DARWIN’S ILLUSION

SUBMITTED BY: DENNIS B. LINTHICUM

NOVEMBER 27, 2007

Introduction

Two children were dancing across the front lawn. They were ecstatic at the news. Mom

had just purchased tickets to see an Illusionist, who was going to do amazing ‘magic.’ Now,

these two happy dancers had no idea what an Illusionist was, but ‘magic’ certainly had its appeal.

Mom insisted that this wasn’t really a ‘magic’ show, and that this man, the Illusionist, would

simply have it appear that what he accomplished he really did accomplish. The children were

excited regardless of any shenanigans that might occur.

Part of the intrigue for the children was the anticipation of the event. This was going to be

exciting. Both kids studied the flyer, wondering, “How is this man going to accomplish these

various feats?” They would see a lady floating through the hula-hoop; could he defy gravity?

Could he escape the chains, the rope, and the straightjacket? The brochure ensured everyone that

he could. Mom continued to remind them—it would be trickery— but the kids couldn’t wait.

In a Natural History article, Richard Dawkins used the phrase illusion as a criticism of the

Intelligent Design perspective. Dawkins wrote:

Charles Darwin… discovered a way in which the unaided laws of

physics—the laws according to which things “just happen”—could, in the fullness
of geologic time, come to mimic deliberate design. The illusion of design is so
successful that to this day most Americans (including, significantly, many
influential and rich Americans) stubbornly refuse to believe it is an illusion. To
such people, if a heart (or an eye or a bacterial flagellum) looks designed, that’s
proof enough that it is designed.1

I think that Dawkins is wrong. Intelligent Design holds a stronger position. The scientific story

of macroevolution is the real myth. It survives and spreads only by means of artful illusion.

I will identify several specific patterns needed by the Illusionist to promote a successful

production. This paper will carefully consider these patterns as they relate to the common mass-

1
Natural History Magazine, Inc., all rights reserved, Copyright © 2005. (Accessed: 23 Nov 2007)
< http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/1105/1105_feature1.html>
media presentations of macroevolution. These methods are notably present in all major media

presentations on the subject, as well as, most major textbooks in grade school, middle school,

and high school, including university and graduate level course material.

Defining the Scene

An Illusionist depends upon several distinct and identifiable strategies for creating a

successful presentation and ensuring a continuing performance schedule. These include:

1) Successful Promotion
a) Generating Audience Expectations
2) Array of dazzling Props/Images
3) Sleight-of-hand/Distraction
4) Public Relations Follow-up/Encore
a) Promoting Audience Amazement
b) Generating Respect for the Performer

1) Successful Promotion

First, successful promotion is the key to the long-term viability for the performer. The

promotional material does not have to be true, it only needs to generate excitement, interest, and

a sense of be newsworthiness. Each of these characteristics exists in all levels of scientific

endeavor—especially in the research arena for Darwinian evolution. The November 2004 issue

of National Geographic Magazine has a cover that is a perfect illustration. The cover article

asked a question that appeared to provide the stage for a profoundly serious inquiry, “Was

Darwin Wrong?”2 Yet, as the story behind the cover unfolds, the question was pure rhetoric.

However, the promotional goal was achieved. This issue, along with countless others,

generated interest, promoted the excitement of the discoveries, and appeared entirely

2
National Geographic Society, all rights reserved, Copyright © 2004. (Accessed: 23 Nov 2007)
< http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/index.html>
newsworthy. Yet, as this analysis continues, I will show that this article, along with others, is

missing a key requirement of trust worthy news—unbiased objectivity.

2) Array of Dazzling Props/Images

Dazzling photographs, artistic images and extraordinary video footage is the second

element that lends credence to both our Illusionist performer and the amazing story of

macroevolution. The real strength in using drawings, photographs, and video, is that a simple

narration appears to be describing the scene. Yet, our minds have a built in method for

categorizing information based upon presuppositions, and expectations. This provides a

powerful opportunity to—lead the witness.

Leading the witness is a phrase used to describe how an attorney might entice an

individual to give an answer that agrees with details stated in the question. The subtle problem

here is that the witness does not provide the court with eyewitness details. Rather the attorney

provided the details, in his leading question. The court’s purpose, to determine the truth via

eyewitness testimony, would constantly be in jeopardy if this tactic were not prohibited. The

problem that the court system addresses does not receive its due attention in the development of

news and media-magazines, or in textbook development.

