Whatever standard of evidence neo-Darwinists apply to their own theories, they should also apply externally and consistently to other competing propositions and to the evidence as a whole.

“If people think God is interesting, the onus is on them to show that there is anything there to talk about. Otherwise they should just shut up about it.”
— Richard Dawkins

I hesitate to take my time to answer anything that comes out of Richard Dawkins’ mouth.  First, he is such a high-profile person that probably nearly every intelligent rejoinder that can be made has been, and several times over.  Secondly, most of his statements — at least his more famous ones — are of a sort that don’t bear refuting.  Like the quote above, they are mainly insults instead of reasoned arguments.

However, having recently seen the excellent movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, I could not help but notice a common theme amongst the various Darwinists, one that is epitomized by this Dawkins quotation.  Neo-Darwinists (NDs) insist that the burden of proof is on Intelligent Design (ID) advocates to show “that there is anything to talk about.” The implication is that if there actually was evidence to back ID up, then the open-minded Darwinians would be happy to pay attention.  Since there apparently isn’t anything forthcoming, though, they expect people to “just shut up” about ID.

The issue here isn’t so much in what the NDs say, but in what they don’t say. They lead their listeners to make certain assumptions on implied grounds.  So, while they give the appearance of the essence of intellectual virtue, they are in fact stacking the proverbial deck in a very unscientific way by creating artificial standards of evidence for ID and then failing to subject their own theories to similar scrutiny.  The result is a drive-thru epistemology where science is defined primarily by what NDs personally want to be true.

The first assumption NDs allow is that they are appealing to objective reality, and that if ID is proven in that reality, science will accept it. In fact, NDs see themselves as the final arbiter of truth.  Whatever convinces them must, by default, be “fact” and until they are personally swayed, those with competing theories should just “shut up.” Any divergent position is universally derided as “unscientific” and “worthless.”  In this context, labels like these actually mean nothing more than “this doesn’t tickle my Neo-Darwinian fancy.” A prime example of this appeared in Expelled, when Dawkins expressed a willingness to accept evidence of cellular intelligent design if it came from aliens, but not if it implied that God existed. While there is manifestly less proof to support the idea of extra-terrestrial life than a supernatural God, the general concept at least fits in with Dawkins’s naturalistic biases, and so he finds it acceptable.  Evidence has nothing to do with it. 

The second assumption is that NDs have a real standard of evidence in mind and, if ID could meet it, they would allow ID into the hallowed realm of science. Asking that ID provide proof of course implies this, and the NDs’ apparent openness suggests that they will actually give the evidence a fair hearing.  Intentionally and notably absent from most of these statements is any indication of how much or what kind of data would be “sufficient” to convince them. The straightforward answer is that for most NDs, no amount of proof could ever be enough because their main objection to ID has nothing to do with reason, logic, or facts.  They are opposed to ID on emotional/worldview grounds; the trappings of scientism are often nothing more than an emotional crutch: Vox Day called Sam Harris’ book The End of Faith “a profoundly non-scientific expression of hope wrapped up in an emotional plea.” In fact, Dawkins’s willingness to admit that ID evidence did exist if it was not attributed to God shows how far he is willing to go, so long as religion and the supernatural are left out of the picture.

As C. S. Lewis pointed out in the beginning of Miracles, before we can begin a discussion of whether a particular miracle has occurred, we must settle the question of whether miracles can occur. If we do not accept that a miracle is even possible, no amount of evidence could ever convince us that any particular miraculous event took place. NDs are in a similar boat. They can confidently assert that they would be willing to admit ID was science if the proofs were there, since their assumptions have set such an artificially high standard that no amount of evidence for ID will ever be enough. 

Taken together, these two points are self-evidently wrongheaded, but are also illustrative. 

The idea that I have to convince Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens or any particular class of people of a premise before a statement or idea magically becomes “scientific” is clearly erroneous.  Reality continues on whether or not I (or anyone else) choose to satiate their particular prejudices, just as the earth kept revolving around the sun while Galileo faced the wrath of the church. It is a testament to ND arrogance, however, that they see themselves as the exclusive gate-keepers of scientific objectivity.  Since ND itself is part of the “definition” of science, NDs can make what amount to arbitrary judgments, such as the ones we see above, while simultaneously giving their own theory a break on sticky points, as we’ll see below.

Regarding whether there could ever be enough evidence behind ID to qualify it as legitimate science, we must remember an aspect of the scientific method itself. In order for a question to be genuinely interrogative (i.e. “Is there sufficient evidence to prove ID as a viable hypothesis?”), it must be open-ended to some extent. In other words, we must be able to answer it honestly. To simply presume the answer ahead of time and then use this “answer” to evaluate the evidence is not only counterproductive, it is intellectually dishonest. In this way, NDs conveniently overlook various limitations in their own theory and application: How does experimental science prove or disprove a specific creation method for the universe, given that the laws that govern science only came into existence after the initial creation moment? Why are they not willing to allow that other intelligent people should be permitted to hold to a position that critiques Neo-Darwinism from a profoundly different perspective, when NDs can question anything they like? Where are the millions of transitional fossils we’ve been told to expect for over a century?

Whatever standard of evidence NDs apply to their own theories they should also apply externally and consistently to other competing propositions and to the evidence as a whole.  Any criticisms they level at other premises they should also apply to their own.  In the end, a “scientific theory” or “method” that is merely internally coherent is of no more practical explanatory use than Star Trek’s “Heisenberg Compensator” or “Warp Drive.”