Immersed In Red

by Mike Shotwell

  After the dust had settled some fifteen years later, Dr. Johanson commented in National Geographic magazine (March, 1996), “It is hard for me now to admit how tangled in that thicket I was. But the insidious thing about bias is that it does make one deaf to the cries of other evidence.” In the same publication, Johanson also admitted that “Lucy has recently been dethroned.”

  Even since the unearthing of Lucy in 1974 and new archeological findings over the intervening period, the same problem exists that plagued Darwin, namely the paucity of physical evidence to document his theory. Dr. Richard Leakey, former chairman of the Kenya Wildlife Service, and a second-generation member of one of the world’s foremost families in the field of paleontology, archeology, and anthropology, reported the reality of this situation in his 1978 book, People of the Lake.

  If someone went to the trouble of collecting together into one room all of the fossil remains so far discovered of our ancestors (and their biological relatives) who lived, say, between 5 and 1 million years ago, he would need only a couple of large trestle tables on which to spread them out. And if that were not bad enough, a not unusually commodious shoebox would be more than sufficient to accommodate the hominid fossil finds of between 15 and 6 million years ago.

  Through the years, Leakey has added many comments regarding this persistent gap in the fossil record, such as the following contained in his 1981 book, The Making of Mankind, all the while maintaining his faith in evolution. Notice his use of the word “hope.”

  Biologists would dearly like to know how modern apes, modern humans and the various ancestral hominids have evolved from a common ancestor. Unfortunately, the fossil record is somewhat incomplete as far as the hominids are concerned, and it is all but blank for the apes. The best we can hope for is that more fossils will be found over the next few years which will fill the present gaps in the evidence.

  As I have been researching this field of evolution science, I keep returning to the world of forensics I was involved with for so many years and the fact-finding that is so critical to the outcome of legal cases. Physical evidence plays a large role in determining what aspects of a building were incorrectly constructed. “Destructive testing,” the process of opening up areas of a structure that have shown signs of failure, allows us to see the sequence of the construction. Detailed photography, and in some instances taking samples of building materials, provides the documentation needed to tell the story of what went wrong and why.

  Relating this to the science of evolution, we find the “theory” having morphed into accepted “fact,” with very little physical evidence to support it. Gaps are often filled in with speculation of how a species “might” have lived, or how “adaptation” “probably” came about due to X, Y or Z.

  In my experience in the courtroom, experts who rely on conjecture and subjective reasoning at the expense of concrete evidence, will easily be disregarded by judges and juries looking for the truth of what actually occurred on a project. And while expert testimony and opinion can be considered evidence, there are judicial requirements which state that, “the expert’s technique or theory can be or has been tested—that is, whether the expert’s theory can be challenged in some objective sense, or whether it is instead simply a subjective, conclusory approach that cannot reasonably be assessed for reliability.” (Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 702)

  My example from the courtroom is echoed by David Pilbeam, Harvard professor and curator of paleoanthropology at the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, with his statement that appears in Leakey’s The Making of Mankind, “If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we’ve got he’d surely say, ‘forget it; there isn’t enough to go on.’ Leakey added his opinion, “Neither David nor others involved in the search for mankind can take this advice, of course, but we remain fully aware of the dangers of drawing conclusions from the evidence that is so incomplete.”

  The fossils being found are definitely factual in their own right, worthy of display, scientific study, and even speculation with regard to their relevant connection with modern Homo sapiens. But when these speculations and broad conjectures suddenly become a form of settled science, without dissent, and are authoritatively published in textbooks, as well as the basis for vast museum exhibits and other forms of public education, something has gone awry. It is instructive to recall Dr. Leakey’s two “large trestle tables,” and one “not unusually commodious shoe box” of physical findings, even though, to be generous, today we might be able to add a table or two.

  * * *

  CHAPTER 16

  MARXISM AND MODERN EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE

  Among leading members of the scientific community over the past few decades, there are those who have freely confessed that they have a need to believe in the concept of evolution beyond any demonstration of fact or conventional scientific method of analysis.

  These people are said to be employing an a priori approach (formed or conceived beforehand), which in regard to science is potentially limiting and prone to false conclusions.

  If, for instance, one was to introduce a political ideology into their scientific investigations, such as King John’s version of feudalism, a sixteenth-century Japanese war lord’s interpretation of governance, American Indian tribal politics, or John Rockefeller’s version of capitalism, one might reasonably recognize the resulting theories as being more philosophical than scientific. At the very least, it would raise serious questions for a sensible person, let alone an impartial scientist. For example, I have strong doubts that Einstein employed politics in his development of the theory of relativity, or that Louis Pasteur did the same in his development of the small pox vaccine.

  A perfect example of this a priori approach to scientific investigation is the work Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge and the mixing of their theory of evolution with their leftist politics, militant atheism and “radical science.”

