Darwin on Trial

the jaw of an orangutan with the skull of a modern man. Until the Piltdown fossil became inconvenient, after the British scientists who re­ceived the credit for its discovery had passed from the scene, the skull was guarded from skeptical investigators in a safe in the British Natural His­tory Museum. Considering that some knowledgeable scientists had ex­pressed skepticism about Piltdown Man from the time of its discovery, this concealment of the evidence is a greater scandal than theoriginal fraud.

Chapter Eleven Darwinist Education

The story of the controversy at the British Natural History Museum is mostly from the editorial and correspondence pages of Nature for 1980— 1982, volumes 288-291. L. B. Halstead's letters appeared at vol. 288, p. 208; vol. 289, pp. 106, 742; and vol. 292, p. 403. Nature's first editorial, "Darwin's Death in South Kensington," appeared in the issue of February 26, 1981, vol. 289, p. 735. The letter of response from the Museum's 22 scientists is in vol. 290, p. 82. The follow-up editorial "How True is the Theory of Evolution" is in vol. 290, p. 75. The final editorial word was delivered in a signed article by Barry Cox, vol. 291, p. 373. Gareth Nelson's letter is in vol. 289, p. 627.

Additional accounts of the Museum controversy can be found in An­thony Flew, Darwinian Evolution, pp. 33—34; Alan Hayward, Creation and Evolution: Some Facts and Fallacies, pp. 1—2 (1985); and Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe, pp. 219-23. The interview with the Museum's Director of Public Services, Dr. Roger Miles, is reported in Hitching, pp. 222-23.

The lecture by Michael Ruse titled "The Ideology of Darwinism" was delivered at a UNESCO-sponsored conference in East Germany in 1981, and published in English under the auspices of the Akademie der Wiss-enschaften der DDR in January 1983.

The Science Framework (for California public schools) was published by the California State Board of Education in 1990. The published version contains the Policy Statement on the Teaching of Natural Sciences, which was adopted by the Board in 1989 to supersede the Board's 1972 Antidogma-tism Policy. The cytochrome с table appears in the Framework at page 116; the figures in this table were copied verbatim from Of Pandas and People, p. 37, by Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, with Charles Thaxton (Haugh-ton, 1989). This book is "creationist" only in the sense that it juxtaposes a paradigm of "intelligent design" with the dominant paradigm of (natu­ralistic) evolution, and makes the case for the former. It does not rely upon

Research Notes 205

the authority of the Bible, and indeed its methodology is far more empiri­cal than that of the Framework.

Chapter Twelve Science and Pseudoscience

Popper's essay "Science: Conjectures and Refutations," from the collec­tion Conjectures and Refutations (1963), is the principal source for this chapter. Bryan Magee's short book Popper (1973), provides a lucid sum­mary of Popper's philosophy for the general reader. The quotation from Douglas Futuyma is from the opening chapter of his textbook Evolutionary Biology (1986). The Julian Huxley quotation is from volume 3 oi Evolution after Darwin, (Tax ed., 1960), the record of the University of Chicago Centennial Celebration of the publication of The Origin of Species.

The text observes that Darwinism so fit the spirit of its age that the theory attracted a surprising amount of support from religious leaders. Many of Darwin's early supporters were either clergymen or devout lay­men, including his most prominent American advocate, the Congrega-tionalist Harvard Professor Asa Gray. Supporters of "evolution" included not just persons we would think of as religious liberals, but conservative Evangelicals such as Princeton Theological Seminary Professor Benjamin Warfield. Two specific factors influenced this support: (1) religious intel­lectuals were determined not to repeat the scandal of the Galileo persecu­tion; and (2) with the aid of a little self-deception, Darwinism could be interpreted as "creation wholesale" by a progress-minded Deity acting through rationally accessible secondary causes. On the surprising recep­tivity of conservative theologians to Darwinism, see David N. Livingstone's Darwin's Forgotten Defenders: The Encounter Between Evangelical Theology and Evolutionary Thought (1987).

Epilogue The Book and Its Critics

Darwin on Trial was not reviewed in any of the most prominent news­papers or magazines for the general reader except National Review. It was extensively reviewed or commented upon in the scientific journals and religious publications. My file contains dozens of reviews, and more con­tinue to appear two years after publication. In these notes I have made no effort to survey this mass of material as a whole but rather have concen­trated on the main critical challenges from scientific naturalists and theistic evolutionists. This selection may give a skewed impression, since it ignores the many reviewers who agreed with the book.

Steven Weinberg discussed one of my journal articles in the penultimate

206 Darwin on Trial

chapter of his book Dreams of a Final Theory (pp. 247-49). Quotations attrib­uted to Weinberg in this chapter are from these pages. Weinberg is a Nobel Laureate physicist who looks forward to a grand unified theory of particle physics, which would be in effect a complete set of the natural laws that governed the universe at the earliest instant of the Big Bang. In the reduc­tionist philosophy that appeals to particle physicists, such a unified theory would be a "theory of everything": it would in principle govern everything that has happened in the history of the cosmos, although in practice it would be able to predict very little. My review essay on Weinberg's reductionism appeared under the title "Science Without God" in the Wall Street Journal, May 10,1993, p. A12. Weinberg and I debated some of diese issues at a very stimulating faculty luncheon seminar in Austin, Texas, in March 1993.

