Evolution, Creationism, and Other Modern Myths: A Critical Inquiry

Rating:
Summary: Native American creationism enters the culture war
Review: Deloria argues that any current understanding of complex science and any form of dogmatic "fundamentalism" are roughly equally flawed and that the middle path with heart is a spiritual intelligent design view. Deloria points out various of what he claims are widespread (yet supposedly hidden) assumptions of Western religion and Western science, and offers his own take on Native American folk wisdom and other traditions rather than natural selection as the universal acid that explains it all. His view is a hybrid of intelligent design creationism and catastrophism, where meaningful interventions and catastrophes reflect a spiritual dimension to nature.

Deloria shares the basic rhetorical strategy of ID, considering as a conceptual unit the biological theory of natural selection and the cultural values widely associated with evolution, such as the Victorian ideal of social progress. This is part of the widespread assumptions that Deloria is criticizing. It is this combined notion of "emergent change" Deloria seems to refer to when he talks about the "myth of evolution," which often makes his view of evolution very different from Darwin's. If this had been a 19th century treatise on cultural assumptions surrounding the acceptance of Darwin's theories, it would have some remarkable insights. However, as a critique of biology and creationism in the 21st century it seems quaint at best.

It seems ironic to me that Deloria uses Native American tradition as if it were an argument against evolution (and seemingly against natural selection), because we would expect Native Americans to be great observers of details in nature and to be likely to find similar patterns in biogeography to the ones that captured Darwin's imagination on his voyage and which tell us much of what we know of the way living things change over time.

Was there something so unique about the voyage of the Beagle and the culture of Victorian England, or were there Native Americans who also envisioned that physical nature shaped the history of living things? It would have made this book more interesting to me if Deloria had a better grasp on the biological concepts he is arguing against and had speculated a little more flexibly on the relationship of culture and scientific theory. He argues a lot about how no one seems to really understand science, yet he presents Phillip Johnson's idiosyncratic view of evolutionary biology rather than that of evolutionary biologists!

If, as Deloria seems to imply, Native Americans generally didn't find the idea of evolution congenial, then why not? Why was it so compelling in some cultures and not others? If they did, then what is it about natural selection in particular that makes it so incompatible with creationist mythologies, while other forms of evolutionary theory are more compatible?

In order to address these kinds of questions seriously, Deloria would have to make the uncomfortable distinction between the specific mechanism of natural selection and the general concept of evolutionary change, as Michael Denton did in "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis." This is a tough thing to ask because it would require him to admit that natural selection itself makes sense and has massive evidence supporting it, and that the core issue is not whether it is true ("proven") or whether it is scientific but rather how much it can explain by itself.

The basic concept of natural selection by itself doesn't explain for example where genetic or phenotypic variety comes from, the constraints on variety relevant to fitness, how heritable variation spreads in a population, what units selection acts upon, and what specifically benefits from natural selection. The relationship between natural selection and the processes of development also provide rich technical considerations.

Rather than accurately being understood as details of the evolutionary process that are all raised as a result of the scientific explanatory power of natural selection, these things are treated by Deloria (as by other creationist authors) as "Criticisms of the theory of evolution" that supposedly strengthen some non-evolutionary alternative theory.

The central argument has little new to commend it, it is a minor variation of the usual form of reasoning you can glean from any previous intelligent design discussion: that (1) "evolution" is a widespread myth accepted for cultural reasons rather than on its scientific evidence, and (2) that the thoughts and actions of a supernatural or spiritual intelligence are more consistent with a meaningful coherent view of nature than the blind accumulation of random changes. I didn't find Deloria's contribution to add anything to Johnson's or Dembski's, it shares their slant and their rhetorical definition of "evolution."

That Deloria argues so similarly to the Christian ID authors yet from the Native American tradition is not an insignificant detail. Unless you believe there is a conspiracy between all these folks, this offers some mild support for the contention that "intelligent design" is not just a fraud concocted by a few fundamentalist Christian authors, but is a pervasive alternate way of looking at nature, shared by multiple traditions.

This doesn't make the systematic misunderstandings of evolutionary theories and philosophy of science any easier to take or any more excusable for a scholar. It does, however, help to appreciate that "creationism" isn't just some religious conspiracy against science. If motive matters in coming to an understanding, then it is important to know that Deloria and the Christian ID authors may not simply be perpetrating a grand hoax, as some anti-ID authors seem to claim, but expressing a different tradition of reasoning.

Deloria does voice some original philosophical ideas in places, but they still rely disappointingly on the standard intelligent design argument. If you don't accept that argument as sound, Deloria comes off as annoyingly shrill in his implicit hostility to the rationalist and liberal aspects of Western culture, and not as insightful about its strengths and weaknesses as we might expect from a keen outside observer.

If on the other hand you're one of those folks who feels that the scientific worldview needs some sort of spiritual overhaul, you may find a kindred spirit here.

Rating:
Summary: Disingenuousness
Review: I must state upfront that I only read a small portion of this book, just to get the "flavor" of it. It left a bad taste! In his chapter on evolution, he tosses in a couple quotes by Keith Ward, who is a THEOLOGIAN. Deloria cites an inconsistency in Ward's (ignorant) statements about evolution, and tries to use that inconsistency as a criticism of evolution itself. This is, at best, very sloppy writing, and arguably dishonest.

Rating:
Summary: Just Plain Silly
Review: Vine Deloria has done brilliant work in the past. It's sad to see him dilute his legacy with silliness like this. The lack of intellectual rigor that underlies his superficial (mis)understanding of the theory of evolution is shocking to anyone who has read his previous work. He simply hasn't sat down, rolled up his sleeves, and done the groundwork necessary to take on a project of this nature.