Nick mentioned this in a couple of comments, but I think it needs a post of its own.
Richard Thompson, chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, which is defending the Dover Area School District’s new “intelligent design” policy, responded to an open letter from biology and philosophy professors at the University of Pennsylvania. I don’t think I’m the only one who finds it amusing that a lawyer thinks that he can correct Ivy League biologists about biology and science. Thompson begins,
If the level of inquiry supporting your letter is an example of the type of inquiry you make before arriving at scientific conclusions, I suggest that at the very least, your students should get their tuition money back, and more appropriately, the University should fire you as a scientist. It is clear that you do not have the slightest idea of the actual Dover school policy that you so vehemently condemn, and so let me educate you.
Wow, looks like the Dover Area School District sure picked a winner to represent them. There are numerous problems with Thompson’s accusations, as I will demonstrate below.
Thompson continues,
You write that the Dover school Board made a decision to “mandate the teaching of ‘intelligent design’ along with evolution.” That statement is untrue; in fact the opposite is the case. The school board policy specifically states: “No teacher will teach Intelligent Design, Creationism, or present his or her, or the Board’s, religious beliefs.”
The school district’s press release on the new biology curriculum policy is internally inconsistent. Thompson uses this inconsistency to avoid facts unfavorable to his case. The biology curriculum has actually been amended to include the following objective:
Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s Theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, Intelligent Design. The Origins of Life is not taught.
Based on this new curriculum change, the UPenn professors are correct that the school board has mandated the inclusion of “intelligent design” in the classroom. Nothing in the press release suggests that this language has been removed from the curriculum. However, being the inconsistent document it is, the press release also includes the following sentence:
The Superintendent, Dr. Richard Nilsen, has directed that no teacher will teach Intelligent Design, Creationism, or present his or her, or the Board’s, religious beliefs.
Thompson emphasizes this sentence in his letter, ignoring how inconsistent it is with the rest of the facts of the case. The statement that will be read to biology students indeed introduces “intelligent design” into the classroom at the mandate of the school district. Thompson can use this inconsistency to disclaim the board’s policy all he wants, but that doesn’t change the board’s policy. Thompson continues,
Regarding your dispute with the definition of theory, you fail to include the actual definition used in the policy, “A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.” That definition was recommended by the science teachers and adopted by the school board.
The statement that will be read to the students is also internally inconsistent. It clearly derives from classic “anti-evolution” language used by special creationists and “intelligent design” activists. Statements taken from standard biology curricula appear to have been mixed in. In all, it is a hodge-podge constructed mainly by ignorant individuals trying to not get sued. The UPenn professors were right in their criticism that the statement’s section on “theory” is misleading to students. Thompson’s appeal to the statement’s internal inconsistency doesn’t change that. Thompson continues,
the only theory taught in class is Darwin’s theory of evolution, and the only textbook used in class is the standard text positing this theory.
“Darwin’s theory?” I wonder if Thompson has ever even heard about Wallace, Fisher, Haldane, Wright, Dobzhansky, Kimura, and the many other biologists that have contributed to the vast field of evolutionary biology. It hasn’t been Darwin’s theory for a long time. If the curriculum mentions anything about genes being involved in evolution, they are not teaching Darwin’s theory; they are teaching the modern synthesis. Anti-evolutionists do tend to make the mistaken projection of implying that modern biology consists of nothing more than following the century-old authority of an English gentleman.
Getting back to the happenings in Dover, Thompson is a bit disingenuous here. The school board has passed a biology curriculum change that would require “intelligent design” to be taught as an alternate “theory.” (Making aware is teaching.) However, the biology teachers made it clear that they would not develop any such curriculum for the board. (There is nothing to develop it from.) Without anyone willing to do their dirty work for them, the board decided to craft a statement based on the politics of “intelligent design” creationism, and have the teachers read it to their students. This statement teaches that “Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view” and urges students to investigate it in Of Pandas and People, a “reference book” available from the school. Thompson goes on to say,
I notice that your open letter was signed by a member [sic] of the Department of Philosophy. What does philosophy have to do with this issue?