Steven Jay Gould remarked that "before Darwin, we thought that a benev­olent God had created us," in his essay "So Cleverly Kind an Animal," in Ever Since Darwin, p. 267. The context was a reflection about how the advance of science has continually removed humankind from a central place in the cosmos and, in the case of evolutionary biology, emphasized our "unity with other animals." The passage about how no benevolent intervening spirit is involved with nature is from "In Praise of Charles Darwin," from Darwin's Legacy, pp. 6-7 (Charles L. Hamrum, ed, 1983). This essay appeared origi­nally in Discover magazine, February 1982.

Gould's review of Darwin on Trial, titled "Impeaching a Self-Appointed Judge," appeared in the July 1992 Scientific American, pp. 118-92. My reply, "The Religion of the Blind Watchmaker," may be read in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (the journal of the American Scientific Affiliation), vol. 45, pp. 46-48 (March 1993). Supporters of mine also obtained funding to circulate the reply to mailing lists of science professors and others. Un­fortunately, they were unable to include Gould's review in the mailings because he denied permission. I have not previously bothered to reply spe­cifically to Gould's list of objections—mostly quibbles—because I did not want to cooperate with his attempt to distract attention from the main line of argument For those with an interest in the details, here are his points [with my responses in brackets].

1. The book has no full citation of sources or bibliography. [The citations
and references are contained in these research notes, to present the nec­
essary information in readable form. Gould himself is quoted as an authority
more often than anyone else; I am pleased that he does not claim to have
been misquoted.]

2. Johnson employs chapter transitions that "Mrs. Mclnerney, my tough
but beloved third-grade teacher," would have "rapped his knuckles sore" for

Research Notes 207

employing. [My own third-grade teacher, Miss Daisy Poplin, stuck to spelling and grammar.]

3. Johnson's claim that Darwinism is allied to naturalism is belied by
counterexamples such as "Theodosius Dobzhansky, a believing Russian Or­
thodox." According to Gould, "the science of Darwinism is fully compatible
with conventional religious beliefs—and equally compatible with atheism,
thus proving that the two great realms of nature's factuality and the source
of human morality do not strongly overlap." [Dobzhansky was actually a
pantheist who made a religion out of evolution. Gould himself has written
that Darwinism contradicts belief in a deity who takes an active role in
biological creation. All that aside, I would like to draw Gould out on his
implication that "morality" is exclusively in the province of "religion." Does
he really mean that it is for "religion" to decide questions such as whether
scientists may experiment upon human embryonic tissue or animals? On
what basis may "religion" decide such questions? I think the discussion will
not have gone far before we discover that Gould has no intention of allow­
ing religion (especially theistic religion) any real autonomy or authority in
the moral realm.]

4. Johnson writes that the Darwinian mechanism for creating new organs
is composed of two principal elements, mutation and selection. "He then
realizes that he has neglected sexual recombination, the vastly predominant
source of immediate variation in sexual species, but he makes his error
worse by including recombination as a category of mutation." [Baloney. It
is standard practice to use "mutation" as a convenient term to denote die
supposedly random genetic changes upon which natural selection is said to
work. Footnote 2 in Chapter Two explains this usage clearly. Recombination
is an important source of immediate variation, but by definition it is not a
source of genuine innovations.]

5. Johnson writes that "sexual selection is a relatively minor component
in Darwinist theory today," but sexual selection "is perhaps the hottest Dar­
winian topic of the past decade." [The point was not whether sexual selec­
tion is a fashionable topic but whether contemporary evolutionary biologists
would accord it an explanatory scope as broad as that asserted by Darwin
in The Descent of Man.]

6. Footnote 3 on page 41 erroneously equates polyploidy wiih auloplnldy,
ignoring the more "evolutionarily potent" form of polyploidy (;ill< <l ";ill<>
ploidy." [True: even my diligent scientific consultants, who пнтсч nil ni.my
other mistakes before publication, missed diis one. The (onlnntr I in» tin-n
amended accordingly. Nothing of importance to the main inpiiiirni linn»
on this detail. I do not diink Gould would dispute the point ol tin- luuinnir:

208 Darwin on Trial

whatever polyploidy may do, it does not explain the creation of new complex

organs.]

7.Johnson calls Otto Schindewolf a saltationist, but Schindewolf held a
more "subtle" theory and spent most of his career studying small and con­
tinuous changes in ammonite suture patterns. [No doubt a label like "sal­
tationist" does not adequately sum up Schindewolf s lifework, but at least I
am in good company in using the term. Ernst Mayr described Schindewolf
as a saltationist in his book One Long Argument (1991), p. 46. Gould himself
classified Schindewolf as a "macromutationist" in Ontogeny and Phytogeny
(1977), p. 387n.]