  With Darwinian theory being seen as a significant foundational ingredient offering a scientific validation of Marxism, the inconvenience of a lacking paleontological record, in order to sustain the theory presented an untenable obstacle.

  In 1972, as a response to this dilemma, Gould and Eldredge put forth a new theory that sought to be an answer to the missing transitional fossil record. Not surprisingly, the inspiration for the new theory came from Hegel and Marx, and was called “Punctuated Equilibrium.” This new Marxian theory bypassed the Darwinian concept of slow change, and postulated that long periods of equilibrium in life forms were jarred by world-wide catastrophes or unknown cataclysmic events, in line with Marx’s concept of revolutionary upheaval. After these convulsions, the natural dialectic of thesis, anti-thesis and synthesis in nature would foster entirely new species that would reign until the next event.

  Gould was very proud that his theory coincided with a Marxist interpretation of societal evolution, as he clearly explained,

  Alternative conceptions of change have respectable pedigrees in philosophy. Hegel’s dialectical laws, translated into a materialist context, have become the official ‘state philosophy’ of many socialist nations (Russia, China and others). These laws of change are explicitly punctuational, as befits a theory of revolutionary transformation in human society. In light of this official philosophy, it is not at all surprising that a punctuational view of speciation, much like our own, but devoid (so far as we can tell) of references to synthetic evolutionary theory and the allopatric model (when species become isolated), has long been favored by many Russian paleontologists. It may also not be irrelevant to our personal preferences that one of us [Gould] learned his Marxism, literally, at his daddy’s knee.

  Needless to say, this new theory invigorated leftist-oriented scientists who were growing uncomfortable with the deficiencies of Darwin’s original theories. But even now, almost a half-century after Gould’s and Eldridge’s answer to the aforementioned problem, the same paleontological issues exist that Darwin faced.
Surely evidence of some form of transition in the fossils of macro species resulting from these upheavals must exist. Alas, it does not.

  Instead, this new general theory bypassed the fossil record, offering an elaborate construct that included the miraculous appearance of new species, which either sped up or even bypassed the evolutionary cycle. The theory relies more heavily on conjecture than scientific evidence. This is inevitable when attempting to meld Marxist political philosophy with science, an impossible and undesirable task. Still, leftist scientists continue the exercise.

  I recently came across an American Indian proverb which says “If you notice that the horse you are riding is dead, you should dismount.” Gould dismounted the dead evolutionary horse, but climbed onto a second expired steed by the name of Marx.

  Gould had strong opposition including British Darwinist, John Maynard Smith, who had little positive to say about the man’s ideas. “The evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed his (Gould’s) ideas tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who should not be publicly criticized because he is at least on our side against the creationists.”

  In addition, noted journalist and author Robert Wright, Richard Dawkins, and E. O. Wilson, were involved in the development of an opposing theory entitled “Sociobiology,” which developed an elaborate theory explaining human morality within a Darwinian framework. However, this was in direct opposition to Darwin’s (and Gould’s) theory of pitiless, purposeless natural selection, as the only reality. This conflict illustrates the scientific warfare that is still underway between the various theorist camps.

  Wright’s statement about Gould was, “Among top-flight evolutionary biologists, Gould is considered a pest – not just a light weight, but an actively muddled man who has warped the public understanding of Darwinism.”

  Gould, who died in 2002, was legendary not only for his admirable prose, but also for his ability to claw his way to the top of the scientific community; and this was despite his theories having been met with great resistance. But he was a great self-promoter, and his methods worked. As a result, the proud Marxist and militant atheist became the acknowledged spokesperson for the scientific community in regard to evolution, taking joy in scalding ID proponents from his Harvard pulpit, and anyone else who challenged his viewpoints.

  The Socialist publication Solidarity published an extensive biography on Gould, not only describing his left political biases, but also his involvement with the militant Marxist group “Science for the People.” Their periodic magazine of the same name gave voice to their leftist agenda for science. Gould was also on the advisory boards of the journal Rethinking Marxism, and the Brecht Forum, sponsor of the New York Marxist School.

  Over the years Gould began to push the outer limits of “science,” mixing philosophy with political ideology. This school of thought was described as “Evolutionary Biology,” which delved deeply into the social aspects of civilization and away from a strict application of science. With supreme confidence in his reputation as a leading scientific figure, Gould apparently came to believe that he could decide which factors warranted a place in his research and which could simply be discarded, thereby creating his own field of study free of conventional restraints.

  Here he describes his new philosophy,

  Science is no inexorable march to truth, mediated by the collection of objective information and the destruction of ancient superstition. Scientists, as ordinary human beings, unconsciously reflect in their theories the social and political constraints of their times. As privileged members of society, more often than not they (scientists) end up defending existing social arrangements as biologically foreordained (biological determinism) [emphasis added].

