Specious on the Origin?

If Paul McHugh wants to make Darwin or "Darwinism" synonymous with evolution ("Teaching Darwin," March 28), that is of course a matter for him. Evolution is evidenced by the fossil record and by the study of molecular biology: We know, in other words, that it did take place, even if we are not yet certain how (and can dispense with the question of why).

Darwinism is not evolutionism: It was, rather, the first intelligible theory of evolution. Thus, not all serious seismologists agree, but all are (at least now) persuaded that the tectonic plates are the root cause. McHugh makes this obvious point in his own way, by discussing the scientific disagreement between Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould as if he had discovered it, and as if it proved his point rather than undermined it.

McHugh goes too far, however, in making the outrageous claim that "some evolutionary biologists" almost a century ago tried "to improve on the record by manufacturing the counterfeit fossil Piltdown Man." This famous hoax could not possibly have been designed to support the theory of evolution, since the fakery of the skull and the bones was so obvious as to discredit, if anything, the concept of a "missing link." The most celebrated suspects in the case were Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who believed that it was possible to take photographs of fairies, and the somewhat heterodox Catholic paleontologist Teilhard de Chardin. We shall never know.

Meanwhile, however, it is often alleged on extreme fundamentalist websites that as many as 500 dissertations were written by evolutionists in support of, or endorsement of, the fraud. Not one such dissertation has ever come to light. One would like to think The Weekly Standard was not relying upon a reviewer who depended on such sources.

Christopher Hitchens
Washington, DC

Paul McHugh responds: These, I think, are Christopher Hitchens's main points. Evolution and the Darwinian theory of evolution are distinct concepts. The fossil and molecular records indicate the "fact" of evolution leaving uncertain the "how" of evolution. Dawkins and Gould agree on the root "fact" of evolution even though they disagree--presumably trivially--on the "how." And Piltdown Man was a "hoax" rather than a fraud. Everything else in his letter is smoke.

First: What's in contention is the "how" of evolution--specifically Darwin's claim that random variation and natural selection adequately provide this "how." Hitchens says Darwinism is a "theory" and, although "intelligible," "not yet certain." Why, then, quarrel with me or the people of Georgia who just want those views cited in science classrooms?

Second: Dawkins and Gould clash because they are addressing one of the few testable and falsifiable predictions of Darwinian theory. If random variation and natural selection explain species generation, says Darwin, then it must be slow, smooth, and gradual. Gould--and Eldredge--shows that the fossil record is "punctuated," specifically not slow, smooth, and gradual. They provoke Dawkins not because they deny evolution but because they render Darwin's "how" once again "not yet certain."

Finally: With Piltdown, Hitchens sees a "hoax" or easily discredited parody and considers my indictment of Darwinists in a fraud "outrageous." But hoaxers want everyone to know promptly how they have tricked the foolish "experts"--note Alan Sokal with the post-modernists. Scientific frauds, in contrast, support a line of investigation that the perpetrator believes will eventually bring more conclusive evidence to light. "Fake but accurate" is the resonant (and now familiar) idea in frauds. Darwinists produced the Piltdown Man and other Darwinists backed what Hitchens calls "obvious fakery" for 40 years. I'll stick to the indictment.

The Daily Show

In his March 21 review of Tom Fenton's new book about the decline of broadcast news in America ("Decline and Fall"), Bob Zelnick spends much time focused on Fenton's idea of a one-hour nightly network newscast and why it would never work.

In fact, a one-hour newscast can, and does, work. Each weekday evening more than 3 million viewers tune in to the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer on approximately 315 local PBS stations throughout the country. The NewsHour's success is proof that, even in a tough media climate, a large and loyal audience exists for thoughtful, balanced, and objective reporting and analysis of national and international events.

Dan Werner
President, MacNeil/Lehrer Productions
Arlington, VA

Revival

Does Daniel Sullivan's "The Heart Specialist" (March 21) herald the long overdue reemergence of Jonathan Edwards to the forefront of American culture and thought? While the premise of Sullivan's article is a review of Philip F. Gura's new biography of Edwards, it is at least the second article I have read recently about the legendary minister.