Perhaps Thompson should ask Stephen Meyer, David Berlinski, William Dembski, Jay Richards, Francis Beckwith, Paul Nelson, Robert Koons, J. Budziszewski, Robin Collins, William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, John Mark Reynolds and the many other philosophers connected with the Discovery Institute and the “intelligent design” movement. It is plainly obvious that the “intelligent design” movement derives much more of its material from philosophers (and other non-scientists) than scientists. Even in its cadre of genuine scientists, experience with evolutionary biology and biology in general is lacking. Thompson continues,
This issue is not about science versus philosophy; it is about two different interpretations of the same scientific data by scientists.
I’m curious if Thompson can identify what the scientific data is, what those interpretations are, what critically peer-reviewed scientific papers they have been presented in. I doubt he can do any of these. The American Association for the Advancement of Science has investigated such claims and concluded
individual scientists and philosophers of science have provided substantive critiques of “intelligent design,” demonstrating significant conceptual flaws in its formulation, a lack of credible scientific evidence, and misrepresentations of scientific facts.
The purpose of Thompson’s organization is “to defend and protect Christians and their religious beliefs in the public square.” Now, Thompson has claimed that the school policy is only about science, but if his claim was true, why would he be involved? Thompson continues,
I assume you would agree that the metaphysical implication of Darwin’s theory of evolution has no place in the science classroom. Or perhaps it is for this very reason that you so staunchly and dogmatically defend Darwin and place his theory above all criticism.
We have now seen the reason why the Thomas More Law Center, champion of Christian values, is involved in this case and why its chief counsel has responded so vociferously to these UPenn professors. Clearly, the above passage derives from the classic anti-evolutionist position: “evolution is atheism, and the biological establishment only supports evolution because of their dogmatic, atheistic religion.” The Thomas More Law Center is defending the Dover Area School District because it wants to defend Christians from biology and dogmatic biologists. Thompson isn’t done,
In conclusion, the Dover policy merely makes students aware of a growing controversy in the scientific community over the extent to which the theory of evolution can explain complex biological systems.
Too bad no such controversy exists. When real controversies exist in science, they are between scientists in relevant fields actively researching, experimenting, publishing their results on the issue in critically peer-reviewed journals, and actively defending their work at mainstream, general conferences and in further scientific publications. Clearly, “intelligent design” does not fit this pattern. Teaching students otherwise is neither honest nor fruitful education. Thompson continues his conclusion,
This policy promotes critical thinking, which is important not only for the science profession, but for education in general.
On its face, the policy does not promote critical thinking, since it insulates “intelligent design” from being critically examined by students. The policy includes no mention that “intelligent design” has gaps or problems or even the fact that it has no scientific support whatsoever.
Pedagogically, encouraging students, with less than a week of study, to critically examine evolution is problematic. They simply would not know enough about the centuries of biological research behind evolution to make informed, critical examinations. It is important in science education for students to be able to understand their deficiencies in knowledge. If they know what they don’t know, they can then set out to learn it. This malformed policy violates that goal. Thompson ends,
Moreover, this policy is in keeping with the Congressional intent behind the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and complements an honest science education.
Thompson is wrong about the No Child Left Behind Act. Congress’s intent with NCLB is very clear; they never enacted into law Santorum’s amendment which contained “teach the controversy” language. By decision of Congress it was intentionally removed. In addition, the law specifically states that is does not dictate anything against local control:
Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal Government to mandate, direct, or control a State, local educational agency, or school’s specific instructional content, academic achievement standards and assessments, curriculum, or program of instruction.
(Sec 1905 of Public Law 107-110)
Thompson argues for honest science education. Intelligent design, however, is not science but pseudoscience. How is presenting pseudoscience as science being honest?
Full Text of the UPenn Letter
5 January 2005
Dover Area School Board
2 School Lane
Dover, PA 17315An Open Letter to the Dover Area School Board:
As scientists, scholars, and teachers, we are compelled to point out that the quality of science education in your schools has been seriously compromised by the decision to mandate the teaching of “intelligent design” along with evolution. Science education should be based on ideas that are well supported by evidence. Intelligent design does not meet this criterion: It is a form of creationism propped up by a biased and selective view of the evidence.
In contrast, evolution is based on and supported by an immense and diverse array of evidence and is continually being tested and reaffirmed by new discoveries from many scientific fields. The evidence for evolution is so strong that important new areas of biological research are confidently and successfully based on the reality of evolution. For example, evolution is fundamental to genomics and bioinformatics, new fields which hold the promise of great medical discoveries.