  Here, he states the startling belief that scientific exploration does not have to be reconciled with either facts or religious interference (ancient superstitions). One could perhaps argue the latter, but not the former. Objective information (facts) is the foundation of truth. Subjective arguments, however, frequently and unfortunately, invade the domain of evolutionary scientists. If objective information can be ignored or discarded with this “scientific” approach, what is left?

  But Gould wasn’t finished yet. In a 1997 essay for Natural History magazine, entitled “Non-Overlapping Magisteria” (NOMA), and later in his book Rock of Ages (1999), Gould put forward what he characterized as “a blessedly simple and entirely conventional resolution to the supposed conflict … between science and religion.” As described in American Scientist, June, 1999,

  It was a simple, humane, rational, and altogether conventional argument for mutual respect, based on non-overlapping subject matter, between two components of wisdom in a full human life: our drive to understand the factual character of nature (the magisterium of science) and our need to define meaning in our lives and a moral basis for our actions (the magisterium of religion).

  Despite the earmarks of an honest attempt to promote respect and harmony between science and religion, it was in truth a distinct separating of the two, with religion being relegated to its own “box.” The additional goal was to remove an obstacle which many scientists felt was blocking the path to truth, namely “creation science” and its companion the study of intelligent design.

  Expanding on his “magnanimous” stance toward religion, Gould was quoted in 1999 with the following. “I am not, personally, a believer or a religious man in any sense of institutional commitment or practice. But I have great respect for religion, and the subject has always fascinated me, beyond almost all others (with a few exceptions, like evolution and paleontology).”

  One has to wonder what his “respect” and “fascination” with religion meant to him when he made statements such as this one for the Skeptical Inquirer, winter 1987/88. It sounds more like the impetus for the development of NOMA,

  Creation science has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it; because it is false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false. What could be more destructive … than a bill forcing our honorable teachers to sully their sacred trust by granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known as false, but calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an enterprise? [emphasis added]

  What we see in NOMA is a seemingly rational, sensible, and high-minded approach to reconciliation, with the ulterior motive of excluding and cutting off contrary opinions and beliefs, all in the name of true science. It brings to mind a similar enterprise undertaken by Orville in the 40s. He formed the innocuous-sounding Independent Voter’s League of Minnesota (the state affiliate of the National Citizens Political Action Committee) that appeared as a centrist organization of independent voters, whether liberal, conservative or progressive, who were seeking commonality. The organization, however, was yet another communist-driven front whose goal was to draw unsuspecting people from the mainstream into the influence of the left.

  The bigger issue with Gould’s non-overlapping of science and religion is how to define what would go into the religious box and what would go into the science box. I can imagine a panel of government experts having an ecumenical conference every few years deciding that issue. Would scientific studies that touch on the improbabilities presented in regard to life springing up from nothing be part of science or religion? And what of valid and growing studies regarding the age of the earth? The cries for “settled science” can be heard far and wide, to the detriment of man’s quest to continue exploring and questioning.

  The Radical Science Movement: Further affecting the world of scientific study as far back as the 30s and 40s was the development of the Radical Science Movement in England. This undertaking had its roots in the older left generation of scientists, many of whom were giants in that brotherhood and closely associated themselves with the communist scientific community in the Soviet Union and China. At the forefront of the list was the renowned J.B.S. Haldane, the leading
militant atheist scientist of his day; a man deeply involved in communist activities in the 30s, during the era of Stalin’s Great Terror. He was the editor of the Communist Party of Great Britain’s official newspaper, the Daily Worker. Other notables included Hyman Levy, British mathematician, who was a member of the Communist Party from 1931 to the mid-50s; Joseph Needham, British biochemist, who spent much of his life in China and whose biographer stated was piteously duped by his communist spymasters and agents; Lancelot Hogben, the Marxist socialist and evangelical atheist, who later switched to “Humanism;” and J. D. Bernal, molecular biologist, Marxist, and militant atheist, who joined the Communist Party in the 20s and held blind allegiance to Stalin and the Soviet Union from then on. He endorsed the Marxist “Proletarian science” of Tromfin Denisovich Lysenko, Stalin’s autocratic head of Soviet Science and genetics. Geneticists working under Lysenko’s rule who veered from this official doctrine found themselves imprisoned and many were executed for their “bourgeois science.”

  Bernal’s grotesque eulogy on the death of Stalin in 1953 is unfathomable with today’s understanding of Stalin-Soviet atrocities. His insatiable appetite for Communist propaganda had no bounds, calling Stalin, “The greatest figure of contemporary history.” He also stated that shallow Western thinkers who made accusations against Stalin were merely showing their “utter ignorance.”

  The modern Radical Science Movement was founded by Richard Lewontin, Leon Kamin and Stephen Rose whose views were cultivated during the turbulence of the 60s and 70s. All three of them were militant Marxists. The group grew to include many of the scientific luminaries of the later phase of the 20th century, and many who endorsed Gould and Eldredge’s theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. The result was that the scientific field took on a distinctly political focus; a further melding of Darwinism and Marxism.