Book Review: Darwin On Trial

Darwin On Trial was written by Phillip E. Johnson in 1993. From what I can gather, this is the book that started a phenomenon. Within the pages of Darwin On Trail, we find the genesis of the modern Intelligent Design movement. This is a book written by a Christian, but with very little to say about Christianity and a great deal to say about science and evolution. Johnson does not pretend to be a scientist. He is lawyer that specializes in the nature and structure of arguments, and this is the field in which he attempts to remain throughout the book, dissecting the arguments and logic of biologists and paleontologists.

I think that Johnson does make some good points throughout the whole of the book, though past the midpoint the focus shifts from scientific theories towards legal matters and education systems. This book is at its best when confronting traditional evolutionary theory with challenging questions about the fossil record and assumptions made concerning classification and evolution. This book is at its worst when Johnson portrays the scientific community in a negative manner and links scientific theory with philosophical speculation.

Whenever the matter of common ancestry comes to the front, Johnson sounds like a broken record, his common response being that relationship between organisms does not imply common ancestry, and that evolutionists are biased in their interpretation of the data because they assume from the beginning that evolution is a valid theory. Johnson uses this line of reasoning to address everything from lack of transitional forms in the fossil record to the development of theories such as punctuated equilibrium and neutral theory. On one hand Johnson makes some good points. If our observations do not confirm our hypothesis, then should we not begin to question the validity of the theory which our hypothesis is based upon? Johnson says that instead biologists and paleontologists simply modify the theory of evolution to account for their observations, and therefore the theory can never be falsified, as it has the potential to always explain every observation.

However, I think that Johnson is neglecting the vast amount of evidence that we do have in support of evolution when he follows this line of argument. If every observation we made required a modification of the theory of natural selection, then there would be a problem. But this is not the case, and evolution has a great deal of predictive power as a scientific theory. Therefore, biologists and paleontologist can assume the validity of natural selection and evolution when they interpret their observations.

I have no doubt that Johnson is an excellent lawyer. Like a good prosecuting attorney, Johnson presents the reader with a collection of evidence and demands the conviction of scientists and evolution. However, the courtroom is not the place for this discussion. Instead, scientific research should determine the validity of evolution. Johnson gathers together statements from various scientists, his witnesses, and various aspects of evolutionary theory, his exhibits, and asks that the reader, his jury, reach a guilty verdict. But scientific research is carried out in a manner completely unlike the courtroom setting: instead of witnesses there are theories, instead of exhibits there are experiments. Hypotheses, experiments, observations and conclusions are formed, carried out, and evaluated in the context of the greater body of scientific literature, which is comprised of thousands of scientific papers and various books written by thousands of scientists over the last couple centuries. The validity of a theory is not determined by the conclusion of a few individuals, but the consensus of the entire community. It is in this rigorous, academic environment that evolution must make its defense.

Book Review: Consciousness Explained

Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett is a book from the early 90s about the nature of consciousness. I wanted to read it because I think consciousness is a fascinating idea that is important to the nature of faith.

In my opinion the three most mysterious questions in science are how life began (or can begin), how consciousness works, and how the universe began. I have a high degree of confidence that we will figure out the first question within 100 years. I am not sure about the second question, and the third question I am confident we will never figure out. With the second question (consciousness), I often suspect that it will take some radical changes in the understanding of science and our universe before we make serious progress.

There is one single immutable fact in life: You exist, and are experiencing life. Everything else can be taken with a grain of salt. How can the phenomena of experience be explained scientifically? I understand how the human mind could have evolved through evolution and cultural evolution. I understand that our behavior and beliefs could have evolved, but what is the explanation for me actually feeling/thinking/experiencing all of this?

I am a firm believer in naturalistic methodology, and am not satisfied with the idea that there's a separate, supernatural entity experiencing everything, and that consciousness will never be explained because we are separate from our bodies, merely undetectable observers and/or controllers. I'm not alone; Dennett absolutely abhors the idea.

Dennett claims to have a solution to the problem, a scientific "theory of consciousness." Unfortunately, he takes far too many rabbit trails and uses far too many words to say such puny little things.

What I was looking for in this book was a scientific hypothesis on consciousness that is fully explained and defended. Too much to ask for, I guess.

Instead, Dennett distracts readers with cool little experiments that demonstrate how our minds process data very differently from how we often assume. These are neat concepts to be aware of. But they don't get to the heart of the consciousness problem: Why am I experiencing this?