“A picture is worth a thousand words,” is a powerful conceptual ally in the efforts of a

public relations endeavor. The narrator can set the context, provide perspective and control the

direction for the typical thought patterns of an intellectually diverse audience. The audience,

unsuspecting of any political or commercial manipulation, concentrates on the images. The

audience is not fully cognizant of the propaganda, its truth or validity, or the degree that he, or

she, has been influenced.

 Herbert Schlossberg describes the key element required for bypassing critical thinking

skills. That element is the use of assumptions rather than arguments, or facts.

Assumptions, in fact, are more powerful than assertions, because they

bypass the critical faculty and thereby create prejudice… A false assumption can
be combined with an unassailable argument, which then proves the truth of what
is false. The false assumption is additionally beguiling because it often appeals to
one of the worst instincts—the desire to be fashionable or at least to avoid being
associated with the unfashionable or unpopular.3

This method for influencing perspectives is very powerful when combined with artistic imagery.

“Understanding transcends mere content awareness. Understanding is the faculty of

comprehension. When you understand something, it makes sense to you; you see its connections

and implications.”4

This illustration (Figure 1.), from a Wired

Magazine article, The Crusade Against Evolution,

does not require evidential justification; it simply

represents an artistic rendition.5 Nonetheless, it

draws the observer along a path, creating

connections, and implications that are not

scientifically justified. The vast majority of

information absorbed by students in a high school

Figure 1.
science class comes from impressive artistic “Teach the Controversy,” by Kenn Brown © 2004

portrayals in the typical textbook, or from the beautiful photographs in magazines like the

National Geographic.

3
Herbert Schlossberg, Idols for Destruction, (Crossway Books, Wheaton, IL) 1990 p. 210
4
Winfried Corduan, Philosophia Christi, (La Mirada, CA) 2001, Series 2, Vol. 3, No. 1, p. 213
5
Evan Ratliff, The Crusade Against Evolution, Wired Magazine, Oct 2004, p. 154-203
3) Sleight-of-hand/Distraction

The Illusionist purposefully distracts the observer while executing this technique

flawlessly. The observer does not realize, that she did not see what actually happened, but she

only saw what she thought happened. Again, this is closely associated with leading the witness.

The goal is to prevent the casual observer (student) from thinking “outside of the box.” In

science, this sleight-of-hand is not specifically oriented toward deceit, but is more associated

with the drawing of unjustified conclusions. In philosophical terms, these conclusions are hasty

generalizations or compositional errors; where first, the sample is too small to support the

inductive generalizations, or second, the attributes that exist for the parts do not support the

whole.

An outstanding illustration comes from Time Magazine, Face-Off: Darwinians vs. Anti-

Darwinians, August 15, 2005. The Intelligent Design perspective for the development of the eye

includes the following, “How could a process of gradual improvements produce a complex organ

that needs all its parts—pinhole, lens, light-sensitive surface—in order to work? It is no

accident.”6 Granted, Michael Behe’s pointed question does not provide any empirical evidence,

but he does raise legitimate inquiries.

The article continues with an evolutionist giving a response, “Nonsense, say biologists.

It’s easy to imagine how a random mutation might have produced a patch of light-sensitive cells

that helped a primitive creature tell day from night. You can also imagine how another mutation

might have bent this patch of cells into a concave shape that could detect the direction a light or

shadow was coming from—helping creatures with the mutation stay clear of predators.”7

6
Claudia Wallis, The Evolution Wars, Time Magazine, August 15, 2005, p. 30
7
Ibid.
 Notice that the evolutionary perspective does not contain any empirical evidence either.

It relies on a leap into the realm of our

imaginations. The phrase “imagine” has no

scientific merit, but in this news article it is used

as fact, instead of empirical data. Worse, if one

could easily imagine how something “might

occur,” it is just as easy to imagine how

something “might not occur.” Where does this

equivocation between evolutionary science and

imagination lead the casual reader?

Figure 2.
Unfortunately, the reader draws unjustified Time Magazine © 2005, all rights reserved.

conclusions based upon the constant populist appeal for evolution, combined with an array of

impressive images that are strategically included with the article (Figure 2.)

Additionally, title of this article is biased: Face-Off: Darwinians vs. Anti-Darwinians.

There is an inherent slant against the Intelligent Design position. Those individuals who adhere

to design concept are ‘Anti-Darwinians’, not scientific investigators pursuing an alternative

paradigm. Additional prejudice surfaces on the cover to this issue of Time Magazine as the

description for the problem is identified as, “The push to teach ‘intelligent design.’”8 This lack of

objectivity does not promote serious thought for the appropriate justification of various scientific

perspectives, but instead, encourages an irrational response.

