Am I a Darwin Devotee? Taking the Dembski Quiz

This blog has been lying fallow for a while, I realize. I do have some new content upcoming. But in the meantime, my attention has been drawn to a quiz called the “Darwin Devotion Detector”. This was posted by Intelligent Design Creationist William Dembski on the Discovery Institute’s website, “Evolution News” (which almost never has any actual news about evolution). Dembski writes that he created this questionnaire a few years ago for an “educational website”, which later removed it “to appease the search engines.” (ID Creationists rarely miss an opportunity to claim victimhood status.)

Here is Dembski’s description of the quiz: “The DDD consists of 40 pairs of statements. For each pair, select the statement with which you more nearly agree. This is a forced-choice test. For some statement pairs, you may not feel drawn to either choice, but do the best you can. ” The scoring is quite severe, if imprecise: “Only scores close to zero indicate someone outside Darwin’s thrall.” I will also note a rather odd feature of the quiz, which is that each statement Dembski considers an indication of Darwin Devotion is marked with a hashtag (#). This is not very good methodology, especially for someone who fancies himself to be a world-class mathematician. More valid results would be obtained if the subject was not aware of which options would mark him as a Darwin Devotee.

One other point needs to be clarified: Dembski, like many ID Creationists, tends to use the term “Darwinism” in a peculiar manner that differs from how it is employed by evolutionary biologists. Often ID Creationists use it as a synonym for evolution as a whole, and in taking this quiz, I usually (but not invariably) assumed Dembski was using the term in that sense.

On to the quiz:

Question 1.
a) Evolution in the sense that all present-day organisms arose from one or a few ancestors (common descent) is now a proven fact.#

b) Evolution in that sense is still an unproven hypothesis.

Yes, (a) is a fact about as well-established as anything in science can be. Credit to Dembski for understanding that there are several aspects to the theory of evolution, of which common descent is just one.

Question 2.
a) The theory of natural selection (i.e., retention of chance variations) adequately explains common descent.#

b) Even assuming full-blown evolution to be a fact, the theory of natural selection does not adequately explain it.

And then Dembski squanders that credit with his very next question.  Natural selection refers to the process by which heritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of successfully reproducing are more likely to become more common and to be fixed in a population.  It does not, nor is it intended to, explain common descent.  This not to mention other factors that affect the “retention of chance variations”, such as genetic drift. So (b) is the correct answer, but Dembski is incorrect in saying this is the non-“Darwinian” answer.  (This is not the last time he will make this error.)

Question 3.
a) The theory of natural selection accounts for the phenomenon of adaptation — and thus the appearance of design — in organisms.#

b) For an organism to be selected it must already be well adapted; therefore, the theory of natural selection begs the question of the origin of adaptations (or design).

(a) is the correct answer.  (b) is nonsense.  “Adaptations” begin as random variations in phenotype resulting from random mutations.  Natural selection is not claimed to account, on its own, for their existence. It only helps explain why some such variations become more prevalent in a population over time. This is very basic.  Does Dembski really not understand this?

Question 4.
a) The formula “survival of the fittest” amounts to “survival of the survivors,” suggesting that the theory of natural selection is empirically empty, or even a tautology.

b) “Survival of the fittest” is a useful short-hand formula for characterizing the theory of natural selection.#

I go with (b).  A more accurate formula might be “Persistence of those traits most conducive to successful reproduction.”  The important point is not that the survivors survive.   It is that their genes survive beyond them.

Question 5.
a) Although Charles Darwin is an important figure in the history of science, the conceptual importance of natural selection has been significantly exaggerated.

b) Natural selection is one of the greatest ideas ever, and conceiving of it put Darwin in the company of Newton and Einstein.#

I choose (a).  The importance of natural selection is often over-emphasized at the expense of other processes, such genetic drift and the randomness of mutations (which limits the number of potential adaptations that will actually arise.)  This is an error made particularly commonly by ID creationists, but not even all evolutionists are immune.  That said, I would also agree that Darwin belongs on the Mt. Rushmore of science with Newton and Einstein.  (Who should get the fourth spot, I wonder?)

