Science

on

Trial
THE
CASE
FOR
EVOLUTION

By Douglas J. Futuyma
Sunderland, Massachusetts.
ISBN 0-87893-184-8

A Review: Hemis 106902

Word count- 2579 (footnotes included)
“Evolution has, by now, the status of fact.” Had this book not been so well written, this, the opening

sentence, might have seemed less bold than impertinent. But even in under three hundred pages (including

many quite superb diagrams), Futuyma attempts- and succeeds in my view- to justify his boldness on

biological, and philosophical grounds. His job is helped somewhat by the Fundamental Christians to whom

this book is primarily directed. By persistently, and erroneously claiming that evolutionary theory is not

only unscientific, but simply wrong, they have given Futuyma the excuse to write passionate and well-

informed defense not only of evolution, but of science as a whole.

Most of us are aware that a good deal of controversy surrounded evolution when presented to the world

formally by Darwin in 1859. Those Christians whose faith depended upon a literal interpretation of the bible

were presented with obvious difficulties. Seven-day creationism conflicts with evolution at the deepest level

possible. Futuyma is strict, stressing that “organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did

not”. Two logical paths were available to those theists who wished to resolve this conflict. The first was to

loosen their interpretation of the bible and endorse only an allegorical rendition of Genesis, designed to rest

comfortably with evolutionary theory. The second was to deny the existence of evolution absolutely and

instead claim that the world and all those in it were created in exact accordance with Genesis. Those who

walked down the latter path have had a difficult journey indeed. They have been forced to abandon religious

rhetoric, and talk to scientists in their own language in an attempt to expose the fallacy of evolution that

their extreme position logically implied. “Anyone who believes in Genesis as a literal description of history

must hold a world view that is entirely incompatible with the idea of evolution, not to speak of science

itself” (emphasis added). This distinction between fundamental and more ‘reasonable’ believers is an

important one. Indeed, if one is to make out (and Futuyma does) that evolution has nothing to say about

whether or not God exists, then it is imperative. He states, albeit ambiguously, that “religion is not necessary

opposed to evolution”. I was pleased to see him make this distinction early on.

ii
Futuyma begins by placing the debate in its historical context. He explains that the conflict between

evolution and creationism just is part of the long standing debate between science and religion. In terms of

the religious outcry that it spawned, he draws obvious parallels between evolutionary and astronomical

discovery. When Galileo suggested that earth revolved around the sun instead of the other way around, he

was imprisoned for heresy by fundamental believers. Time alone did not soften views; careful, respectful

explanation was needed to fully establish Galileo's model. By suggesting that “religious orthodoxy, while it

has retreated before physics and chemistry, has still not come to terms with biology”, Futuyma makes the

aims of his book quite clear. He maintains from the outset that creation science is untenable. It must have

been tempting for him to embark immediately upon a ruthless attack of it- to take constant gibes at the

creationsists expense (apparently, it would have been easy to do). However, he is disciplined enough to

refrain from this type of indulgence (at least for a while).

Several of the early chapters are devoted to a quite exquisite description the theory of behind evolution. As

might have been expected from an ‘insider’ to the field, Futuyma is able to separate evolutionary fact from

fiction in a most instructive way. He marvels at the level of social misunderstanding that surrounds

evolution and seeks to dispense of it. For example, he suggests that hindsight has proudly distorted our

impression of evolution, leading us to believe that humans were the inevitable pinnacle of evolutionary

progress towards which the whole of nature has been leaning. In fact, he says, we were just as likely or

unlikely to have evolved as any other species. “All of evolution, like all of history, seems to involve chance,

in that very little of what has happened in history was determined from the beginning...we are indeed a

product of chance in that we were not predestined, from the beginning, to come into existence”. In a manner

almost reminiscent of Sartre, he even calls into question the relative merits of consciousness; “To say that

the trend of evolution has been toward greater consciousness as exemplified by the human species, is to

ignore the thousand of lineages of plants and animals that have not evolved at all in the direction of greater

consciousness...insects and molluscs are far more “successful” and abundant than the mammals, but they

iii
show no movement towards greater consciousness.” Nevertheless, the cold and impartial forces which he

describes act on nature in an entirely uniform way- neo-darwinianism consists of an interesting symbiosis of

chance and predictability. Chapter 7 deals almost exclusively with how me might best construe this

relationship.