8.Johnson criticizes Darwinism for not being an experimental science, but
instead it should be judged successful as a historical science because of its
"bringing of widely disparate information under a uniquely consistent ex­
planation." [This is an important point, but it is thoroughly addressed in the
book. In Chapter Five I state the issue: "Darwin's dieory unquestionably has
impressive explanatory power, but how are we to tell if it is true?" My refusal
to accept the unifying power of Darwinian theory as the equivalent of truth
is very much in the spirit of Gould's famous comment: "I well remember how
the synthetic theory beguiled me with its unifying power when I was a
graduate student in the mid-1960's.... I have been reluctant to admit it.
.. but if Mayr's characterization of the synthetic theory is accurate, then that
theory, as a general proposition, is effectively dead, despite its persistence
as textbook orthodoxy." See Gould, "Is a New and General Theory of Evo­
lution Emerging?" in Evolution Now (Maynard Smith, ed., 1982).]

9. The first amphibians have "conserved features of a fishy past" [I do
not dispute that one can point to features of various organisms that seem
to hint at some process of historical development The question is, how
much do we know about that process? Does a tenable mechanism for
transforming a fish into an amphibian, and eventually into a human, really
exist?]

10. Johnson gives insufficient credit to the therapsid (jaw-bones to ear-
bones) transition as convincing evidence of macroevolution. [For more on
this issue, see my response to the William Hasker review cited below. Pend­
ing an unbiased review of the evidence that I hope to encourage, I accept
the therapsid example for now as a rare exception to the consistent pattern
of fossil discontinuation of Darwinian expectations. My point was that any
single example of this sort cannot be conclusive, and even this "crown
jewel" of the Darwinian fossil evidence illustrates points on a putative
"bush" rather than a specific ancestral line leading to an identified first
mammal. That an army of researchers dedicated to finding confirmation

Research Notes 209

for a paradigm has found some apparently confirming evidence here and there is not surprising. To evaluate the paradigm itself we have to consider also the mountains of negative evidence—like the absence of any pre-Cambrian fossil ancestors for the animal phyla. We also have to consider whether the accepted description of the therapsid sequence has been in­fluenced by Darwinist preconceptions.]

11.Johnson writes that "the possibility that such a complex entity [a DNA
or RNA macromolecule] could assemble itself by chance is fantastically
unlikely," but "no scientist has used that argument for 20 years, now that
we understand so much more about the self-organizing properties of mole­
cules and other physical systems." [My statement appeared at the beginning
of a discussion of the leading origin-of-life scenarios, which attempt to tame
the long-odds problem by establishing a simpler starting point The notion
that the problem can be solved by the hand-waving use of terms like "self-
organizing properties" is wishful thinking.]

12.Johnson "attacks" outdated statements by George Gaylord Simpson
and Ernst Mayr. [These quotations (pp. 77, 89) are placed in historical
context to show how prestigious Darwinists dealt with or anticipated issues
at the time.]

13.Johnson does not give H. F. Osborn credit for correcting his own
mistake about "Nebraska Man," Hesperopithecus haroldcookii. [Osborn repeat­
edly ridiculed Bryan for refusing to accept the bogus human ancestor as
obviously genuine. My point was that clever and ruthless advocates like
Darrow and Mencken could have made Osborn look like a fool if they had
wanted to, which is not inconsistent with Gould's point that more sympa­
thetic critics might have found some things to be said in his (or Bryan's)
defense. On the other hand, critics of Osborn's behavior after the fiasco
came to light might have written something as devastating as this: "Osborn,
who was never praised for a charitable nature, simply shut up and never
mentioned Hesperopithecus again in his numerous succeeding articles on
human ancestry. He had enjoyed the glory, but let [his colleague] take the
heat in a forthright retraction published in Science." From Gould's essay in
Bully for Brontosaurus (1991), p. 442.]

I think that covers almost everything. I hope Gould will return to the discussion in a manner more worthy of his talents, because many readers have observed that he and I actually agree about a great deal. What divide us are the same metaphysical questions that I have debated with Steven Weinberg and Michael Ruse: Is "science" by definition simply applied nat­uralistic philosophy? If so, is naturalism essentially the same thing as "rea­son," or can naturalism itself be questioned on rational grounds? A lot turns

210 Darwin on Trial

on the answers to those questions, and so it ought to be possible to discuss this subject without obfuscation.

David Hull was candid about the close relationship between Darwinism and metaphysical naturalism. His review, "The God of the Galapagos," appeared in Nature, vol. 352, pp. 485-86 (August 8,1991). Hull, a philosophy professor who has written extensively on biology and Darwinism, identifies naturalism with reason in the same manner as Arthur Shapiro's essay in NCSE Reports (see below). Hull makes the point rather well:

Johnson finds the commitment of scientists to totally naturalistic ex­planations dogmatic and close-minded, but scientists have no choice. Once they allow reference to God or miraculous forces to explain the first origin of life or the evolution of the human species, they have no way of limiting this sort of explanation. Why does the Earth have a magnetic field, why do organisms use only laevo amino acids, why is the savings and loan industry in such trouble? It is easy enough to answer that these phenomena are all part of God's great plan, but in the absence of some partially independent knowledge of God and His intentions, such explanations are no less vacuous than the usual par­odies of the principle of survival of the fittest.