Dennett barely ever gets around to explaining why. He goes on for hundreds and hundreds of pages about how we see red dots turn green at the wrong time and how people who are blind can still see things subconsciously, etc.

Between droning on about this topic for virtually the entire book, Dennett reveals his thoughts on consciousness in a few sentences distributed evenly in the text: There is no explanation of consciousness necessary; if we can explain all the various FUNCTIONS of the brain, we have explained consciousness.

Dennett believes that since, outside of scientifically observable functions of our brains, we cannot scientifically observe "consciousness," it is all a farce and we need not worry about it.

Now, this is an interesting idea and for all I know very well may be correct. But why did I just read a 600-page book when all I needed were those couple sentences? It's a frustrating realization that I spent 30 hours reading a book when I could have just looked up "functionalism" on Wikipedia and been done in 10 minutes.

The reason for Dennett's long-windedness is that of a magician: Distract the audience with lights and sounds long enough and you can slip a fast one by them.

Dennett "entertains" us with stories of how weird our brains are and how our senses don't work like we think, and expands it all into a 600 page marathon so that he can slip in a couple sentences that translate to "I'm a functionalist" without us noticing.

Dennett further adds to the trickery by refusing to use standard definitions and terms for philosophy of the mind. He does this out of arrogance and succeeds at making it so hard to understand what he's saying that you assume it's an original idea (far from it). Unfortunately for me, I took the time to understand every sentence, and as a result wasted a lot of time.

Functionalism may or may not be correct, but Dennett did not argue for it. He pulled a bait-and-switch: He distracted us with lots of naturalistic explanations for functions of the brain, and while we weren't looking, he slipped in the idea that function is all that matters, hoping we wouldn't notice. For someone who read his whole long egotistical book, this is infuriating.

Whether functionalism is right or not, though, this book has helped me confirm a suspicion I had: There is nothing we can say/do to detract from the specialness of consciousness. No matter what explanation we come up with, including functionalism, it is still incredible that I am experiencing looking at this monitor and feeling the keyboard under my fingertips and reflecting on the whole process. It should blow your mind no matter your opinion/theory. And it should make you marvel at the mystery we experience as human beings, wondering about our true nature and purpose. Having a scientific explanation doesn't change this.

One last warning to those reading the book: Dennett relies heavily on the idea of memes, which is a pseudoscience first proposed by Richard Dawkins, up there with astrology, alternative medicine, six-day creationism and bigfoot. It is a theory followed by those who prefer their ideas to be right rather than be either analyzed or scientifically useful. When you hear someone talking about memes as if they're real, you can be sure they've chosen to stunt their intellectual growth by clinging onto this pseudoscience without actually caring to investigate the field of the evolution of ideas, where it is laughed at. For more info on memes, visit the Metaverse.

Speaking of Richard Dawkins, one of my next two posts will confront his anti-intellectualism. Stay tuned!

Politics and Perspectives

A blog that I frequent often is Science and Religion: A View from an Evolutionary Creationist. The author, James Kidder, does an excellent job of providing updates on anything in the news related to evolution, intelligent design, and the ongoing debates. Recently, he has posted several short articles about Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her opinions about creationism, intelligent design, and the teaching of such subjects in schools.

I do not think that Intelligent Design is legitimate science, something that I will expound upon in the future; therefore, I do not think that we should be teaching Intelligent Design in our schools. Unfortunately, it seems that matters of both science and religion often are used and abused by politicians to develop a good public image and gain more support. One day a politician may support the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools; the next day the same person may caution against such action. Perhaps they are being manipulative... or perhaps, like many people, they are not sure what they believe about evolution?

I will probably never vote for a "Christian" candidate because I think that my political ideology should direct my support of candidates and policies. My religious perspective certainly directs my political ideology to a degree, but my religious preference should not direct my support of candidates and policies. I will certainly not support a candidate simply because he shares my religious preference.

I think this same reasoning can be applied to the natural sciences. I do not want a "Christian" science because I think that science should be directed by methodological naturalism. I suppose you could argue for a different scientific ideology, but science has always been directed by methodological naturalism... that is the whole point of science, to find naturalistic explanations for observable phenomenon. To explain observable phenomenon with a non-naturalistic explanation such as the presence of an intelligent designer is simply non-scientific... according to my scientific ideology. Intelligent Design is developed from a scientific ideology that is directed by a religious perspective, usually Christianity. Seriously, if the creation stories of Genesis were not in the Bible, would the theory of Intelligent Design even exist?