asking his question. God is justice…? While that isn’t quite as bad as the questions being discussed here, it’s pretty bad. Certainly, it’s not unreasonable to assume that one doesn’t mean that God is actually justice, but, rather, something less literal. And in such a case, it’s perfectly appropriate to ask what the heck the person making the seemingly non-literal claim actually means.
On the other hand, if one means to make the literal claim that God is justice, then I suppose it’s just pretty clearly false, since God is supposed to be an intelligent being and justice can’t be an intelligent being. It seems conceptually impossible.
23 James Collins // Jun 1, 2007 at 10:24 am
Big argument, simple solution:
If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a ‘simple’ living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the ‘simple’ cells now.
After all, shouldn’t all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists, having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to become a living entity. Surely then the evolutionists scientists today should be able to make us a ‘simple’ cell.
If it weren’t so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.
Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence ‘FOR’ evolution for THEMSELVES.
Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the ‘raw’ stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth’s recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!
Oh, you don’t believe the ‘original’ Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!
24 Luka // Jun 2, 2007 at 9:09 pm
James,
So the scientistific community is not to be trusted on the issue of evolution, but those who believe, as an article of faith, that it didn’t happen should?
You’re insane.
25 Anonymous // Jun 2, 2007 at 9:11 pm
PS
The scientistific community is identical to the scientific community, in case anyone was wondering…
26 Luka // Jun 7, 2007 at 3:02 am
And the last Anonymous is identical to Luka, too! Geez…