Darwinism's Rules of Reasoning: Johnson, Phillip
Darwinism's Rules of Reasoning
Phillip E. Johnson
Professor of Law
University of California, Berkeley
This paper was originally delivered at a plenary session of the Southwestern Anthropological
Association in Berkeley, California in April, 1992. It was subsequently published in the
California Anthropologist and in Rivista di Biologia (1994) (in Italian and English). A similar
lecture is included in the collection Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?(Buell & Hearn ed.
1994).
My starting point is a book review which Theodosius Dobzhansky published in
1975, critiquing Pierre Grassé's The Evolution of Life.(1) Grassé, an eminent
French zoologist, believed in something which he called "evolution." So did
Dobzhansky, but when Dobzhansky used that term he meant neo- Darwinism,
evolution propelled by random mutation and guided by natural selection. Grassé
used the same term to refer to something very different, a poorly understood
process of transformation in which one general category (like reptiles) gave rise to
another (like mammals), guided by mysterious "internal factors" which seemed to
compel many individual lines of descent to converge at a new form of life. Grassé
denied emphatically that mutation and selection have the power to create new
complex organs or body plans, explaining that the intra-species variation that
results from DNA copying errors is mere fluctuation, which never leads to any
important innovation. Dobzhansky's famous work with fruitflies was a case in
point. According to Grassé,
The genic differences noted between separate populations of the same
species that are so often presented as evidence of ongoing evolution are,
above all, a case of the adjustment of a population to its habitat and of the
effects of genetic drift. The fruitfly (drosophila melanogaster), the favorite
pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotropical, urban, and
rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since
the remotest times.(2)
Grassé insisted that the defining quality of life is the intelligence encoded in its
biochemical systems, an intelligence that cannot be understood solely in terms of
its material embodiment. The minerals which form a great cathedral do not differ
essentially from the same materials in the rocks and quarries of the world; the
difference is man's intelligence, which adapted them for a given purpose. Similarly,
any living being possesses an enormous amount of "intelligence," very much more
than is necessary to build the most magnificent of cathedrals. Today, this
"intelligence" is called information, but it is still the same thing. It is not
programmed as in a computer, but rather it is condensed on a molecular scale in
the chromosomal DNA or in that of every other organelle in each cell. This
"intelligence" is the sine qua non of life. Where does it come from?... This is a
problem that concerns both biologists and philosophers, and, at present, science
seems incapable of solving it.... If to determine the origin of information in a
computer is not a false problem, why should the search for the information
contained in cellular nuclei be one?(3)
Grassé argued that the Darwinists who dominate evolutionary biology have failed,
due to their uncompromising commitment to materialism, to define properly the
problem they were trying to solve. The real problem of evolution is to account for
the origin of new genetic information, and it is not solved by providing illustrations
of the acknowledged capacity of an existing genotype to vary within limits.
Darwinists had imposed upon evolutionary theory the dogmatic proposition that
variation and innovative evolution are the same process, and then had employed a
systematic bias in the interpretation of evidence to support the dogma. Here are
some representative judgments from Grassé's introductory chapter:
Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded
extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created..... Biochemists and biologists
who adhere blindly to the Darwinist theory search for results that will be in
agreement with their theories.... Assuming that the Darwinian hypothesis is correct,
they interpret fossil data according to it; it is only logical that [the data] should
confirm it; the premises imply the conclusions.... The deceit is sometimes
unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism,
purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the
falsity of their beliefs.(4)
Dobzhansky's review summarized Grassé's central thesis succinctly:
The book of Pierre P. Grassé is a frontal attack on all kinds of "Darwinism." Its
purpose is "to destroy the myth of evolution as a simple, understood, and
explained phenomenon," and to show that evolution is a mystery about which little
is, and perhaps can be, known.
Grassé was an evolutionist, but his dissent from Darwinism could hardly have been
more radical if he had been a creationist. It is not merely that he built a detailed
empirical case against the neo-Darwinian picture of evolution. At the philosophical
level, he challenged the crucial doctrine of uniformitarianism, which holds that
processes detectable by our present-day science were also responsible for the
great transformations that occurred in the remote past.
According to Grassé, evolving species acquire a new store of genetic information
through "a phenomenon whose equivalent cannot be seen in the creatures living at
the present time (either because it is not there or because we are unable to see
it)."(5) Grassé acknowledged that such speculation "arouses the suspicions of
many biologists... [because] it conjures up visions of the ghost of vitalism or of
some mystical power which guides the destiny of living things...." He defended
himself from these charges by arguing that the evidence of genetics, zoology, and
paleontology refutes the Darwinian theory that random mutation and natural
selection were important sources of evolutionary innovation. Given the state of the
empirical evidence, to acknowledge the existence of some as yet undiscovered
orienting force that guided evolution was merely to face the facts. Grassé even
turned the charges of mysticism against his opponents, commenting sarcastically
that nothing could be more mystical than the Darwinian view that "nature acts
blindly, unintelligently, but by an infinitely benevolent good fortune builds
mechanisms so intricate that we have not even finished with analysis of their
structure and have not the slightest insight of the physical principles and functioning
of some of them."(6)<