Although written “for the reader who has little background in biology or in science generally” some of the

mechanisms that he described were really quite intricate, requiring at times somewhat technical language.

Although Darwin’s name will remain ever synonymous with evolution, specific mechanisms of evolution

have come a long way since his time. Natural selection and mutation of course still play their part, but

alongside new and equally powerful ‘genetic drift’, and ‘punctuated equilibria’- genetic research in

particular has given rise to new and impressive sounding jargon. I did not once feel out of my depth once

though. This pays testimony more to the skills of the author than of this reader! Futuyma did more than

enough to eliminate any doubt in my mind about the validity of the evolutionary model, and I eagerly

anticipated and equally lively discussion of human evolution, the subject of chapter 5.

For the philosopher of mind, the specifics of human evolution are of paramount importance. Unfortunately,

they appear to be the most elusive too. Apparently, evolution is no more capable of capturing the attributes

of consciousness in any objective way than is any other academic discipline. Futuyma, although quite sure

that consciousness requires no special kind of explanation, has little more to offer than speculation to back

this up; “If cognition, emotion, etc. have a physical basis in the brain, which is the working assumption of

psychology, then the physical basis for cognition and consciousness could evolve, just as other physical

features do.” Has this working assumption really been accepted by psychology as a whole? A reference here

would have been helpful. At one point Futuyma is quite critical of creation scientist’s use of ‘evangelism’ in

their writing. The opposite criticism might well be levied at him. Too often do materialists presume their

position to be so self-evidently true that it needs no defense or even explanation at all. So much for

iv
Futuyma's contribution to the mind-brain debate.

Futuyma next turns his full attention to creationism. He considers two telling aspects of the creation science,

which exemplify their work. Firstly, he reflects on the manner in which their work is conducted. The picture

that he paints is, in short, quite dismal. Firstly, he examines the nature of the so-called ‘evidence’ for a

special creation. He reproduces long quotes from some of the most eminent creationsists, by way of

illustration. Invariably they consist purely of negative statements, saying more about the weaknesses of

evolution than the strengths of creationism. Futuyma says that there is no need for this. If there really are

weaknesses in evolutionary theory, then they will be exposed during the normal course of study without

need for independent criticism from creation science. Futuyma is right when he suggests that such an

approach is rarely helpful to science; criticism must be as constructive as possible. This does not mean,

however, that this approach is not entirely legitimate. Surely, one does not need to posses a theory of one’s

own in order to identify weaknesses in another's. Endless criticism of evolution may infuriate Futuyma, but

so long as creation scientists believe them to be genuine, then must be free to voice them as they please.

More seriously though, Futuyma accuses creation scientists of systematically misusing information purely

for their own advantage. “To analyse creationist literature is to scale a fortress of facts and quotations taken

from the evolutionary literature, distorted and quoted out of context, haphazardly glued into a defense

around their faith.” He charges them not only with misusing interpretations but also with actually distorting

facts to further their course. Gish (who stands amongst the most well-known creationsists) apparently

continues to claim publicly that the bombardier beetle could not possibly have evolved, despite conceding to

scientific circles that the evidence for such a claim comes solely from a mistranslated German text 1.

Appeal to emotion, Futuyma says, is the creationsists most reliable tactic. Apparently, creation science

1
Gish’s own mis-translation, by the way.

v
teaches that those who ‘believe’ in evolution have their minds clouded by Satan, and that adherence to

evolutionary ‘doctrine’ is no less than sinful. Worse still, Futuyma says, are the repeated attempts by

creation scientists to blame evolution science for “racism, Nazism, and the ethics of self-interest”. He rejects

Social-Darwinianism (as do most biologists), and says that attempts by creationsists to interweave true

evolutionary principal with such pernicious doctrine betrays “generations of evolutionists...who have

pleaded for human rights, and celebrated human diversity”.

Is it possible that Futuyma has misrepresented creation science? I felt duty-bound to dig a little deeper for

myself because the accusations that he makes are so serious; waging academic war in this way is totally

unacceptable. A creation science website2 (far higher in decoration than in content) pointed me in the

direction of some of the newer ‘research papers’ supporting special creation. Dr. Duane Gish (who Futuyma

refers to as a “tireless and glib speaker”), and Dr. Henry Morris, two culprits who feature heavily in Science

on trial, appear to possess nothing less than stardom within creationsist circles. Much of the creationist

literature relies solely on Gish and Morris for scientific credibility, and they themselves churn out work at an

astounding rate. The literature ranged from at best pseudo-scientific right through to the downright

slanderous. Probably, I submit, the kind of people who would derive the most benefit from such works are

those people whose minds were well and truly made up before they even opened them- not those prepared to

search honestly for answers.

