George Will's most recent column exhibits something I have noticed a lot, materialist arrogance. Now, granted, Will is an easy target, as his conservatism seems to run hot and cold, depending on who is in power and which way the wind of public opinion blows. He has supported CEO salary caps, denied any government role in financial problems instead blaming "living beyond our means", denounced Bush for all the wrong things, and sung paeans to Obama, among other absurdities, so he isn't exactly a conservative. Then again, that makes him an ideal representative of materialist arrogance.

Now, materialist arrogance is an interesting phenomenon. While they obviously dismiss most religion, as Will does when he says:

An American majority resists such an annoying notion, endorsing the proposition that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."

they tend to focus their scorn on Judeo-Christian believers, ignoring Hindu, Buddhist, even Moslem beliefs in a creator. They also choose to caricature Christians by adopting only a strict creationist view, ignoring that there is any difference of opinions among religious believer. Granted Will throws a bone to less than literalist belief with the following condescending remark:

Still, many people of faith find Darwinism compatible with theism: God, they say, initiated and directs the dynamic that Darwin described. In the end, Darwin, in spite of perfunctory rhetorical references to "the Creator," disagreed. As a scientist dealing with probabilities, and with a profoundly materialist theory, he had no intellectual room for a directing deity that wills a special destination for our species.

The problem with all this is the same problem I have with any scientific "proof" that G-d does not exist, Will is, like most inclined to materialist arrogance, jumping from what science can demonstrate to what it cannot. he is also confusing scientific theory with axiomatic fact. And in doing so he makes something of a fool of himself.

First, let us set aside the idea that evolution is "true". Evolution is the theory most consistent with observed fact. When you start talking of absolute truth (outside of mathematics), you show yourself to be no scientist. Absolute truth is the realm of demagogues, not those interested in honest scientific inquiry. Were there to appear some piece of evidence tomorrow which disproved the modern view of evolution, scientists would abandon it in a moment. That is why it is a theory and not a fact. Yes, it has much support and is presently the system most likely to be true, but as with any theory we must always bear in mind that there is always more evidence, and the most cherished theory can be destroyed in a moment.

Now some will argue I am overemphasizing the "theory" part, but in reality it is they who grant too much credence to even a mountain of proof. After all, Newtonian mechanics is consistent with almost everything we observe, even today one could make a good case for it, unless you watch the starlight deflected by the sun, or particles moving at ultra-high velocities, then you realize Newtonian mechanics is not an adequate theory. Similarly, evolution is consistent with all we know, but how do we know we are not akin to late 19th century physicist, on the verge of a discovery which will demolish our current system? We don't. And that is why I say simply that we must not call a theory a "fact", the two are not the same.

Second, Will assumes that Darwin proved evolution was "unplanned". That is absurd. Let me assume I want to design a waterfall, I sit down with a computer and design a very carefully crafted ridge, so that water flows into certain channels, causing it to spray before the light at a certain time, causing a rainbow. If no one knows this ridge is intentionally crafted, they would see the rainbow as a wonderful accident, and some might even perform calculations and try to use physical laws to show how this accident came about. But the truth is, I still intentionally designed this falls to create the rainbow. Likewise, if G-d can craft the starting conditions of the universe, and establish the physical laws, we would have no way to know whether evolution, providing current theories are correct, was accidental or part of the design of the whole universe. The mere fact that G-d does not jump in and change physical laws does not mean there is no design. If the whole system is designed to produce specific outcomes, for those trapped within the system it can appear that all happenings are the result of natural laws, while still being the outcome of design. (This is my problem with ID, it seems to fall into the same need for "miracle" that those who reject G-d do, while in truth G-d has much easier ways to achieve his ends, without the need for any demonstration of power.)

And that brings me to my third point, that science says nothing about G-d. Even if we accept that we could somehow "prove" that evolution was entirely random, and without planning, would that prove there was no G-d, or that he simply did not touch the process of evolution? Yes, perhaps it would upset some beliefs of the caricature of creationist hardliners that Will and his like confuse with all believers, but I could quite easily absorb such proof without harm, as the way in which man was formed has no real bearing on my faith. Nor does Will's appeal to Hayek (properly von Hayek) make any sense. The fact that human interaction, without any guidance beyond the individual, will produce optimal outcome seems to me an argument for a divine designer. That man's most base impulses can be harnessed to produce general good, and all without any coercion, that seems to me to argue for a brilliant and subtle creator, not for a random process, but in either case, it proves nothing.

