Debating Darwin, Part 43,257

The American Enterprise Institute held yet another Darwin debate, this time among four political conservatives, two pro-Darwin, two anti. The anti side talked about the sometimes nasty moral implications of Darwinism, like Social Darwinism and eugenics. But the whole thing finally came down these final four paragraphs.

While I don't think Darwinism is at all trivial, I do think Gilder's point is exactly the right one, and obviously so. No scientist with half a brain should presume to claim that science can answer Gilder's questions, because they aren't scientific questions. And people on the religion side only look foolish when they presume to make claims about how the natural world works, because that's not a religious question. There is an appropriate and necessary division of labor here, and this whole stupid mess is the result of people on both sides refusing to recognize that.

Since there is nothing very profound or difficult about that conclusion, the refusal has to be purposeful, having to do with personal celebrity, book sales, speaking engagements, and similar. In other words, both sides know better, but they do it anyway, for other reasons. And both sides have their partisans who love to cheer and cat-call from the sidelines, guaranteeing that there will be lots more Evolution vs. Religion "debates."

The more I look at this trumped-up squabble, the more it resembles a pro wrestling match. To put it all into its proper context, I recommend that from now on all Evolution vs. Religion debates be sanctioned by Vince McMahon and the WWE

I even have the costumes all worked out.

Byron