According to the York Daily Record (November 23, 2004), you issued a statement claiming that “Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence.” This is extraordinarily misleading. While one can refer to the general body of modern evolutionary knowledge as “theory,” the same is true of all other scientific knowledge, such as the theory of relativity or the theory of continental drift. It is one of the hallmarks of scientific inquiry that all such ideas are open to testing and reinterpretation. That theories are open to testing, however, does not mean that they are wrong. Evolution has been subject to well over a century of continual testing. The result: Its reality is no more in dispute among biologists than, for example, the existence of atoms and molecules is among chemists.
Our students need to be taught the method and content of real science. We urge you to alter the misguided policy of teaching intelligent design creationism in your high school science curriculum. Instead, empower students with real, dependable scientific knowledge. They need this knowledge to understand the world around them, to compete for admission to colleges and universities, and to compete for good jobs. They deserve nothing less.
Sincerely,
Paul Sniegowski
Associate Professor
Department of BiologyMichael Weisberg
Assistant Professor
Department of PhilosophyMembers of the Departments of Biology and Philosophy:
Prof. Edwin Abel
Prof. Andrew Binns
Prof. Anthony Cashmore
Prof. Brenda Casper
Prof. Dorothy Cheney
Prof. Karen Detlefsen
Prof. Zoltan Domotor
Prof. Arthur Dunham
Prof. Samuel Freeman
Prof. Warren Ewens
Prof. Steven Gross
Prof. Greg Guild
Prof. Paul Guyer
Prof. Gary Hatfield
Prof. Michael Hippler
Prof. Daniel Janzen
Prof. Peter Petraitis
Prof. Scott Poethig
Prof. Philip Rea
Prof. Dejian Ren
Prof. Marc Schmidt
Prof. Paul Schmidt
Prof. Richard Schultz
Prof. Tatanya Svitkina
Prof. Kok-Chor Tan
Prof. Lewis Tilney
Prof. Doris Wagner
Prof. Eric Weinberg
Prof. Scott Weinstein
Prof. Sally ZigmondAssociate Dean David Balamuth (Natural Sciences), Department of Physics
(SakarLab )
Full Text of TMLC Letter
Thomas More Law Center
Richard Thompson
Chief Counsel
Admitted in MichiganJanuary 7,2005
Paul Sniegowski
University of Pennsylvania
Department of Biology
415 S. University Avenue
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6018Michael Weisberg
University of Pennsylvania
Department of Philosophy
415 S. University Avenue
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6018Response to open letter dated January 6,2005:
If the level of inquiry supporting your letter is an example of the type of inquiry you make before arriving at scientific conclusions, I suggest that at the very least, your students should get their tuition money back, and more appropriately, the University should fire you as a scientist. It is clear that you do not have the slightest idea of the actual Dover school policy that you so vehemently condemn, and so let me educate you.
You write that the Dover school Board made a decision to “mandate the teaching of ‘intelligent design’ along with evolution.” That statement is untrue; in fact the opposite is the case. The school board policy specifically states: “No teacher will teach Intelligent Design, Creationism, or present his or her, or the Board’s, religious beliefs.”
Moreover, the school board adopted and purchased the biology textbooks for its students that were recommended by the school science teachers and the administration.
Regarding your dispute with the definition of theory, you fail to include the actual definition used in the policy, “A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.” That definition was recommended by the science teachers and adopted by the school board.
Finally, you are under the impression that Dover students will not be taught evolution, Let me disabuse you of that concern. The policy specifically acknowledges that the students must learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and take a standardized test in which evolution is a part. Accordingly, the only theory taught in class is Darwin’s theory of evolution, and the only textbook used in class is the standard text positing this theory.
I notice that your open letter was signed by a member of the Department of Philosophy. What does philosophy have to do with this issue? This issue is not about science versus philosophy; it is about two different interpretations of the same scientific data by scientists. I assume you would agree that the metaphysical implication of Darwin’s theory of evolution has no place in the science classroom. Or perhaps it is for this very reason that you so staunchly and dogmatically defend Darwin and place his theory above all criticism.