That is a caricature of theistic rationality, of course. Theists do not throw up their hands and refer everything to God's great plan, but they do rec­ognize that attempts to explain all of reality in totally naturalistic terms may leave out something of importance. Thus they reject the routine non sequi-turs of scientism which pervade the Darwinist literature: because science cannot study a cosmic purpose, the cosmos must have no purpose; because science cannot make value judgments, values must be purely subjective; because science cannot study God, only purposeless material forces can have been involved in biological creation; and so on.

Michael Ruse, Arthur Shapiro, and the Dallas Symposium. A tape recording of the Michael Ruse lecture quoted in the text can be purchased from the NCSE, P.O. Box 9477, Berkeley, CA 94709. Ask for the program "The New Antievolutionism," recorded at the 1993 AAAS annual meeting on February 13, 1993. Arthur Shapiro's commentary "Did Michael Ruse Give Away the Store?" appeared in NCSE Reports, Spring 1993, pp. 20-21. Shapiro is a professor of zoology at the University of California, Davis. The "New Anti-evolutionism" program was reported in the Times Higher Education Supplement, April 9,1993, in the article "The Ascent of Man's Ignorance" by Michael Ince. This lengthy article was very complete in its coverage of the program, with one exception: it omitted any mention of Michael Ruse,

Research Notes 211

although Ruse was the most prominent speaker. I find a delightful irony in this omission. As Thomas Kuhn taught us, a shaky paradigm lives on through its power to make anomalies invisible.

Arthur Shapiro regularly participates in discussions with social construc-tionists, post-modernists, feminist theoreticians and the like at his campus, and so (like Ruse) he is well aware that attempts to define terms like "science" so as to exclude one's ideological opponents are often loaded with controversial philosophical assumptions and self-justifying rhetoric. On the other hand, he rightly wishes to avoid the extreme relativism and political opportunism that characterizes leftist ideology these days, as well as the anti-intellectualism and rigidity associated with religious fundamen­talism. There is a way to do this, but it requires scientists to abandon their bunker mentality and become willing to engage in dialogue with persons who do not accept scientific naturalism as the only valid way to understand reality. To illustrate the problem: Shapiro tried to invite me to the Davis campus to speak to biologists, but the invitation was vetoed by departmental colleagues who feared lending respectability to "creationism." The view is widespread among science professors and administrators that while free­dom of inquiry and expression is in general a good thing, critical discussion of the philosophical roots of Darwinism is "religion," which must be rigor­ously excluded from secular universities.

The symposium at Southern Methodist University in Dallas was particu­larly important in this respect, because the scientific naturalists who at­tended were pleasantly surprised at the academic quality and courtesy that characterized the occasion. The papers from the Dallas symposium, includ­ing contributions from Ruse, Shapiro, and me, will be published sometime in 1994 by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics. Here is an account of the conference in NCSE Reports by Darwinist participant K. John Morrow of Texas Tech University: "My positive feelings about the symposium out­weighed my apprehensions. The operation was well-managed, the hosts unfailingly courteous, the discussion carried out on an intellectual plane. Participants appeared to be genuinely committed to establishing their views on the basis of logical discourse."

I invite scientific naturalists to attend other conferences where these issues are raised, to see for themselves if it is possible to discuss the met­aphysics of scientific naturalism at a similarly high intellectual level.

William Provine and "First Things. " The journal article to which Provine provided his "scathing response" is my "Evolution as Dogma: The Estab­lishment of Naturalism," in First Things, October 1990. Responses by Pro-vine, Gareth Nelson, Irving Kristol, Thomas Jukes, and Matthew Burke

212 Darwin on Trial

appeared in the November issue. The entire symposium was republished in booklet form by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics; copies may be ordered from Haughton Publishing Company, P.O. Box 180218, Dallas, TX 75218-0218 (tel: [phone]).

This seems a good place to insert a plug for First Things, an outstanding journal to which I have the honor of being a frequent contributor. I am very grateful to editors Richard John Neuhaus, James Neuchterlein, and Matthew Burke for their support To subscribe send a check for $24.00 for a year's subscription (10 issues) to First Things, Dept FT, P.O. Box 3000, Denville, NJ 07834-9847.

Reviews by theistic evolutionists. In my judgment the best of these is by William Hasker, "Mr. Johnson for the Prosecution," in the Christian Schol­ar's Review, vol. 22, pp. 177-86 (December 1992). My response to this review and Hasker's reply are in the next issue of the same volume, at pp. 297-308. Another review that addresses the issues fairly comprehensively is Nancey Murphy's "Phillip Johnson on Trial: A Critique of His Critique of Darwin," in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, vol. 45, pp. 26-36 (March 1993). For a spirited debate between Howard Van Till and me, see "God and Evolution: An Exchange," in the June/July 1993 issue of First Things. Van Till was offended by my characterization of the accommoda-tionist position as "theistic naturalism" in my article "Creator or Blind Watchmaker?" in the January 1993 issue of First Things. I am unrepentant For a more limited and ambivalent critique, see Owen Gingerich's book review in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, vol. 44, pp. 140-42 (March 1993).