Question 6.
a) Because Darwin’s birthday falls on the same day as Abraham Lincoln’s (February 12, 1809), if Americans were to celebrate one or the other, we should celebrate Darwin Day.#

b) Lincoln’s impact on the U.S. and the world was far more positive than Darwin’s and we should continue to celebrate Lincoln’s Birthday as it is.

This one’s just silly.  Lincoln should be celebrated because he is an American.  Does the US have any holidays dedicated to Englishmen? 

Question 7.
a) Darwinism, suitably updated, is good 21st-century science.#

b) Darwinism is a relic of 19th-century science; Darwin’s work has now been largely superseded.

Dembski’s qualifier, “suitably updated”, makes this one a no-brainer.  If we include 20^th and 21^st advances (molecular genetics, neutral theory, population genetics, etc.)  then “Darwinism” is paradigmatic of good modern science. I wonder if Dembski seriously believes evolution has been superseded by Intelligent Design?

Question 8.
a) Darwin shared many of the conventional opinions of his day, including the superiority of the white race.

b) Darwin embodies humanity at its best and deserves the status of a secular saint.#

I believe (a) is likely true.  If so, ID Creationists should be more careful in accusing Darwin of racism, as they are wont to do.

I don’t believe in “saints”, secular or otherwise.

Question 9.
a) Darwin’s ideas and their unintended consequences have done great harm.

b) The world would be a better place if everyone had to learn about Darwin’s ideas.#

That Darwinism was responsible for evils such as the eugenics and the Holocaust is a standard talking point of the ID Creationists.  And it cannot be denied that eugenicists often cited evolution in defense of their ideas.  But it is a stretch to blame Darwin or his theory for these ideas.  A pretext could just as easily have been found in the ancient practice of selective breeding of plants and livestock.  As to choice (b), my only minor point of disagreement is that such lessons should also include the evolutionary concepts that developed after Darwin.

Question 10.
a) Hostility toward evolution is a major factor in the decline of American educational standards in relation to international standards.#

b) Other factors (such as classroom disorder and the breakdown of the family) have contributed more to the decline of American educational standards than hostility toward evolution.

To the extent that hostility toward evolution (something that Dembski has expended considerable effort to foment) exists in American schools, I would see it more as a symptom rather than a cause of their decline.  And, in my opinion, that decline is more aptly attributed to the ideology of neo-liberalism that has dominated politics in many nations over that past several decades.  I know  Dembski doesn’t want us to skip questions, but I’m passing on this one. There is no good choice.

Question 11.
a) Public school biology teachers in the U.S. should be free to teach what they can defend to be true based on evidence.

b) Public school biology teachers in the U.S. should be required to teach the received views of professional evolutionary biologists.#

I’m not sure what Dembski is implying here.  Is he suggesting that public school biology teachers base their views on evidence, whereas evolutionary biologists just rely on “received views”?  The “received view” of evolutionary biologists is that all available evidence supports the truth of the theory of evolution.  Teachers who deny this evidence are not qualified to teach biology. I guess choice (b) is the better of the two.

Question 12.
a)  In Kitzmiller v. Dover, Judge John E. Jones III ruled that it is illegal to “disparage or denigrate” Darwinism in the public schools; Judge Jones decided this case correctly.#

b)  By suppressing dissent and creating a state-imposed ideology in America, Judge Jones’s ruling parallels Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union.

Ah, yes. The Discovery Institute’s humiliating defeat in the Dover trial continues to stick in Dembski’s craw. Many readers will recall Dembski’s very mature and intelligent response to that verdict was to create a website in which an animated version of Judge Jones emitted farting and belching noises. Answer (a) is factually wrong, and choice (b) is hilariously, hysterically wrong. I can choose neither.

Question 13.
a)  Darwin’s theory of evolution is as well supported scientifically as Einstein’s theory of general relativity.#

b)  Putting Darwin’s theory of evolution in the same league as Einstein’s theory of general relativity is an affront to the exact sciences.

(a) is the correct choice.

