Anthonares

Like the previous chapter of Bethell’s The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, Chapter 13: “By Chance or By Design” seems written to appeal to a certain crowd. This chapter, supposedly about Intelligent Design, is a shallow critique of “Darwinism” that meagerly attempts to posit ID as a viable alternative. Though, as Bethell himself admits “Evolutionists say that intelligent design does not rise to the level of a theory, and they may be right.” Indeed, Bethell is not interested in replacing his emaciated version of Evolution he calls “Darwinism” with a rival scientific theory at all, which this chapter very thoroughly demonstrates.

Summary of Bethell’s Points
After a very brief introduction, Bethell begins his chapter on ID by taking a completely unscientific point of view on the subject, arguing that if “Darwinism” is true then all life, including human, is purposeless and pointless. Immediately afterwards, he dismisses Theistic Evolution (or the belief that God is the one who set the rules and then let the whole simulation that is life go) off the bat, with the statement that it “doesn’t have a great deal to recommend it.” He then makes the claim that “Darwinism” leads to atheism. Next, Bethell makes a good point about how the lack of true scientific representation at the Kansas school board meetings probably hurt the scientific cause. Bethell dutifully trots out the “missing link” between apes and humans, and dismisses the “unintelligent design” argument out of hand.

Gathering a bit of focus, Bethell moves into an introduction of the history of “Darwinism.” Launching into a lengthy discuss of the tautology that is “Darwinism”, he points out that the statement that “species that produce more offspring are more fit because they produce offspring” is a truism, not a scientific theory. This is his summary of “Darwinism”, and he goes to lengths to suggest that Evolution is no more than this. Next, he asserts that “Darwinism” cannot explain the origin of life, suggesting that this is a weakness in Darwin’s theory. He argues next that it is really just an economic theory (laissez faire economics as biology), and bases this on the influence that Thomas Malthus had on both Darwin and a contemporary Wallace.

Finally actually getting into the guts of the ID argument, he introduces Michael Behe’s idea of “Irreducible Complexity.” Using Behe’s examples of the complex machinery of the eye or of a bacterial flagella, he argues that evolution cannot explain the origin of these molecular machines. Because, if one of the components of these machines were absent, it would not function at all.

My Response
First of all, there is nothing scientific about this chapter, so it will be difficult to review it as such. Arguing things like materialism necessitates belief in evolution, because how else could life have arisen, is completely beside the point of whether or not Evolution is true, never mind whether ID is worth the paper its printed on. Somehow we are supposed to find that “Darwinism” is bad because it produces atheists, and reduces life to meaninglessness. These are philosophical statements, and do nothing but appeal to the emotions of the reader in an attempt to make an argument where facts are lacking.

Second, “Darwinism” is not at all the theory that he says it is. Natural Selection, the foundation of Evolutionary theory, states that creatures whom are best adapted to their surroundings will have, on average, higher survival rates and thus will produce more offspring. When conditions change in their environments, certain offspring possessing random genetic mutations will survive better than those who do not. This genetic change is then propagated throughout the species, and if enough accumulate such that the offspring can no longer be considered of the same species, then a new one has been created. This is not a tautology, it is a powerful mechanism that describes intuitively why organisms evolve.

Also, I refer to “Darwinism” in quotes, because Evolutionary theory is so much more than what Darwin initially proposed. Now that we understand the human genome, we know that evolution and natural selection take place on the very smallest biological scales, that the success or failure of individual genes is probably the correct means of viewing evolution, rather than of the entire species as a whole.

There are a variety of other arguments that he makes that I will not rebut right here, mainly because my purpose is not to debate Evolution vs. ID here, it’s to review and discuss Bethell’s work. I will point out, though, that Bethell’s casual dismissal of the challenges to ID, mainly the “unintelligent design” witticism, and the arguments against “irreducible complexity” is yet another piece of evidence that this work is intended only as a diatribe to the faithful or as political propaganda, rather than a serious critique of scientific theory. Indeed, the total lack of honest presentation of competing ideas throughout the book should be a clarion call to readers that the author has some agenda. Nowhere will challenging citations be found, or dissenting opinions aired without parenthetical editorializing by the author.

Finally, this chapter about ID is really not about ID. It only mentions the theory twice, probably because it is not really a competing scientific theory. In the words of Michael Behe “you can’t prove Intelligent Design by experiment.” Instead, a terribly unjustly presented version of Evolution called “Darwinism” is pathetically contested, and in its place we are offered no scientific replacement. Bethell seems to justify this by bringing out the radical voices that support Evolution, without presenting the tireless work by at least 6 generations of scientists that have amassed a fantastic amount of evidence in favor of Evolution. But, I am going to fast here I think, because the next and final chapter deals with that very topic, so stay tuned!