Phi Beta Cons

No Dodging on Darwin

New York Times editor Bill Keller proposes that presidential candidates be asked, among other things, “What is your attitude toward the theory of evolution, and do you believe it should be taught in public schools?” This needn’t stump anyone who questions Darwin.

A candidate could say that the scientific community has formed a consensus about Darwinian or neo-Darwinian evolution, and so it should be taught where appropriate. But the questions about it should also be taught, and selections from the work of, say, David Berlinski could also be part of the lesson. It should be made clear to students that Darwinian evolution has absolutely no scientific answer to the origin of life, or any scientific explanation of man’s intelligence, creativity, autonomy, reflectiveness, free will, moral sense, self-consciousness, and so on — in other words everything that makes us human beyond our biological makeup. Students should be encouraged to recognize the vast difference between humanity on the one hand and our cousins, the other apes and primates, on the other, and to understand that the gap remains unexplained. And the teacher should be sure to mark the distinction between the hypotheses evolutionary biologists proffer to explain these things as opposed to actual scientific proof of them. 

Most Popular

Immigration

Angela Rye Knows You’re Racist

The political philosopher Michael Oakeshott said that the “rationalist” is hopelessly lost in ideology, captivated by the world of self-contained coherence he has woven from strands of human experience. He concocts a narrative about narratives, a story about stories, and adheres to the “large outline which ... Read More
Immigration

What the Viral Border-Patrol Video Leaves Out

In an attempt to justify Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s absurd comparison of American detention facilities to Holocaust-era concentration camps, many figures within the media have shared a viral video clip of a legal hearing in which a Department of Justice attorney debates a panel of judges as to what constitutes ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Pro-Abortion Nonsense from John Irving

The novelist has put up a lot of easy targets in his New York Times op-ed. I am going to take aim at six of his points, starting with his strongest one. First: Irving asserts that abortion was legal in our country from Puritan times until the 1840s, at least before “quickening.” That’s an overstatement. ... Read More