In conclusion, the Dover policy merely makes students aware of a growing controversy in the scientific community over the extent to which the theory of evolution can explain complex biological systems. This policy promotes critical thinking, which is important not only for the science profession, but for education in general. Moreover, this policy is in keeping with the Congressional intent behind the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and complements an honest science education.
30 Comments
Bayesian Bouffant · 11 January 2005
Gary Hurd · 11 January 2005
Les Lane · 11 January 2005
Since Mr. Thompson apparently is not a scientist, I recommend that he consult with members of the Pontifical Academy of Science. Members are chosen primarily for scientific excellence rather than adherence to doctrine. I suspect that they would give him a scientifically legitmate perspective on "controversy".
Flint · 11 January 2005
But of course Thompson isn't writing to the UPenn philosphy professors, he is writing to the voters who support the school board, who I imagine are lustily cheering his no-nonsense contempt of atheistic pinheaded ivory tower busybodies. He isn't so much making points as authoring sound-bites. And in the sound-bite world, something becomes true partly because he SAYS it's true, and partly because the target audience WANTS it to be true. Actual merit does not play any role in this battle. You want honesty, fairness, critical thinking, broad-based education, your kids not being left behind? By golly, you got it ALL, in one package. Thompson SAYS so.
Great White Wonder · 11 January 2005
Flint · 11 January 2005
Bayesian Bouffant · 11 January 2005
Reed A. Cartwright · 11 January 2005
BB,
You are right, and it was plainly obvious from the letter which was signed by "Members of the Departments of Biology and Philosophy." It is clearly a joint-department letter. I'm suprised Thompson with the excellent "level of inquiry" he learn while being a lawyer missed this.
Great White Wonder · 11 January 2005
Bayesian Bouffant · 11 January 2005
Penn has many more departments and programs relevant to biology, 42 in this primitive search. I wonder if additional shoes will drop.
Great White Wonder · 11 January 2005
Reed A. Cartwright · 11 January 2005
If you check out the TMLC resource page, you can see that they sell book marks based on Johnathan Well's "Icons."
Anj Petto · 11 January 2005
Great analysis. I think that I would add that the long list of philosophers is also listed in the so-called "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" on the DI website. Maybe Thompson can ask the folks at DI what philosophy has to do with science.
Flint · 11 January 2005
Mike Hopkins · 11 January 2005
Great White Wonder · 11 January 2005
Mike
Point taken. In context of the web page from which I extracted the quote, it seems obvious that Thompson was not extolling his argumentative skills so much as his willingness to be a bulldog for "Family Values" (my family's favorite value was the death penalty -- the foundation of American society).
I am not familiar with the Supreme Court case, however, and my five second effort to pull up the case online was not successful. Frankly, putting someone in jail for life for small-time drug dealing (which happened under the law) seems rather cruel and unusual. Michigan seems to have come to its senses, even if the Supreme's (decomposing in their seats) remain drunk on the crack rhetoric of the 80s.
Ed Darrell · 11 January 2005
Bold predictions:
1. The lawyers for the parents and teachers will move that the judge take judicial note of the soundness of evolution as the binding theory of biology. The judge makes such a ruling -- thereby eliminating any arguments that evolution is religion, or that it's not good science.
2. The lawyers for the Thomas More group will be so enraged or rattled that they'll let slip in court that they know ID is religion-based, and it is revealed that the More team advised their clients to "forget" their previous statements in favor of Jesus in the classroom, and leave themselves open for Rule 11 sanctions.
3. The trial court will grant summary judgment against the District's policy. The Supreme Court will not review. Judicial note that evolution is not religion, and that evolution is solid science, will stand.
And now you know why the DI folks are so frantic to get this case out of court. Creationists have always understood the thin veneer that separates their claims from wholesale, unconstitutional invention. Since the Scopes trial in 1925, they have sought to avoid real legal confrontations in real legal venues, because they lack a real case. Every once in a while some sucker from the interior of the nation takes the creationist professionals as sincere, and pushes the issue into a real court -- Arkansas in 1967, Arkansas in 1981, Louisiana in 1986, Pennsylvania in 2004. Creationism loses.
Creationists argue that they are being oppressed, hit the airwaves and mail with pleas for more funding, and then they make slick videos denying that the court loss they suffered ever occurred . . .