The quotations from Richard Dawkins about the blind watchmaker are from the introductory chapter of his book by that name. I introduced the concept of the "blind watchmaker thesis" at a public lecture at the Univer­sity of California at Irvine in early 1992. The videotape of this lecture, with a lively question period, is available under the title Darwinism on Trial from the catalog of Reasons to Believe, P.O. Box 5978, Pasadena, CA 91117. Lecture videotapes are also available from Access Research Network, P.O. Box 38069, Colorado Springs, CO 80937-8069. Write for particulars.

Two other 1993 publications deserve mention here. A symposium tided Man and Creation: Perspectives on Science and Theology, edited by Michael Bauman, has been published by Hillsdale College Press. It contains essays by me and a number of other persons prominently involved with these issues, including several of my theistic evolutionist critics. This softcover collection is suitable for college-level classroom use and may be ordered from Hillsdale College Press, Hillsdale MI 49242. Second, the American

Research Notes 213

Scientific Affiliation has issued a new edition of its booklet Teaching Science in a Climate of Controversy, which is discussed in Chapter 10 of this book The new edition contains some excellent teaching materials for developing critical thinking skills in science students. It may be ordered from the Committee for Integrity in Science Education, American Scientific Affilia­tion, P.O. Box 688, Ipswich, MA 01938-0668.

The sinking ship. I beg readers' indulgence for the perhaps overly dramat­ic metaphor of the final paragraph. A writer should be allowed his bit of fun. The reference to "high-tech" damage-control mechanisms is to the school represented by Stuart Kauffman's Origins of Order (1993). I assume this is what Gould had in mind when he referred to "the self-organizing properties of molecules and other physical systems." If the rulers of science really mean to jump into this lifeboat, I will be happy to participate in the ensuing discussion, but I think that after assessing the prospects they will elect to stay on the sinking ship and keep trying to plug the holes.

Index

Only substantive mentions included, (n) means footnote.

A

Agassiz, Louis, 48, 80,182 Alvarez, Louis and Walter, 185 American Association for the

Advancement of Science (AAAS),

163 American Museum of Natural History,

5, 9, 76, 83 American Scientific Affiliation (ASA),

128; booklet for teachers, 129-130 amino acids, in proteins, 92; in origins

research, 104,105, 200 amphibians, development from fish,

75-77, 208-209; ancestral groups, 190 analogies, 65

anomalies, 121; as oddities in evolu­tion, 26, 28, 30; to paradigm, 122 anthropic principle, 106 anthropologists, 99; how they view

fossils, 82-84,193-194 archaebacteria, 199; description, 95; in

relation to pan-spermia, 110 archaeopteryx, 49, 80-81,155,182,191 argument, rules of, 8; understanding,

13,14

Arkansas, balanced treatment statute, 113,162,163,172,201

artifact theory, 55, 56,183

artificial selection, 17-20, 29, 68,175

Asimov, Isaac, 69(n), 174

assumptions of Darwinist scientists, 13, 93,108-109,146,197,198; of mathe­matical models, 22, 38; in molecular evidence, 97-98; of scientific naturalists, 118,163-164,166; and paradigms, 120-122

australopithecines, 82(n), 84-85,193-194

Ayala, Francisco, 184,197,198

В

Bacon, Francis, 148 bacteria, 94; and resistance to

antibiotics, 25-26; ancient, 54; in

relation to pan-spermia, 110;

mutations 180 balanced treatment legislation, 3, 7,

113,162,163,172,201

Index 215

basilosaurus, 86,195

Bateson, William, 184

bats, evolution of, 41, 53

Bennetta, William, 130

Bethell, Tom, 173

biochemistry, 92, 96

Bird, Wendell R., 177,191, 201

birds, evolution from reptiles, 80-81

Bowden, Malcolm, 192

Brady, R. H., 176

Brennan, Justice William, 6, 7

British Natural History Museum, 9,23,

82; controversy, 135,141, 204 Brown, Michael H., 194 Bryan, William Jennings, 5, 6, 58, 59 Burgess shale, 55,183

C

Cairns-Smith, A. G., 24,108,111-112,

176,199-200 California, Policy Statement and

Science Framework, 142-146,176,

204-205

Cambrian explosion, 54-56,129,183 Cann, Rebecca, 195 catastrophism, 45, 57 Chatterjee, Sankar, 80(n) chemical evolution, 103-104,107 dadism, 136,140 classification, 82(n) 89,99; biological,

63-66,187-190; molecular, 93; by

cladistics, 136 coelacanth, 76,190 common ancestors, in Darwinian

evolution, 16, 64,146,152,154,158,

189,197; problems finding, 66, 70-

73,88-89,91-92, 98,100-101 compatibilism, 128-129 constitutional law, 6, 7,171-173 Cooke, Harold, 5 Corner, E., 106,196-197 creation, 8,10,14, 32-33,45, 68,117,

