Evolution and Its Discontents: Responding To A Bad Philosopher
Cato's Letters Reviews Massimo Pigliucci
Hi Readers,
Let me start by apologizing for the lack of Evolution content so far. I have been reading new books and articles feverishly in an attempt to produce excellent research notes, but I haven’t been able to identify the best way to include you all in my research.
I think I have settled on the following structure for this series, please let me know your thoughts in the comments and whether you would prefer me to focus on any additional areas:
Part 2: A brief historical review of the development of evolutionary theory since Darwin, covering the major periods:
Darwinism and its demise — what Darwin originally argued, which has limited, but significant relevance to today’s orthodoxy.
Neo-Darwinism — a resurgence of Darwinism just historically prior to the addition of population genetics.
Mendelian Genetics and the Modern (Neo-Darwinian) Synthesis — the birth of the modern orthodoxy of macro-evolutionary theory in the 1940s. I will contend that this basic model of evolution (along with its central dogma) is still the dominant paradigm and this is what opponents of evolution typically criticize.
The Extended Synthesis — this period in particular is what needs some serious detailing. There is very little agreement as to what even is the Extended Synthesis. This ambiguity is critically important to understanding the current debate around evolutionary theory.
Part 3: Deep dive into the Modern Synthesis — this will be a full explication of current general theory of evolution in greater detail than the previous section. I will cover some of the major findings of the field as well as the evidence supporting the theory
Part 4: Failures and Criticisms of the Modern Synthesis — this post will be about the best scientific criticisms of the Neo-Darwinian orthodoxy, including challenges from both the Intelligent Design community and mainstream evolutionary biologists.
Part 5: Defenses of the Modern Synthesis — admittedly this is where the project has become annoyingly difficult. It has been enormously difficult to find thoughtful, erudite defenses of the Modern Synthesis from philosophers or biologists that actually address the challenges from opponents (see an example later in this article).
Part 6: Conclusion — a piece to summarize what I take to be the most rational position in the debate at this time, given the evidence we have, and the principles of philosophy of science. I will also provide a bibliography in this section for those people who hate themselves as much as I do, and want to continue the path of self-torture.
Now on to today’s post…
A few weeks ago, as part of my research into evolutionary theory, I encountered an article written by the prominent evolutionary biologist and philosopher Massimo Pigliucci.
The article is titled “Is there fundamental scientific disagreement about evolutionary theory?” Pigliucci published the article on his blog Rationally Speaking.
I’ve decided to write a review of this article in order to highlight many of the ways not to go about the evolution debate, or really any debate at all. I think the article is also a good example of the kind of pretentious arrogance that is so common among the intelligentsia.
It is important to note, right from the start, how easy it is for a blogger to engage in cheap-shots and straw men — Pigliucci’s article is a prime example. Like any blog writer, I too am tempted to rely on insulting rhetoric of my ideological opponents. It’s an easier way to write. It would be all-too-easy in this response to what I view as not only bad scholarship, but morally unbecoming and immature behavior from a professor of philosophy.
That said I will do my best in this article to keep the analysis professional. I want my readers to come away from this review having gained a sense of the appropriate perspective on this heated topic.
Introduction
The article, originally published on July 2 2008, begins:
“Creationists and their intellectual cousins, intelligent design proponents, keep saying that scientists disagree as to “the truth” of evolution, and that the field is therefore in crisis, despite official attempts by scientists to deny any problem and unite under the evil cause of fighting “the truth” about Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.
Already in the first sentence Pigliucci has set the tone for his post as sarcastic and dismissive of his opponents. Nothing wrong with that per se, but a bit unbecoming of a professor, and given the relatively academic title of his post I found it a little surprising.
What is definitely wrong is his commitment of several fallacies in just the first sentence of his blog post. A post published on a blog which is, perhaps ironically, titled Rationally Speaking.
Pigliucci begins by generalizing all of his opponents as “creationist,” and falsely assumes anyone tied up in the Intelligent Design (ID) movement, or would claim that evolution is a theory “in crisis,” is necessarily committed to some religious claim (specifically, Christianity).
Intelligent Design (ID) is endlessly described as creationist by its critics, or as “back-dooring” religion. Yet the evidence for such claims is always conspicuously absent form the charge.
Yes, there are plenty of Christians involved in ID, but it doesn’t take more than a few seconds of research to find out that agnostic and atheist scientists work at the Discovery Institute1 as well. ID also isn’t a commitment to any form of creationism, they’re philosophically distinct claims.2 Many of the proponents of ID believe aliens are the best explanation for the designing intelligence, or that we exist inside a simulation (an increasingly popular belief amongst physicists).
Arguing that there are fundamental flaws in current evolutionary theory, or arguing for the seemingly innocuous claim that scientists disagree about major areas of evolution, makes one neither an ID-er nor a Christian, as I argued in my first post on evolution.
Atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel has famously argued that mainstream evolutionary theory is (to borrow his phrase) “almost certainly false,” and the luminary (atheist) Yale computer scientist David Gelernter has publicly defended ID’s critique of evolutionary theory, while still rejecting ID.
Despite all this, Massimo Pigliucci would still have us believe criticism of evolution is only offered by Bible-pushing quacks who feel that it threatens their religion. This is an attitude of intellectual dishonesty I find all too common among defenders of evolutionary orthodoxy, I’m sad to say.
The Extended Synthesis and Fundamental Scientific Disagreement On Evolution
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Cato's Letters to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.