Ed Darrell · 11 January 2005
But, Mr. Hopkins, the Thomas More folks, with the support of the legal guys at Discovery Institute, have been shopping the nation, promising school boards that they would cover the costs of the litigation, hoping to get such a case. See their offer in Montana, for example.
Otherwise, school boards wouldn't throw away the taxpayers' money. They like to get re-elected, and most of them probably genuinely like their neighbors and like to spend wisely.
Free legal defense that effectively entraps one into getting sued is very expensive, it seems to me. Pro bono or donated representation that protects the Constitution is a more noble enterprise.
But, then, I revere the Constitution, as well as the facts.
Gary Hurd · 11 January 2005
DataDoc · 12 January 2005
Thomas More - that name rings a bell. Wasn't he the guy who had his head cut off in Iraq by Abu Zarqawi because he offended the Muslim religion? No, that's too recent.
Oh wait, I remember now. He's the guy who had his head cut off by Christian Creationists because they disagreed with his ... er ... Christian beliefs.
Science makes a lot more sense than religion.
Mrs Tilton · 12 January 2005
[Thomas More is] the guy who had his head cut off by Christian Creationists because they disagreed with his . . . er . . . Christian beliefs.
To be fair to both the choppers and the choppee, all Christians of that day would have been creationists. So too would everybody else have been, as there was as yet no basis for being other than a creationist.
Thomas More probably would have said that his head was chopped off because his Christian beliefs made him disagree with the king's. Certainly that is the spin put on the matter these days by those who count him a saint. Some protestants, by contrast, might claim that, to the extent More's beliefs differed from the king's, they were not Christian. All this makes for an intra-Christian squabble of much historical interest, if little edifying value. But it's also a red herring. As it happens, differences in 'Christian belief' had little to do with it. The king in question differed very little on doctrinal matters from More (who himself, in the days when he was still the most powerful civil servant in the kingdom, had religious dissenters killed). The English Reformation, at least under Henry, was essentially a political rather than a religious affair. (Even after breaking with the pope, Henry continued to use the papally-bestowed title 'Defensor fidei' with pride, and without a trace of irony. He was awarded the title for his text attacking Luther's teachings on the sacraments. What is ironic is that More probably helped him write it.)
But forward to the present day. The Dover business is worrying enough, both in itself and as symptom of a wider phenomenon in American civil life. It also presents a sort of meta-worry, however. It is evidence of an increasing tendency in Roman Catholic circles to join ranks with biblical fundamentalists, traditionally their arch-enemies, in the service of creationism. SFAIK the RCC was never defined by rejection of evolution as the backwoods bible-thumpers are (historical footnote: Monkey Trial defendant Scopes was, if I am not mistaken, a catholic). The pope himself (not before time, but still: credit where due) has literally said that evolution is not 'just a theory'. His church is hardly invested in a literal reading of scripture (indeed, if anything, very much the opposite). And yet here we have these Thomas More people backing mandatory ID; Phyllis Schlafly, who penned that very amusing ID piece taken apart here a few days back, is also a Roman Catholic; and so too, I believe, is Rick Santorum. Interesting. Those RCs striving hardest to keep schoolchildren from learning science are of that conservative sort that loudly demands strict submission to the pope on abortion, homosexuality, women clergy etc. Why, then, do they thumb their collective nose at him on evolution (to say nothing of capital punishment, the war in Iraq, etc.)? 'Bad catholics', I'd say (were I the pope), ' - no biscuit!'
Steve Reuland · 12 January 2005
Steve Reuland · 12 January 2005
Mrs Tilton · 12 January 2005
More was a staunch defender of Roman Catholic orthodoxy, and an enemy of the Reformation.
Quite true. The thing is, Henry was also a staunch defender of catholic orthodoxy until he broke with Rome, and even afterward staunchly defended all of it except that bit about the pope. Reform-minded churchmen had to watch their backs during his reign, though they were able to be a bit bolder during his later ill-health. (Wags of the day remarked that one could tell how on-top-of-things Henry was by whether bishop Cranmer had to keep his wife hidden away in Germany or dared to bring her back to England.) In its Henrician phase, the English Reformation was a reformation merely of church governance, not of doctrine; it strongly resembled the actions of the Gallican party in France a century earlier, which differed only in failing to produce (probably for reasons of historical serendipity) a definitive break the French church and the papacy. The 'Reformation' part of the English Reformation didn't really get under way until Edward's reign and wasn't completed until (after a violent lurch back Romewards under Mary) the reign of Elizabeth.