Question 14.
a) The Darwin Awards , given to people who kill themselves due to their rash or foolish actions, reflect an unhealthy cynicism and low view of humanity. (Hyperlink not in original.)

b)  The Darwin Awards rightly recognize individuals for contributing to human evolution by weeding themselves out of the gene pool through their stupidity.#

Someone get this man a sense of humor.

Question 15.
a) The eugenics movement — which led to the mass sterilization of people deemed “defective” in the United States and to mass murder in Germany — was largely based on Darwin’s ideas.

b)  To lay the eugenics movement at Darwin’s feet is grossly unfair.#

This seems to cover the same ground as question 9.  I’ll go with (b).  As I said earlier, I think both movements likely would have occurred with or without Darwin.

Question 16.
a) Living things are collections of ordinary chemical elements organized in particular ways; there is nothing physically distinctive about life.#

b)  The “living state of matter” is physically distinctive, implying the existence of special causal powers that inorganic systems do not possess.

Dembski really is an obscure thinker, isn’t he?  A living thing can be readily identified by its physical properties, but those physical properties are the result of nothing more than arrangements of chemicals.  So, (a) is internally contradictory.  On the other hand, (b) is just a typical example of an ID Creationist trying to say “God did it” without mentioning God.  I think what Dembski is trying to say with (a) is that (according to “Darwinism”) living things show no evidence of the hand of God at work, so I’ll choose that one.

Question 17.
a) Living things are basically just vehicles for their genes.#

b) Genes play a necessary but not sufficient causal role in living things.

Obviously, genes alone are not sufficient for a living thing to exist and function.  Does Dembski really think this is what “Darwinists” believe?  Weird.  I suppose (a) is meant as a dig at Richard Dawkins’s concept of the “selfish gene.”  To my understanding, that concept is not universally, or even necessarily widely, accepted by evolutionary biologists today, so I’ll choose (b).  Though, once again, Dembski seems to have difficulty coming up with even one option that is actually correct.

Question 18.
a) Organisms, while highly complex, are fundamentally no different from humanly constructed machines.#

b)  Organisms are essentially different from humanly constructed machines.

Dembski’s error here is in where he places the hashtag.  It is a principal doctrine of ID Creationism that we can conclude living things are designed because of their supposed resemblance to things designed by humans.  So, why does Dembski identify (a) as the Darwinian choice?  Isn’t that weird?  One of the lines of evidence that led to Darwin’s formulation of this theory was the existence of vestigial structures that bear evidence of an organism’s evolutionary history but which no longer serve a useful function.  This is just one way in which organisms differ from “humanly constructed machines.”  By choosing (b), I reduce my Darwin Devotee score, even though it is the correct “Darwinian” choice.

Question 19.
a) The concept of “junk DNA” was a major scientific blunder directly attributable to Darwinian thinking.

b)  Darwinian thinking advanced science by correctly characterizing non-coding DNA regions as “junk DNA.”#

Hoo boy.  We need Larry Moran to educate Dembski.  Junk DNA is, if anything, an anti-Darwinian (which is not to say anti-evolutionary) idea which goes counter to Darwinian adaptationism.  It was neutral theory that led to the hypothesis that the genome would be littered with functionless junk, a hypothesis that has since been confirmed.  And, no, informed scientists have never characterized all non-coding DNA as junk.  Both statements here are too wrong for me to choose either.

Question 20.
a) Darwin speculated that life began in a “warm little pond”; in this, as with so many of his ideas, he was remarkably prescient.#

b)  Nobody today has any real insight into how life began.

It remains to be seen whether the “warm little pond” hypothesis will prove prescient.  At the moment, it seems the smart money is on hydrothermal vents.  But, much as Dembski’s buddy James Tour may protest otherwise, current researchers have gained considerable insight into many aspects of how life may have began.  I’ll go with (a) though, again, Dembski seems unable to come up with one correct answer.

Question 21.
a) Human beings are fundamentally different from all other animals.

b)  Human beings are basically no different from other animals.#

The correct answer is (b). In terms of any aspects such as anatomical structure or biochemical make up, there are no fundamental differences between us and other animals. The differences that do exist are only what would be expected based on how closely or distantly we are related by common descent.