Will also errs in ascribing economic theory to post-Darwinian "Social Darwinist" movement. What von Hayek, and von Mises and von Boehm-Bawerk before him proposed was preceded by many pre-Darwinian thinkers, including Ricardo and Smith. There is simply no way Darwin could have influenced a book which was published decades before he was even born. And if Smith's invisible hand, the predecessor of all the theories of the Austrian School, was pre-Darwinian, then one must question how Will ascribes a Darwinian influence a role in their creation.

But that is a small error compared to the overall error of Will's piece. The idea that theory of evolution "proves" a lack of role for G-d is just absurd. It may be popular among modern pseudo-intellectual atheists, but it is not sign of a "scientific mind" or a rational approach, it is more the sign of an overweening obsessiveness, which finds proof of its pet beliefs in everything it sees. And it is sad that a once bright writer like Will seems to be jumping on this tawdry bandwagon.

POSTSCRIPT

For those who are interested, or those who have come to mock, here is all my previous writing on this topic:

"Silly Rules"
Knowing Our Limits
Guess It Is Time
A Question
A Reply to Scientific Atheists
Some Thoughts On Arguments For Intelligent Design
One More on Religion
Bad Theses
Silly, Silly Argument
A Silly Mistake
"Wasting Time"
Fighting the Good Fight?

And for the record, I am a believer, and a literalist of a kind. I believe the Torah is the literal word of G-d, but that G-d may have simplified the story for his audience. Just as we don't give graphic descriptions on intercourse and long lectures on genetics when children ask where babies come from, G-d wasn't about to tell freed pastoral slaves about the Big Bang and billions of years of cosmogenesis and hundreds of millions of years of evolution. And so even the literal word of G-d may sometimes not quite match what we now consider "established fact" (which is often best supported theory instead). So, I am a literalist, I just don't think the literal word has to be entire accurate. (This may also explain survival of pagan elements in the Jewish and Christian faiths. G-d, or perhaps Moses, had to offer the Jews a faith familiar enough they would accept it, or else risk having the chosen people reject their leaders. So he provided them animal sacrifice, ritual, and so on, all the trapping they associated with "religion". had Moses come down from Sinai preaching Unitarianism I doubt he would have long remained the leader of his people. [Not saying Unitarianism is correct, just as far from their past experience as possible.])

Oh, and one last point. As I am not divine, and merely human, I also confess I may be completely wrong in my belief. It is possible I have chosen the wrong faith, or that there really is no G-d. However, my experiences in life have led me to think the second is quite unlikely, and the first, if true, is probably forgivable.

I would like to ascribe to the Jeffersonian concept of a faith born of rational inquiry, but too many think reason involves dismissing any first hand evidence as delusion or deceit, and as reason can be based only on empirical evidence, by their method they predetermine the outcome that there will be no proof of G-d. So , while I am open to argument,I find few willing to argue honestly, as an honest argument must not start with premises that predetermine the outcome, as so many atheist arguments do.

POSTSCRIPT II

And please, no "Pasta Monster" arguments. Yes, you can make up an absurd proposition about nearly anything. But just as Turning's barber paradox does not prove shaving does not exist, your Pasta Monster does not prove religion is wrong, only that you share the mindset of a very arrogant teenager. Unfortunately most of those using that argument are too old to use youth as an excuse.

POSTSCRIPT III

I won't even begin to comment on Will's praise of Lincoln. I know he was the first Republican president, but 19th century Republicans were not today's, just as 19th century Democrats were not the Democrats of today. Had I lived in that day, I doubtless would have been in a different party, as my praise of Cleveland and criticism of Lincoln show. All of which makes Will's praise of Lincoln as the great destroyer of state's rights not something I care to praise, even if he did "save the union", by destroying the basis upon which it was founded, the voluntary union of sovereign states.

UPDATE

I managed to miss two posts dealing with matters theological:

An Off-Topic Post
Some Thoughts on Predestination

 While not precisely on point, they are close enough I should have included them.

UPDATE 2

I missed one more:

Standard of Proof

It was recent enough that my search through old posts missed it. However it is completely on point so should have been included in the list.

UPDATE 3

As I found one more, I am going to simply create a space here where I can insert any more omissions as I find them, so I don't have to continue adding updates as I find each article I forgot:

A Question About the Origins of Religion

Hopefully the list will remain small.