This sleight-of-hand tactic is pervasive in pro-macroevolutionary literature. The

following excerpt regarding insect pollination is from the November 2004 issue of National

Geographic:
8
Ibid.
 One species that caught Darwin’s eye was the Madagascar Orchid
Angraecum sesquipedale, with its 11-inch long nectar receptacle. Darwin
predicted that somewhere in Madagascar, a place he had never visited, must live a
moth with a proboscis 11 inches long, adapted to harvest the orchid’s nectar.
Forty years later two entomologists revealed the Madagascan sphinx moth
Xanthopan morganii praedicta, confirming Darwin’s forecast. Such mutual
adaptation—the moth to the flower, the flower to the moth—is called coevolution.

This article’s conclusion is entirely unwarranted. There is no scientific justification for

labeling these observations as coevolution. The intelligent design enthusiast could have easily

made a similar prediction—after finding an orchid with an 11-inch nectar receptacle, he could

predict the discovery of a moth that was designed to harvest the orchid’s nectar receptacle. Later,

when the sphinx moth is discovered, is the designer’s position now proven?

This article is also accompanied with exquisite photographs adding visual weight to the

effective distraction.9 Another frequently used technique is also present in this excerpt. The

technique is to provide details to the reader that promotes misdirection through the use of

irrelevant minutiae. Here, the reader is distracted by the use of the scientific genus and specie.

The inclusion of the Latin scientific nomenclature lends credence to the factual basis for this

‘scientific discovery,’ yet the underlying assumption is not proven by the accuracy of the facts.

This distraction is so pervasive that David Griffin, a professor of the philosophy of

religion, at Claremont College decided to track down the various ‘scientific claims.’ He

confesses, in Religion and Scientific Naturalism:

There are… evolutionists who have described how the transitions in

question could have occurred. When I ask in which books can I find these
discussions, however, I either get no answer or else some titles that, upon
examination, do not in fact contain the promised accounts. That such accounts
exist seems to be something that is widely known, but I have yet to encounter
someone who knows where they exist.10

9
National Geographic Society, Op. Cit. referring to Robert Clark Photography (Brooklyn, NY, 2007)
< http://www.robertclarkphoto.com/> Category: Things (Accessed: 23 Nov 2007)
10
William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution, (InterVarsity Press, Sownerss Grove, IL 2004), p. 215
Refering to David R. Griffin, Religion and Scientific Naturalism, (Oxford University Press, 1998)
 Richard Dawkins is continually using this same tactic, promoting hasty generalizations

instead of empirical evidence. Dawkins is one of the most prolific supporters of the

macroevolutionary perspective. He has written several books promoting the acceptance of the

concept that gradual, small changes in an organism will amount to astronomically large changes

over time. In Climbing Mount Improbable, Dawkins provides volumes of scientific information.

He continually names genus and specie. He provides appropriate credit to the scientists who are

doing the actual work. He promotes a wide variety of academic institutions; crossing numerous

fields of scientific endeavor, yet, he continual relies on conjecture.

A specific example comes from Climbing Mount Improbable, in Chapter 5 – The Forty

Fold Path to Enlightenment:

Two photocells capture more photons than one. Three capture more than two, and
so on up the slope of Mount Improbable. Advanced eyes like ours have millions
of photocells densely packed like pile in a carpet, and each one of them is set up
to capture as many photons as possible…[A human photocell] has an elegant
array of membranes, lined up with military precision… I count ninety-one layers
of membrane…The point is that ninety-one membranes are more effective in
stopping photons than ninety, ninety are more effective than eighty-nine, and so
on back to one membrane, which is more effective than zero. This is the kind of
thing I mean when I say that there is a smooth gradient up Mount Improbable.11

For the casual reader, his empirical data is beautiful and the drawing in the text illustrates an

enormous amount of detail. However, his logical analysis—one is better than none, and millions

are the best of all— does not provide any empirical support for the claim that the modern eye is

the result of a series of complicated changes that occurred over enormous amounts of time.