129(n), 142,158-160,162,179,182-183,199, 205; contrasted with evolution, 3, 4, 7,115; Darwin and, 65,178, see also special creation

creation story, scientific naturalists', 85, 118,124,133,155,159,167

creation-science, creation-scientists, 14, 68,128,129(n), 166,192,195, 201; definition, 4(n); in schools, 11,172; balanced treatment with evolution-science, 3,102,113-115; compared with science, 114-115,191; as characterized by National Academy of Sciences, 6-9

creationism, creationists, 68,118,136, 141, 159, 163,196, 205; distinguished from creation-science, 4(n), 115; as seen by the Academy, 8,172; compared with evolution, 9,10,133; attitudes of Darwinists toward, 43, 57, 69(n), 78, 83,109,174,178,186; and the ASA, 130; and education, 142, 146

Creator, 3, 4,14,16, 41,114,117,128, 129(n), 133,159; as designer, 115; as First Cause, 116(n); as Demiurge, 119; exclusion from Darwinism, 91, 103,153,159; as viewed by materialist scientists, 43, 70,110,155; "mistakes" by, 31, 35(n), 71

Crick, Francis, and pan-spermia, 110, 111,199

Cuvier, 45,181

Cytochrome c, 94, 96,144,145, 205

D

Darrow, Clarence, 5, 6, 58,173, 209 Darwin, Charles, 9,13, 21, 24, 30, 36, 45, 56, 58, 61, 67, 70-73, 99, 111, 112, 132,135-139,141,154,176,181-182, 184,196, 205; his contribution to evolutionary theory, 12,15-17, 22, 32,

216 Darwin on Trial

Darwin, Charles (continued)

151; his materialism, 33,44,178-179;

and the fossil record, 34, 46, 49, 54,

57, 59, 82, 87, 89,155,185-187; and

classification, 64-66, 93,188-189; and

origin of life, 103; and religion, 126,

179-180 Darwinism, Darwinists, throughout;

definitions, 4,4(n), 15-17, 67 Dawkins, Richard, 13, 38, 61,90,166-

168,173,176,180,185,212; and ' atheism, 9; scorn for non-believers,

9; and the eye, 34, 35; and

macromutations, 41-42,190; and the

fossil record, 54, 89; and the origin

of life, 106,107

de Beer, Sir Gavin, 141,188-189 Demiurge, 119, 202 Demon, Michael, 36,190,196-197,199 descent of man, 82-85,193-195 descent with modification, 16, 63,65-

67,71-73,100,151 Dewar, Douglas, 182,183,195 Dewey,John, 131

differential survival, 12,17, 25, 97,176 directed pan-spermia, 110,199 Dobzhansky, Theodosius, 13, 86,130,

132,174,188,192,202-203,207 Dose, Klaus, 108,109,200

E

Edey, Maitland, 93,132-133,173,192,

Ediacarans, 54,55(n), 183 education, Chapter 11 (pp. 135-146),

163-165

Einstein, Albert, 66,148 Eldredge, Niles, 50,52-53, 59-61,120,

130,183-185

empiricism, 117,118,158 essentialism, 64 eukaryotes, 54, 94

evolution, throughout; definitions, 9, 10,12,56,69,115,141,153; contrasted with creation, 1-4; and truth, 123,143,159; in the schools, 6, 7,11, 50,58,129-130,142,174,201; in textbooks, 6,11,50,58,129,143-146,154,176-177,186; and education, 134-146,162-163

extinction(s), 144,176,184; Darwin's theory of, 46, 49,89,177; mass, 55, 57-59,90,185-187

eye, evolution of, 34-36,41(n), 67, 68(n),87,95,117

F

fact and theory in evolution, 11-13, 39, 43,62-74,136-139,141,143-145,151, 153-154,160-161,167,172,175-176, 181,182-183,192,198

fact-value distinction, 128,165

falsifiability, Popper's criterion, 122, 149,151, 202; as characteristic of science, 114

falsification, protecting the theory from, 47, 68, 71, 97; Einstein and, 148; Darwinism and, 155,156, 189

finches, Darwin's, 19; variations in, 25

Fix, William R., 192

Hew, Anthony, 140,204

fossil record, Chapter 4 (pp. 45-62), 6, 36, 38, 74, 77,85,88,99,158-159, 190-191,196; problems for Darwinism, 33,34,67(n), 80,95,100, 117,123,141,185-187,197; Darwinist arguments dealing with, 65,66,89, 136,151,154-155,177

fruitflies, experiments on, 19, 68,175; variations, 53; and heterozygosity, 198

fundamentalists, 102,113,128,140, 146,168-169,179,202

index 217

Futuyma, Douglas, 13,17,25-26, 31,53, 70-72,78,130,154,174-175,182,188, 190-191,202,205