Question 22.
a) The most important fact about human beings is our capacity for conscious reflection, reason, and language.

b)  Human mental capacities are a minor and superficial adaptation of an unexceptional primate.#

That said, I agree with (a). To the extent that we are distinguished from other organisms, it is largely by our cognitive capabilities. I am at a loss as to why Dembski thinks a “Darwinist” ought to believe otherwise.

Question 23.
a) Human beings can freely choose what to do.

b)  Free will is an illusion.#

Again, I am not sure what this has to do with Darwinism.  I will have more to say on this subject in future posts.  For now, I will just say I am leaning towards combatibilism and so will choose (a).  Though I strongly suspect that Dembski has a different understanding than I do regarding what constitutes “free will.”  My guess is that he favours libertarianism.

Question 24.
a) The capacity for mature love is one of the noblest aspects of human nature.

b)  Humans experience “love” as the result of oxytocin and other hormones coursing through the body — just as for other mammals.#

Both true!  Why would these be incombatible choices, and why does Dembski think a Darwinist would reject (a)?  I am beginning to wonder if Dembski even knows what Darwinism is….

Question 25.
a) Referring to “kin selection,” J. B. S. Haldane remarked: “I would gladly lay down my life for two brothers or eight cousins”; this principle helps us to understand the nature of human altruism.#

b)  Mother Teresa (who ministered to dying homeless people in Kolkata) and holocaust rescuers (who risked their lives to help Jews escape Nazi death camps) have more to teach us about human altruism than kin selection.

I’m not a fan of Mother Teresa. Maybe that is why Dembski also included holocaust rescuers?  In any event, this is yet another false dichotomy and I do not feel obliged to play along.

Question 26.
a) Some things (like killing innocents) are absolutely wrong.

b)  Nothing is right or wrong except in relation to its consequences, especially for one’s genes.#

I’m not comfortable with the word “absolutely.”  It seems to suggest that morality exists in some transcendent sense, apart from human behaviour and cognition. That, I do not believe. But, sure, I disapprove of killing innocents.  As for (b), once again, it suggests Dembski has very odd ideas about what “Darwinists” believe.

Question 27.
a) Rape is morally wrong because it treats an autonomous human person as an object.

b)  Rape is properly viewed as an adaptation in early hominid males to help them spread their genes.#

And here, too. Does Dembski seriously believe “Darwinists” will disagree with (a)?

Question 28.
a) If scientists could crossbreed a human and chimpanzee to form a hybrid “humanzee,” it would be a triumph and cause for celebration.#

b)  Hybridizing a human being with a chimpanzee or any other animal is likely to be biologically impossible and, in any case, would be a moral outrage.

It bears repeating: Dembski needs to get out and meet some actual “Darwinists”.

Question 29.
a) Goodness, truth, and beauty are illusions that helped our hominid ancestors to survive.#

b)  Goodness, truth, and beauty are objectively real norms that guide human belief and action.

Goodness, truth and beauty do not exist apart from the responses of our nervous system to our surroundings. That does not mean they necessarily “helped our hominid ancestors to survive”, nor that they have not “guid(ed) human belief and action”. Once again, I don’t really see a correct answer here.

Question 30.
a) The motivations of Elizabeth Bennett and Mr. Darcy in Pride and Prejudice cannot be understood at the deepest level without a knowledge of evolutionary theory.#

b)  Jane Austen had no need of evolutionary theory to understand human motivations at the deepest level relevant to literature.

Like, I can’t even. The answer is (b), of course. Austen died when Darwin was but eight years old. What is Dembski on about?

Question 31.
a) Memes are the units of selection of human culture, much as genes are the units of selection of organismic traits.#

b)  Meme theory is a crude caricature of the way human beings come up with new ideas and share them with one another.

More Dawkins bashing.  I don’t think the idea of memes was intended to account for culture as a whole.  In any event, this is yet another question that has nothing to do with Darwin or his ideas as applied to biology.

Question 32.
a) Richard Dawkins is a distinguished scientist who deserves a Nobel Prize.#

b)  Richard Dawkins is a brilliant popularizer who has not done any original scientific work in decades.

