Bernard Shaw's Remarkable Religion: A Faith That Fits the Facts

The Marriage of Science and Religion 199
of most sociobiologists (124–31). Dennett is explicit about the philosophical
and theological side of Darwin, but when that view becomes embarrassing,
he insists that Darwinism is simply a scientific theory. This tactic does
not end the controversy. Darwinism is controversial considered strictly as
a scientific theory, that is, simply as a hypothesis explaining how evolution
came about. As a consequence, Darwinism is a perfect illustration of what
Kuhn says occurs when a paradigm goes into crisis because Darwinism is
not merely just another scientific paradigm, it represents the metaparadigm
most scientists see as the foundation of all science—scientific materialism.
The details of the scientific vulnerability of Darwinism are not relevant
to this discussion, but since the scientific community likes to pretend that
none but Creationists ever question the certainty of Darwinism, the reader
might find it useful to learn something of the nature of the scientific dispute.
Darwinism is actually a peculiar theory, seen from the point of view
of science. To understand why, it is important to realize precisely what it
postulates. Darwinism is not the theory of evolution; it is not even the
theory that evolution is shaped by natural selection; it is the theory that
absolutely nothing except natural selection shapes evolution. This is peculiar
because Darwinism requires modification of species to take place in
two steps: variants arise and then they are selected. Natural selection can
operate only on that which has arisen. Darwinists insist that variants arise
through “chance.” Although they vociferously deny the importance that
chance plays in their theory, it is in fact its most distinguishing feature. No
one who accepts evolution denies that natural selection must play a role. If
you believe that variant traits do appear from time to time and are passed
on from parent to offspring, it is impossible not to believe that traits that
enhance reproduction will thrive and those that diminish it will not. The
assertion that traits invariably are engendered “by chance” is essentially
what distinguishes Darwinism from Lamarck’s theory. But a “good” scientific
theory, scientists often tell us, is one that makes unambiguous predictions
that are empirically testable. It is difficult to say exactly how to test
the assertion that some complex set of events—in the past—occurred by
“chance.” It is not even easy to say exactly what that means. Darwin, who,
as Shaw always said, was not a Darwinian, never maintained that variations
arose by pure chance. He merely thought that the pressures of survival
and reproduction were so important that they would be sufficient to
shape life in all of the various ways we see. It was his great insight that the
need to survive and reproduce could produce tremendous change regardless
of how the variations arose, as long as some of the variations were