G

Huxley, Julian, 13, 27, 31,130,152,178,

203, 205 Huxley, Т. Н., 13, 28, 33, 46, 61, 67,

179,184

I

Gingerich, Owen, 166-167, 212

Gingerich, Philip, 195

Gish,Duane, 114,115,191

Godfrey, Laurie, 183,186-187,196

Goldschmidt, Richard, 37-41,43,60-61, 180-181,184,189

Gould, Stephen Jay, 11,13,16(n), 34, 36-37,39-42,50, 52-62,66-68, 70-74, 75,77-78,81-82,85,102,119-120, 126-127,130,132,137,159-162,164, 172-173,176,179-185,188,190,192, 202-204, 206-210,213

gradualism, 38,41, 62,136-137,144, 183; as essential to Darwinism, 33, 43; problem with, 50-52,67(n), 179

Grasse, Pierre, 18,19, 27, 37, 43,174-175,181,190

Greene, John C, 203

H

Haeckel, Ernst, 71, 72,103 Haldane, J. B. S., 20, 21,104-105 Halstead, L. В., 136,137, 204 Hasker, William, 166, 212 heterozygosity, 97,198 Himmelfarb, Gertrude, 178,179,181 hominids, 74, 81-86,193-194 homologies, 65, 72, 79,88,188-189,198 hopeful monster, 37, 39-40,141,180,

Hopson, James A., 191 Hoyle, Fred, 106, 200 Hull, David, 210-211 human origins, 81-86 humanism, Humanist Manifesto, 130,

131,133 Hume, David, 149

induction as a basis for science, 148,

intelligent design, 17,119,146, 205 intermediates, see abo transitional

intermediates

J

Johanson, Donald, 93,132-133,173,

191-192,194-195,199 Joyce, Gerald, 108-110,190

К

K-T extinction, K-T boundary, 57,185-

Kettlewell, 26-28,176 Kimura, Motoo, 96-98,197,198 Kristol, Irving, 10,11,13,126-127,132,

173,188, 202, 212 Kuhn, Thomas, 120-123,189, 201,

L

Le Gros Clark, Wilfred, 84,192 Leakey, Louis, 82(n), 203 Leakey, Richard, 160,191,195 legal cases, 3-6,113,114,171-174, 201 legal reasoning, rules of, 172 Lewin, Roger, 83,173,191,194,198 Lewontin, Richard, 137(n) life, definition, 111, 112 Linnaeus, 93 logic, logical arguments, 20, 23-24, 64-

65,90-91,100,137,151,176,198 logical positivism, 150 Louisiana, balanced-treatment statute,

3,4,6-7,102,171-172

218 Darwin on Trial

Lyell, Charles, 15,33,45-46,178-179, 181-182

M

Macbeth, Norman, 20,161

macroevolution, 40,50,52,68-69,79, 107,142,154,155,184-185,196

macromutations, 32, 37,40-43,52, 90

mammal-like reptiles, 49, 74, 77-79,86, 190-191

Mann, Alan, 195

Marxism, 147,148

Mayr, Ernst, 20, 35, 38,40,43, 82, 91, 136,174,177,181,185,197,209

mechanism, 53,115,195; of evolution, 12, 30, 32,41,67,90,117,139,141, 151,158-160,168, 207; non-Darwini­an, 10, 91; problems with, 56,66, 81, 100,101,188-189

Medawar, Sir Peter, 38,43

metaphysics, 150,153,158,160,161-164,168-169, 210

microevolution, 117; as proof of "fact of evolution," 68, 69,190

micromutations, 37, 38, 40, 42, 91, 95, 158-159

Miller, Stanley, 104,105, 200

Miller-Urey experiment, 103, 200

mitochondrial Eve, 85,194

molecular clock, 85,96, 98-100,144-145,155,199

molecular distance, 94,95

molecular evidence, Chapter 7 (pp. 88-101), 87,197-199 mosaic evolution, 53,154,181

Murphy, Nancey, 166, 212

mutations, Chapter 3 (pp. 32-44), 10, 29,51-52, 96-97,100(n), 104,146, 157-159,167-168,180-181,184,198, 207; definition, 16-17; limitations of, 10,47,184

N

naked gene, 107,199

National Academy of Sciences, 13(n), 14; and Supreme Court, 7, 8, 28,122; and pamphlet on Science and Creationism, 125,127-129,172, 202

National Center for Science Education (NCSE), 163,210,211

natural law, 114,115,162

natural selection, Chapter 2 (pp. 15-31); as basis for Darwinism, 4(n), 10, 33, 38, 41, 58(n), 90-92,100, 111, 141, 151-153,174, 201; theory of, 95-98; evidence for 25-27; evidence against, 26; arguments justifying, 28-31; as a philosophical necessity, 28; limitations of, 53, 67-68,117,136-147, 139(n), 184,198; in relation to molecular dock, 144-145

naturalism, 116-118,123-124,152,155-156,158-159,161-166,168-169,210, 211; definition, 116(n)