But enough of these fascinating events of long-ago. I wonder, will the Roman curia lay out with a few bashes of the crozier if their otherwise faithful flock in the USA grow too cosy with the heretics? They certainly stamped down hard on the overtures made by the evangelical Promise Keepers movement to recruit members from the RC church, and I doubt that was because Rome had any quarrel with the PKs' broad agenda.
As for why Thomas More is so widely admired: his loyalty to Rome might be sufficient for this among conservative Roman Catholics. But he's admired among a much wider group, you know, not all of whom are conservative or catholic (or even religious). I think this is largely down to the film A Man For All Seasons. People have the idea that More was a great individualist who was willing to die rather than abandon his own personal beliefs. Though one must concede that More did have the courage of his convictions, he would have been horrified to hear himself described in such terms. The notion that one should be free to exercise personal judgement in matters of religious belief was something he fought hard against his whole professional life (including by executing those who dared exercise it).
Benedict Eastaugh · 12 January 2005
Just a quick note on the philosophy aspect Mr. Thompson is attempting to downplay. Even casting proponents of the Argument to Design as one side in a conflict between philosophy and science is pure rhetoric; Hume refuted it quite adequately in his Dialogue on Natural Religion, even if we had to wait until Darwin for a serious alternative.
Moreover, perhaps someone could enlighten me as to the "metaphysical implication of Darwin's theory"? The Theory of Evolution says nothing about the existence of God (for example), at least so far as I can recall; like all scientific theories, it relies upon certain assumptions (about induction, for instance) and produces decidedly materialistic claims about physical phenomena (a materialism that does not rule out dualist claims).
386sx · 12 January 2005
The Theory of Evolution says nothing about the existence of God
Two notable creationists who would probably agree with you:
Charles Darwin
The Pope
Rilke's Grand-daughter · 12 January 2005
Bayesian Bouffant · 12 January 2005
Steve · 12 January 2005
Just an FYI I googled the philosophy professor who signed the petition. His specialities are philosophy of science, biology and chemistry (maybe physics too) IIRC. The idea that this mere philosopher brings nothing relevant to the discussion highlights the idiocy of Thompson. The man is a fool who can't even spare 35 seconds to do a quick google search.
386sx · 13 January 2005
Rilke's Grand-daughter:
Actual quotations and citations would be necessary to support such a statement. Can you provide them?
My understanding of the Papacy’s position is that evolution is not incompatible with the Christian faith - that God added ‘souls’ to mankind somewhere along the evolutionary timeline. Nothing in there about whether the theory itself says anything about God.
I think the Pope's position is that evolution can't say anything about the existence of God (so therefore the Theory of Evolution says nothing about the existence of God) because evolution is one of the "sciences of observation" when in fact questions concerning spiritual thingy stuff are matters for philosophy and theology.
The sciences of observation describe and measure, with ever greater precision, the many manifestations of life, and write them down along the time-line. The moment of passage into the spiritual realm is not something that can be observed in this way—although we can nevertheless discern, through experimental research, a series of very valuable signs of what is specifically human life. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-consciousness and self-awareness, of moral conscience, of liberty, or of aesthetic and religious experience—these must be analyzed through philosophical reflection, while theology seeks to clarify the ultimate meaning of the Creator's designs.
The Pope's Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM
As for Darwin - well, I'm not so sure about that, so hopefully you'll allow me a (tentative) retraction. But I found an interesting passage from The variation of animals and plants under domestication, Vol. 2:
http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/variation/variation28.html
If we assume that each particular variation was from the beginning of all time preordained, then that plasticity of organization, which leads to many injurious deviations of structure, as well as the redundant power of reproduction which inevitably leads to a struggle for existence, and, as a consequence, to the natural selection or survival of the fittest, must appear to us superfluous laws of nature. On the other hand, an omnipotent and omniscient Creator ordains everything and foresees everything. Thus we are brought face to face with a difficulty as insoluble as is that of free will and predestination.