William Dembski summarizes the problem posed by this dilemma; “Darwinism has a

burden of proof that intelligent design does not have. Darwinism is a theory of process and

11
Richard Dawkins, Climbing Mount Improbable, (W.W. Norton & Co., New York, NY, 1996), p 144-145
therefore needs to provide convincing evidence that the processes it describes are able to bear the

weight placed on them.”12

Just like those in attendance at our Illusionist’s presentation, people don’t know how the

‘magic’ happened, but they are pretty certain they witnessed something unique. There is

however, residual skepticism about what the Illusionist is claiming. People feel that they might

have been tricked. In the evolutionary debate, the same skepticism prevails. A CBS News public

opinion survey indicates most respondents do not accept the theory of evolution:

The telephone poll conducted Oct. 3-5 [2005] suggests 51 percent of those
asked believe God created humans in their present form. Three in 10 believed
while humans evolved, that God guided the process, and 15 percent said humans
evolved independently.”13

4) Public Relations Follow-up/Encore

The pro-Darwinian constituents are faced with an enormous problem—How do you get

people to cast aside their skepticism, their tough questions and their constant demands for

empirical evidence? The final push is a public relations strategy. It is very similar to our

imaginary Illusionist performer engaging in a follow-up public relations effort and encore

presentation to secure admiration from the audience. It encompasses the need to generate respect

for the scientists, while creating disrespect for those in opposition. This strategy closely follows

Schlossberg’s critique of the assumptions of modern public education and “the desire to be

fashionable or at least to avoid being associated with the unfashionable or unpopular.”14

This strategy is illustrated in the following Life Science report for polling data similar to

the 2005 CBS Poll. This poll was a worldwide survey and the bias is unmistakable: “A

12
William A. Dembski, Op. Cit., p. 252
13
United Press International, all rights reserved, Copyright © 2005. (Accessed: 25 Nov 2007)
< http://www.physorg.com/news7500.htm>
14
Herbert Schlossberg, Op. Cit., p. 210
comparison of peoples' views in 34 countries finds that the United States ranks near the bottom

when it comes to public acceptance of evolution. Only Turkey ranked lower.”15 In another

instance, Dawkins refers to those who question evolution’s ability to perform as the

“pseudoscientists of the school of intelligent design.”16

A Time Magazine cover story for the August 2005 issue also includes a prejudicial

account of an imagined scene following an unfavorable federal ruling in the Kitzmiller v Dover

Area School District case.17 The scene described, “strikes horror into the hearts of scientists and

science teachers across the U.S., not to mention plenty of civil libertarians. Darwin's venerable

theory is widely regarded as one of the best-supported ideas in science, the only explanation for

the diversity of life on Earth, grounded in decades of study and objective evidence.”18 As this

paper has highlighted this theory may be “widely regarded,” yet, the validity of the empirical

data is still highly questionable. Furthermore, this Time report has no direct quotes or empirical

evidence for the research that validates the author’s belief that scientists everywhere would be

horrified. This comment represents a prejudicial opinion and does not represent the unbiased,

objectivity required by a trustworthy news magazine. Yet, the objective goal—to create respect

for scientists involved in the evolutionary project—is accomplished.

15
Imaginova Corp., all rights reserved © 2007. (Accessed: 25 Nov 2007)
<http://www.livescience.com/health/060810_evo_rank.html>
16
Natural History Magazine, Op Cit.
17
For more information visit: < http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html>
18
Claudia Wallis, Op. Cit.
Conclusion

The similarities between our imaginary Illusionist and the Darwinian evolution strategy

are troublesome. The problem, of course, is not one of science. There is a fundamental problem

in the nature of our presuppositions and assumptions. Schlossberg writes:

The assumptions of modern public education concerning the nature of

man, the function of the state, the nature of truth, and so on are such as to
inculcate a set of presuppositions that can only be called religious.19

Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, apparently agrees with this

paper’s assessment that the problem is not an empirical issue; “the problem is more than one of

education—it goes deeper, and is a function of our country’s culture and history. The rejection

of evolution is not something that will be solved by throwing science at it.”20 Ms. Scott realizes

the dearth of relevant scientific data capable of overcoming the probabilities associated with the

molecules to man theorem and prefers regulatory power for enforcing evolution’s dominance.

Dawkins provides the final dogmatic reproach to those who disagree with the concept that we

are the gradual improvement, over millions of years, of random, meaningless mutations.

Dawkins creates a new word, designoid, to refer to “objects that look designed, so much so that

some people—probably, alas, most people—think they are designed. These people are wrong.”21

In conclusion, it is Dawkins who is in the minority. The supposed art of macroevolutionary

genius has caught a great number of people who will mistakenly consider Darwin’s trickery to be

an accurate portrayal of reality. It is not—it’s just an illusion.

19
Herbert Schlossberg, Op. Cit., p. 211
20
Ker Than, Imaginova Corp., all rights reserved © 2006. (Accessed: 25 Nov 2007)
< http://www.livescience.com/health/060810_evo_rank.html>
21
Richard Dawkins, Op. Cit., p. 6