The reason, Futuyma says, that creation scientists use such ‘ battle tactics’ is because their so-called

‘scientific evidence’ is so flimsy. A quote from Isaac Asimov (an ardent evolutionist) supports his point

well. “However much the creationist leaders might hammer away at their “scientific” and “philosophical”

points, they would be helpless and a laughing-stock if that were all they had. It is religion that recruits their

squadrons. Tens of millions of Americans, who neither know nor understand the actual arguments for- or

2
www.icr.org

vi
even against- evolution, march in the army of the night with their Bibles held high. And they are a strong

and frightening force, impervious to, and immunized against, the feeble lance of mere reason.” 3 The

catalogue of errors is long, and occupies a whole chapter of the book. I will give just one example.

Evolution’s violation ‘second law of thermodynamics’ is a standard-stock argument for creation science. It

holds that without the addition of new energy, entropy (disorder) will always increase, so that all change

must therefore be degenerative. Hence, says Gish (and many others) greater complexity could never have

evolved. However, this law does not apply universally- only to closed systems. Crucially, organisms exist in

open systems, and can therefore seize energy and use it to build greater complexity and order. Evolution

does not violate the second law of thermodynamics, says Futuyma, any more than does the photosynthesis of

plants. I found this example less trivial once I discovered just how frequently it is referred to in the creation

science literature.

If creation science is so evidently lacking in credibility, why did Futuyma devote so much time to them?

The reason that Futuyma takes the threat of creationism so seriously is that it represents part of a wider

battle; “the issue at stake is not merely whether evolution has occurred or not. It is, rather, whether science is

a reliable path to knowledge”. Futuyma suggests that it is, and explains why with authority. “Nothing in

science is ever proven,” he says “we merely achieve greater and greater confidence in the validity of our

hypotheses as more and more data support or fail to refute them”. Futuyma’s grasp of scientific principal is

obvious and by no means merely rhetorical4; Science on trial smacks of good scientific practice. He never

missed the opportunity to make the wider point- to take a small piece of evidence, and to fit it into the

bigger picture. His methodology was as clear, and the ‘model  prediction testing revision of model’

routine was as well observed as it should have been.

33
At times, I got the distinct impression that in part, this is a contest in which the Asimovs of the world actually enjoy
participating. Futuyma himself is sometimes serious, sometimes sarcastic, but always animated in his discussion.
4
It is certainly possible to understand principal without actually fulfilling it, as is all too often demonstrated by man’s disregard
for moral standards.

vii
Futuyma, is prepared to go further than most in his defense of science in a most interesting way. Just as

George Kelly5 maintained that all people are scientists, Futuyma reminds us that all scientists are people.

“The spectrum of scientists, as of any other group of people, runs from the brilliant to the fairly stupid”. He

goes on; “almost every scientist has made more than one asinine statement in the course of his or her career,

and some make them habitually”. Scientists though, motivated more by reputation than by truth, make it

their interest to scrutinize the work of their peers. The best way to get one’s name known, he suggests, is to

demolish someone else’s theory, and better still provide a superior one in its place. Of this I am quite

sceptical. I do agree that scientists can be just as selfish and immoral as the rest of us, but is science really

better off as a result? Does truth necessarily arise from such corruption? I suspect that this argument owes

more to wishful thinking than it does to any philosophy of human nature. I do believe that Futuyma is right

to talk of science as a “self-correcting process”, but not on these grounds.

Science on trial is not just a book about evolution, anymore than it is just a philosophical defense of science.

It is both, and this is why it works so well. One of Futuyma's most endearing qualities is his ability to talk

of the micro (evolution) and the macro (science) in the same breath. Philosophers often resort to somewhat

arbitrary analogy with which to illustrate their arguments. Futuyma was able to keep things more relevant,

which made the book innately self-contained. I was quite surprised that he did not conclude by describing

science itself as the evolving animal, and of creation science as a beast destined for extinction. He no doubt

thought that the case had been argued well enough without such cheap analogy. No doubt he was right.

5
Of ‘Personal Construct Theory’ fame

viii