At least Dawkins is now identified by name.  I doubt even he would claim he deserves a Nobel, and I believe it is true that he has not published any original research in quite some time.  So (b).

Question 33.
a) Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.#

b)  The atheist worldview still contains major conceptual gaps

I don’t really agree with either, but (a) is the less wrong of the two.

Question 34.
a) Religion is a legitimate activity in which humans try to understand and make contact with what is ultimately real.

b)  Religion is an irrational response to unknown causes operating in nature; as we understand nature better, religion will disappear.#

I doubt religion will ever disappear, but I am quite sure it has little to tell us about “what is ultimately real.”  So (b) it is.  But isn’t ID supposed to be non-religious?

Question 35.
a) Due to our uncontrolled population growth, human beings have become a scourge upon the earth not unlike cancer.#

b)  Human beings are the crown of creation.

Wouldn’t it be nice if Dembski could write some questions that are not fatally poisoned by their inflammatory language?  I don’t think it is actually our sheer number that threatens the planet as much as it is our use of resources and emission of carbon into the environment.  But (b) is just meaningless, so (a) is the answer.

Question 36.
a) Third-world economic development to relieve poverty is more important than preserving biological diversity at all costs.

b)  Preserving biological diversity is more important than third-world economic development.#

Dembski’s misassumption here is that one must be achieved at the expense of the other. And, again, what does this have to do with “Darwinism”? His previous questions suggested that “Darwinism” promotes the reduction of biological diversity (i.e. eugenics). Dembski seems quite confused.

Questions 37.
a) Purpose, value, and meaning are “folk-psychology” categories that do not correspond to anything in reality.#

b)  Purpose, value, and meaning are objectively real.

I’ll choose (a).  But, by this point, any pretense that this questionnaire has anything whatsoever to do with “Darwinism” has been abandoned.

Question 38.
a) Darwinian evolutionary theory has weaknesses and those who point them out should be tolerated, if not applauded.

b)  Darwinian evolutionary theory has no weaknesses and those who say it does are usually religiously motivated.#

If, by “Darwinian evolutionary theory”, Dembski means the original theory as proposed by Darwin himself, then it is trivially true that the theory was not complete. And those who have contributed over the past century to revising and strengthening the theory have, indeed, been rightly celebrated. I refer to people like Fisher, Wright, Haldane, Kimura, Ohta, Gould, and Lenski, to name just a few. But we know that is not what Dembski means here. He is, instead, referring to himself and the other assorted ideologues and crackpots typically championed by the Discovery Institute. In which case, (b) is the better response.

Question 39.
a) Intelligent design, as a voice of dissent, does useful work in keeping the evolutionary biology community honest.

b)  Intelligent design has no intellectual merits and deserves no public hearing.#

Finally!  A clearly worded question, with an unambiguously correct response.  That response, of course, being (b).

Question 40.
a) The theory of natural selection is a “universal acid” that dissolves every problem in the biological and social sciences; Darwinian theory explains virtually everything.#

b)  A theory that explains everything explains nothing; for all practical purposes, Darwinian theory is unfalsifiable and so is essentially unscientific.

But, true to form, we end with yet another question where one is expected to choose between two equally ridiculous statements.  I refuse.

What can one learn from all that? Dembki’s questions are too ill-conceived, and his methodology too sloppy, for a person taking the quiz to gain much new knowledge of their own beliefs. However, this exercise does provide some interesting insight into how Dembski wants others to perceive “Darwinism”. He portrays it, not as a scientific theory, but as a socio-political ideology that encompasses a number of ideas that Dembski finds personally distasteful. Ideas such as secularism, atheism, environmentalism, and free will skepticism. More to the point, it seems that Dembski wishes to create the impression that “Darwinists” embrace ideas like common descent and natural selection, not because of their scientific validity, but because they provide an intellectual grounding for these other philosophical ideas.

In other words, Dembski is projecting.

EDIT: Shortly after I uploaded this article, I came across the video below which was posted on the Peaceful Science forum. It’s from Dan Stern Cardinale’s “Creation Myths” channel and has a more in depth discussion of how and why Dembski’s quiz is so awful: