Off the Page: The Harvard Press Author Forum

SUBSCRIBE TO BLOG FEED

  • subscribe to feed

HUP SITES

  • Visit HUP on Facebook
  • HUP Publicity Blog
  • HUP Web Site

Author Videos

  • Jon Latimer, author of 1812: War with America
  • Mary Beard, author of The Fires of Vesuvius

Author events

  • Current author events schedule

News • Culture • Debate • Reviews

  • American Prospect Online
  • Arts & Letters Daily
  • Bookforum
  • Bookslut
  • Boston Review
  • Economist.com
  • Foreign Affairs
  • Granta
  • Guardian Books
  • h+ Magazine
  • LA Review of Books
  • London Review of Books online
  • LSE Review of Books
  • MobyLives
  • n+1
  • New York Review of Books
  • NPR: Books
  • Paris Review
  • Public Books
  • ScienceBlogs
  • The Atlantic
  • The New Republic
  • The Nation
  • Page-Turner @ The New Yorker
  • Weekly Standard

Publisher Blogs

  • Beacon Broadside
  • Columbia University Press Blog
  • Duke University Press Blog
  • Indiana University Press Blog
  • MIT Press Blog
  • News from the University of Georgia Press
  • North Philly Notes (Temple University Press)
  • Oxford University Press Blog
  • Penn Press Log
  • Stanford University Press Blog
  • There’s a Hole in the Bucket (University of Alberta Press)
  • UNC Press Blog
  • University of California Press Blog
  • The Chicago Blog
  • University of Hawai'i Press Log
  • University of Nebraska Press Blog
  • University Press of Kentucky Blog
  • Yale Press Log

Who won the Intelligent Design debate?

Is the debate on Intelligent Design over and did the evolutionists win?

PARTICIPATING AUTHORS: MICHAEL RUSE and J. SCOTT TURNER

Rusevo_au Michael Ruse  is Lucyle T. Werkmeister Professor of Philosophy, Florida State University. He is the founder and editor of the journal Biology and Philosophy, and has appeared on "Quirks and Quarks" and the Discovery Channel. He is also the author of Darwin and Design: Does Evolution Have a Purpose?, Mystery of Mysteries: Is Evolution a Social Construction?, and most recently The Evolution-Creation Struggle.

The answer to this question is both “yes” and “no.”  if you are asking about actual successes in the debate, then the big clash was eighteen months ago in the town of Dover, Pennsylvania, where the insistence of the school board in introducing intelligent design into school classrooms was very firmly denounced by the federal court as unconstitutional.  You cannot get a much bigger “yes” than that.  Evolution won.  However, it would be very naïve to think that intelligent design (and other sorts of creationism) are now simply going to go away.  They haven’t in the past--for instance after a similar court case in Arkansas in 1981--why should they vanish now?  In this sense, I very much doubt that the debate has been won. 

The interesting question now therefore is why intelligent design will not vanish.  It is hardly because it is true or because it is sound religion.  It is neither.  Rather, I would argue--as I did argue in The Evolution-Creation Struggle--that intelligent design (and creationism generally) is more a litmus test for deeper divisions in American society, rather than something in its own right.  Nobody lies awake worrying about gaps in the fossil record.  Many people lie awake worrying about abortion and drugs and the decline of the family and gay marriage and all of the other things that are opposed to so-called “moral values.”  America is split between the modernists, who would go with science and technology and who think that these things lead progressively to a better future, and the traditionalists who think that thoughts of progress are delusional and who want to put their futures in the hands of Providence.  Two very different visions of what the right course of American history should be and very different prescriptions for action by us today. 

Unless and when these opposing viewpoints are softened and brought together, I believe that the intelligent design debate will simply go on and on, in this guise or some other.  It is not a matter of facts and science but of metaphysics and religion, and without being unduly pessimistic I suspect that in America the divisions will be with us for much time to come.

 
Turtin_auJ. Scott Turner is Associate Professor at SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse. He is also the author of two Harvard books: The Extended Organism: The Physiology of Animal-Built Structures and most recently (January 2007) The Tinkerer's Accomplice: How Design Emerges from Life Itself

It is tempting to answer this question with yes, and yes, the debate was won about 150 years ago. Intelligent design theory, at least if one takes its core texts at face value, is essentially modernized Natural Theology: William Paley equipped with a computer and electron microscope. Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace decisively put paid to that idea, and thankfully so: by the mid-19th century, Natural Theology and the centuries of Platonic obscurantism it engendered had nearly choked natural history to death. It’s hard to imagine why anyone would want to bring it back.

And yet, here we are, a century-and-a-half later, and some want to do precisely that. So it seems the debate is not as over as we might wish. The signs are everywhere: the Discovery Institute is alive and well; Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness clubs are springing up on campuses worldwide; ID conferences are being organized; its advocates buzz away in a busy corner of the blogosphere; Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box has an amazon.com sales rank that’s better than mine!

So, the really interesting question is not so much is the debate over, but why isn’t it over? This new question evokes another dangerously tempting answer: what else could it be but recalcitrant stupidity or political cynicism, mere “stealth creationism?” It’s imperative that we not yield to that tempting answer, though. Not only is it demonstrably wrong, but relying on it as our only answer to the ID challenge will make it very likely that we evolutionists will lose the debate.

We are in danger of losing because the well-founded confidence in Darwinism’s truth has led us to imagine that we scientists are the sole owners of the issue. We are not: Darwinism is more than just a well-established scientific principle; it is also a radical philosophy of nature. To many, this philosophy’s most troubling aspect is its seeming denial of the living world’ most obvious trait--its apparent design and purposefulness. Natural theology, despite its many problems, was attractive because it seemed to provide a reasonable explanation for these attributes. It seems to still, as attested by the persistence of ideas such as Intelligent Design. Arguably, we have not made the case as well as we think we have, and until we do, the issue will not go away.

May 04, 2007 in J. Scott Turner | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tags: blogosphere, books, creationism, Darwin, Darwinism, Darwin’s Black Box, evolution, Harvard, Harvard University Press, Intelligent Design, Michael Behe

search


  • Web
    OFF THE PAGE

Issues discussed

  • Teaching the Torture Presidency
  • Painting Over Mao—Notes on the Inauguration of the Beijing Olympic Games
  • What was missing from the Beijing opening ceremony?
  • Buttocks, carbs, and suburban yards
  • Chinese patriotism
  • Beijing Olympic Torch relay
  • Presidential rhetoric in historical perspective
  • Boredom as a subversive force
  • The love letters of John and Abigail Adams
  • Are today's university leaders increasingly corporate and narcissistic?

Featured Authors

  • Mary Beard
  • Giles Slade
  • McKenzie Wark
  • J. Scott Turner
  • Benjamin A. Elman
  • Michael Ruse
  • James Simpson
  • C. K. Gunsalus
  • Margaret A. Hogan
  • Aviad Kleinberg
  • Bryan Garsten
  • Xu Guoqi
  • Gloria Davies
  • Jack Hailman
  • Michael Dutton
  • Geremie R. Barmé
  • Thomas Dumm

Recent Comments

  • Rachel S on What are the cultural uses of boredom?
  • Karim Virani on Beijing Olympic Torch relay and its implications for China and the rest of the world
  • Paige on The Long Tail, online communities, fame, and popular culture
  • Sirroderick on What are the cultural uses of boredom?
  • Josh U. on Communication technology and authoritarian regimes
  • Susan Feldman on What are the cultural uses of boredom?
  • Tom Heehler on Crisis in the Humanities? What Crisis?
  • Stephen Digby on Crisis in the Humanities? What Crisis?

Archives

  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • May 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • September 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • February 2007