Although I'm always cautious of possible revisionist cultural history, Edwards has often been forgotten or discredited, and I am glad to see him paid some due respect. Many years ago, I remember learning about Edwards in public school along with the Salem Witch trials, the works of the late (but not-so-great) Arthur Miller, and, of course, that dastardly Joe McCarthy. I was brainwashed into believing Edwards marked the epitome of extremism.

I'm glad to see writers like Sullivan and Gura proving this notion wrong and restoring credit to one of America's most influential cultural and spiritual leaders.

Jonathan Edward Osborne
Smyrna, GA

Judging the Judges

I commend Terry Eastland for his excellent "They Shalt Not" (March 14). However, the idea that the majority of the Supreme Court will decide the Ten Commandments issue based on a principled interpretation of the Constitution is wishful thinking. If the Court does the right thing in this instance, it will be the consequence of political pressure and nothing else.

It would indeed be very hard, as Eastland indicates, to discern within the Constitution a "Thou shalt not display the Ten Commandments in the public square" clause, but the Court long since abandoned a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution. Today, the Court increasingly seems to make up laws based on a majority of the justices' personal philosophies and political prejudices.

If the Framers of the Constitution were negligent in any respect, it was in failing to place sufficient constitutional restraints on the federal judiciary. The Framers wanted to preserve the independence of the judiciary, and they presumed that the majority of judges would be principled. Federalist 78 makes the Framers' intent explicit. It also warns that if judges exercised "will instead of judgment, the consequence would . . . be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body." What the Framers feared has in fact happened--many court opinions from the last 50 years reflect untrammeled judicial arrogance.

It is time to impose the restraints on our judicial oligarchy that the oligarchs will not place on themselves. If we are to preserve the democratic process in this country, then we must amend the Constitution--the sooner the better.

Gary Inbinder
Woodland Hills, CA

Spitzer Spat

Matthew Continetti's "I, Eliot" (March 7) properly asked, What does Eliot Spitzer really stand for?

As a former shareholder in Alliance Capital (AC), I was made painfully aware of what Spitzer really stands for. When Spitzer negotiated his sweetheart settlement with AC's corporate management, he closed his eyes to the fact that AC's shareholders would bear the cost of the deal. Although we had committed no crime, nor even an ethical breach, Spitzer's deal cost me and my fellow AC shareholders half a year's dividends.

By contrast, the senior corporate managers--i.e., the culpable parties whose neglect had facilitated AC's criminal fund timing activity--paid no penalty whatsoever. Spitzer thereby made it clear that he placed no value on the losses he imposed on the innocent--as long as he could rake in the headlines.

Gerald S. Wasserman
Lafayette, IN

Cartel Blanche

I found it puzzling that mention of Iraqi and American support for OPEC was missing from both Irwin M. Stelzer's "The Axis of Oil" (Feb. 7) and the reply letter from Matthew McManus of the U.S. State Department.

The U.S. government has been a de facto member of OPEC since April 2003, when the Coalition Provisional Authority took over the governance of Iraq. Now the State Department has a force of some 3,000 administrators at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. Plenty of them are directing the Iraqi oil industry.

The Iraqi/U.S. delegate to OPEC has always voted for all the oil production quotas. The Bush administration seems to think it has a moral duty to bolster the oil cartel regardless of its effect on the American public.

We think the U.S. government should not help any cartel anywhere in the world.

Carl Olson
Chairman, State Department Watch
Washington, DC

Swiss Army of One

I read with interest Irwin M. Stelzer's "Germany and the F-Word" (March 21). I am a teacher in Geneva, Switzerland--maybe the only European teacher reading The Weekly Standard in the salle des maîtres.

Unfortunately, my colleagues also prefer "stability" to disturbing the status quo by trying to spread "freedom." It is impossible to have a free talk about U.S. policy, but I take the risk every day. Is the reason for this that the Swiss people have never lived under tyranny (aside from the tyranny of political correctness)?

Hoping to be alive for your next issue.

Marc Fischer
Geneva, Switzerland