Neanderthal Man, 82(n), 84

Nebraska Man, 5,84,173, 209

Nelson, Gareth, 76,140,190, 204, 212

neo-Darwinists, 15,16(n), 20, 37, 40, 86, 139,158,162,174,189

neutral evolution, neutral theory, 90, 96-98,100,145,197-198

О

Oparin, Alexander, 104,105

origin of life, Chapter 8 (pp. 102-112),

10,13, 24,95,101,116,166,176,199,

200 Origin of Species, The, 15-17, 22, 47, 54,

71,80,89,103,139,140,151-152,178,

180-182,188, 201,205 Osborn, Henry Fairfield, 5, 6,173,

209 Overton, Judge William, 114,115,117,

122,172,201

Index 219

P

Pagels, Heinz, 118,119,202 paleontologists, paleontology, 22, 49,

67,76,78,80,144,181,190;

precommitment to Darwinism, 48,

57-61, 86,154,183,195; opposing

Darwinism, 47, 48, 50-51, 55(n), 182,

pan-selectionism, 91,197 paradigms, scientific, 120-123 Patterson, Colin, 9,10,12, 23-24,173,

176 peppered moth, 26, 27, 68, 69(n), 176-

phenotype, 91, 91(n) philosophy of science, Chapter 9 (pp.

113-124), 158, 210 physical anthropology, 82-85 Piltdown Man, 5, 82, 203-204 plant breeding, 17,175 plants, evolution of, 12, 41(n), 94,108,

153,196-197 pleiotropy, 29, 30 Popper, Karl, 21, 22,122,138,147-151,

153-156,175,202, 205 prebiological evolution, Chapter 12

(pp. 102-112), 199-200 prebiotic soup, 104-106,108 Press, Frank, 125,155 prokaryotes, 54, 94-95,100 Provine, William, 126,127,165, 203,

211 pseudoscience, Chapter 12 (pp. 147-

156), 130, 202 punctuated equilibrium, 50, 52, 58, 60-

61,120,141,153,184-185,187 purpose, intelligent, 19,156,158;

beyond natural laws, 3,4(n), 71,

115,120,178; in evolution, 111-112,

146; Darwinism opposed to, 8,116,

119,126,168,202, 210; author's,

13,15

R

random changes, 16(n), 17, 22, 42-43 Raup, David, 186,187 reducing atmosphere, 105 relationship, biological & evolutionary,

63,66,88, 93, 99-100,136,153-154,

158 religion, Chapter 10 (pp. 125-134), 159,

161,164,165,166,169 rhipidistians, 76,190 Ridley, Mark, 69,175,188,190 RNA, RNA sequences, 94,105,107-109,

209 Ruse, Michael, 114,115,137,162-163,

165-166,176,201,204,210, 211

S

Sagan, Carl, 106,166,199

saltations, 32, 40, 49, 90

Sarich, Vincent, 99,130

Scalia, Justice Antonin, 7,102-103,172

Scherer, Siegfried, 199

Schindewolf, Otto, 40, 60,184,187, 208

Schiitzenberger, 39

Schwabe, Christian, 198

science, definition, 114-124,148,156; and religion defined and contrasted, 7, 8,14, 28,126-128; and view of re­ligion, 8, 9

scientific hypothesis, natural selection as, 24-28, 53, 66, 85,155

scientific naturalism, see naturalism

selective breeding, 151,175

self-organizing systems, 200 sexual selection, 30,139,177

Shapiro, Arthur, 163-164, 210, 211

Shapiro, Robert, 103,199-200

Simpson, George Gaylord, 13, 20-21, 24,49,60, 79,115-116,128,136,184, 187,202, 209

snakes, evolution of, 41, 42, 67

220 Darwin on Trial

special creation, 4, 33, 39, 61,114-115,

197 speciation, 19, 40, 52-53,58, 68,184,

192 species, throughout; definition, 19,

51(n); limitations, 18 stabilizing selection, 53, 90,154Stahl, Barbara, 74,190-192 Stanley, Steven, 50, 51, 53, 59, 67, 86,

104,183,192 stasis, 23, 50-53, 56-58,60,89-90,96,

120,123,154,185 statutes, 6, 7,113-115, 201 Supreme Court, U.S., 6,7, 28,102,122,

171-173, 201; Tennessee, 5

T

tautology, 175,176; natural selection as, 20-23, 29, 53, 58, 97-98; evolution as, 66; Darwin's theory as, 122 Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre, 131,192,

Tennessee and Scopes trial, 4, 5, 172 theistic evolution, theistic evolutionists,

129,166-169, 212

therapsids, 77-79,155,190-191, 209 transitionals, transitional inter­mediates, 36, 46-48, 51, 53-57, 64, 66, 72-74,75-82,89,91-92,98,177, 187

U

mam, D. S., 38, 39 uniformitarianism, 69,190; see also

gradualism Urey, Harold, 104,105, 200

V

Van Till,Howard, 166-167, 212 vertebrate sequence, Chapter 6 (pp. 75-87), 190

W

Waddington, С D., 21,22,38-39,43,

Walcott, Charles, 55 Weinberg, Steven, 157,158,206,210 Welenhofer, Peter, 80,191 whales, evolution of, 53,66,86-87,95-

96,195-96

Wilson, Allan, 195,197-98 wings, evolution of, 35,36,41 (n), 54,

67,68 (n), 80,90-91,95,117 Wistar Institute debate between

mathematicians and biologists, 38-

39,180 Woese.94,95

Z

Zuckerman, Solly, 83-85,192-94

Дата добавления: 2015-10-26