Gould, Justice Scalia's Misunderstanding

built on experiment and observation, can possibly extend to; and willingly left, to more presumptuous inquirers, the task of carrying their reasonings beyond the boundaries of nature.

Finally, to Kirwan's charge that Hutton had limited science by his "evasion" of origins, Playfair responded that his friend had strengthened science by his positive program of studying what could be resolved:
Instead of an evasion, therefore, any one who considers the subject fairly, will see, in Dr. Hutton's reasoning, nothing but the caution of a philosopher, who wisely confines his theory within the same limits by which nature has confined his experience and observation.

This all happened a long time ago and in a context foreign to our concerns. But Hutton's methodological wisdom, and Playfair's eloquent warning, could not be more relevant today--for basic principles of empirical science do have an underlying generality that can transcend time. Practicing scientists have largely (but not always) imbibed Hutton's wisdom about restricting inquiry to questions that can be answered. But Kirwan's error of equating the best in science with the biggest questions about ultimate things continues to be the most common of popular misunderstandings.

I have often mentioned that fifteen years of monthly columns have brought me an enormous correspondence from nonprofessionals about all aspects of science. From sheer volume, I obtain a pretty good sense of strengths and weaknesses in public perceptions. I have found that one common misconception surpasses all others. People will write, telling me that they have developed a revolutionary theory, one that will expand the boundaries of science. These theories, usually described in several pages of single-spaced typescript, are speculations about the deepest ultimate questions we can ask--what is the nature of life? the origin of the universe? the beginning of time?

But thoughts are cheap. Any person of intelligence can devise his half dozen before breakfast. Scientists can also spin out ideas about ultimates. We don't (or, rather, we confine them to our private thoughts) because we cannot devise ways to test them, to decide whether they are right or wrong. What good to science is a lovely idea that cannot, as a matter of principle, ever be affirmed or denied?

The following homily may seem paradoxical but it embodies Hutton's wisdom: the best science often proceeds by putting aside the overarching generality and focusing instead on a smaller question that can be reliably answered. In so doing, scientists show their intuitive feel for the fruitful, not their narrowness or paltriness of spirit. In this way we sneak up on big questions that only repel us if we try to engulf them in one fell speculation. Newton could not discover the nature of gravity, but he could devise a mathematics that unified the motion of a carriage with the revolution of the moon. Darwin never tried to grasp the meaning of life (or even the manner of its origin on our planet), but he did develop a powerful theory to explain its manner of change through time. Hutton did not discover how our earth originated, but he developed some powerful and testable ideas about how it ticked. You might almost define a good scientist as a person with the horse sense to discern the largest answerable question--and to shun useless issues that sound bigger

Hutton's positive principle of restriction to the doable also defines the domain and procedures of evolutionary biology, my own discipline. Evolution is not the study of life's ultimate origin as a path toward discerning its deepest meaning. Evolution, in fact, is not the study of origins at all. Even the more restricted (and scientifically permissible) question of life's origin on our earth lies outside its domain. (This interesting problem, I suspect, falls primarily within the purview of chemistry and the physics of self-organizing systems.) Evolution studies the pathways and mechanisms of organic change following the origin of life. Not exactly a shabby subject either--what with such resolvable questions as "how, when, and where did humans evolve?"; "how do mass extinction, continental drift, competition among species, climatic change, and inherited constraints of form and development interact to influence the manner and rate of evolutionary change?"; "how do the branches of life's tree fit together?" to mention just a few among thousands equally exciting.

In their recently aborted struggle to inject Genesis literalism into science classrooms, fundamentalist groups followed their usual opportunistic strategy of arguing two contradictory sides of a question when a supposed rhetorical advantage could be extracted from each. Their main pseudoargument held that Genesis literalism is not religion at all, but really an alternative form of science (creation science) not acknowledged by professional biologists too hidebound and dogmatic to appreciate the cutting edge of their own discipline. When we successfully pointed out that creation science--as an untestable set of dogmatic proposals--could not qualify as science by any standard definition, they turned around and shamelessly argued the other side. (They actually pulled off the neater trick of holding both positions simultaneously.) Now they argued that, yes indeed, creation science is religion, but evolution is equally religious.

To support this dubious claim, they tumbled (as a conscious trick of rhetoric, I suspect) right into Kirwan's error. They ignored what evolutionists actually do and misrepresented our science as the study of life's ultimate origin. They then pointed out, as Hutton had, that questions of ultimate origins are not resolvable by science. Thus, they claimed, creation science and evolution science are symmetrical--that is, equally religious. Creation science isn't science because it rests upon the untestable fashioning of life ex nihilo by God. Evolution science isn't science because it tries, as its major aim, to resolve the unresolvable and ultimate origin of life. But we do no such thing. We understand Hutton's wisdom--"he has nowhere treated of the first origin... of any substance... but only of the transformations which bodies have undergone..."

Our legal battle with creationists started in the 1920s and reached an early climax with the conviction of John Scopes in 1925. After some quiescence, it began in earnest again during the 1970s and has haunted us ever since. (I have written more than half a dozen essays, most in this series, on the resurgence of creation science.) Finally, in June 1987, the Supreme Court ended this major chapter in American history with a decisive 7-2 vote, striking down the last creationist statute, the Louisiana equal time act, as a ruse to inject religion into science classroom in violation of first amendment guarantees for separation of church and state.

I don't mean to appear ungrateful, but we fallible humans are always seeking perfection in others. I couldn't help wondering how two justices could have ruled the other way. I may not be politically astute, but I am not totally naive either. I have read Justice Scalia's long dissent carefully, and I recognize that its main thrust lies in legal issues supporting the extreme judicial conservatism espoused by Scalia and the other dissenter, Chief Justice Rehnquist. Nonetheless, though it may form only part of his rationale, Scalia's argument relies crucially upon a false concept of science--Kirwan's error again. I regret to say that Justice Scalia does not understand the subject matter of evolutionary biology. He has simply adopted the creationists' definition and thereby repeated their willful mistake.

Justice Scalia writes, in his key statement on scientific evidence.