Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

We can work it out
(Tim Radford, Education Guardian, December 20, 2006)

Irreducible complexity is an argument used by people who promote "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolutionary biology. The argument is that there are some bits of biology - eyes are a favourite example - so intricate, so clever and so difficult to explain that they must have been fabricated by somebody or something more intelligent than the operation of natural selection upon random mutation (or evolution, for short). Furthermore, say the Creationists (what else would a supernatural intelligent designer be but a Creator?), intelligent design is just as much science as evolutionary biology.

Well, not if it hinges on the evidence of irreducible complexity. Irreducible complexity is the brick wall at which all science stops. Until Copernicus, Galileo and Newton came along, the motions of the planets were irreducibly complex and God sustained them, and that was all you needed to know. Influenza was a consequence of planetary influences, so it was beyond earthly explanation. Malaria was spread by bad air (hence the name mal aria) so you had to protect yourself with a scented handkerchief. Human flight, of course, was something that would never happen. And matter - all matter - was fabricated from fire, air, earth and water, with possible help from a quintessence. Life was a vital spark. And so on. If researchers had, over the last 300 years, accepted the argument that difficult-to-understand phenomena were irreducibly complex, most of us would never have been born. Those that were born and then survived might have their faces pitted by smallpox, their lungs scarred by tuberculosis and their limbs withered by polio. They would of course have no telephones, no television, and no Ryanair flights, because the science behind all of these things must once have seemed irreducibly complex to somebody, indeed to everybody.

And I'll bet that even the most obdurate Creationists are glad not be afflicted by leprosy, smallpox and tuberculosis, even though such scientific, not to say biological, advances were achieved without overt miraculous intervention. So the great puzzle is: if something that somebody once thought irreducibly complex turned out centuries later to be a breeze for a bright young people with faith in the scientific method, why should people throw up their hands and say "No, the eye is irreducibly complex. God must have made it. Evolution as explained by Darwin could not have achieved it. And anyway, the eye looks as if it were designed for its purpose. So it is reasonable to believe that there must have been a Designer?"

Evolutionary biologists have their own confident answers about the multiple evolution of the eye. The argument from design however, is not new but 200 years old. In 1800, practically the whole of Judaeo-Christian Europe and America accepted that God had made the world, with all its myriad creatures, in roughly six days, about 2,400 human generations earlier, and that so-called fossils were, just like landscape marble, "sports of nature". It was in such a context that Archdeacon William Paley proposed his notorious Argument from Design, and even then his logic must have looked pretty flaky. In 1802, in a book called Natural Theology, Paley argued that you could stare at the world and see what worked. If it worked, then it only did so because God intended it to work.

"There cannot be design without a designer; contrivance without a contriver; order without choice, arrangement without anything capable of arrangement," he wrote and he concluded "Arrangement, disposition of parts, subserviency of means to an end, relation of instruments to a use, imply the presence of intelligence and mind."

In effect, you could demonstrate the existence of God from His handiwork, except, ironically, when it came to vision. The eye worried William Paley. He thought the eye such a clumsy contrivance ("Contrivance, by its very definition and nature, is the refuge of imperfection," he wrote) that he had to explain why it was nevertheless evidence of a Designer. According to Charles Coulston Gillispie's marvellous Genesis and Geology (1951), Paley concluded that God employed roundabout makeshifts just to let people know that He existed: the eye served as a kind of Divine nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

William Paley lost the argument 140 years ago, not because 19th century England lost its faith in God, but because Paley put up a bad argument, and because Charles Darwin 60 years later put up a hypothesis, and a package of evidence so compelling that the great biologist Thomas Henry Huxley is supposed to have said "How extremely stupid of me not to have thought of that".

So here is a paradox: today's intelligent designers argue that the eye is direct evidence of the hand of God because it is too clever for evolution to have achieved, while yesterday's more overtly religious, more classically-educated intelligent designers thought that the eye looked like a clumsy biological compromise, while all along it could only have been God's handiwork. But here is the other paradox: today's intelligent designers concede that some sort of adaptation or evolution has indeed taken place. They just balk at accepting the whole theory because they will not accept that there could be a natural explanation of the biological riddles that have not yet been solved. Is that science? It isn't logic. It isn't even common sense. And when supporters of intelligent design make claims about Darwin that are palpably untrue, it certainly isn't Christian.

We can work it out
(Tim Radford, Education Guardian, December 20, 2006)

Do people actually read stuff like that wande?

"I have 10 friends in Dover that there's something there that we'll always have. I think in the end, we made Dover a better place."
Plaintiff/parent Steven Stough

---

"I guess I just hope with all of this that has happened that people realize the importance of sound science. If this all had to have happened for a reason, I hope it was that people walk away with a realization of what evolution means to all of the sciences. I hope it's a wake-up call for science teachers. Evolution is really downplayed in American schools. It's diluted for fear that it's going to offend someone. ... If this country keeps dumbing it down just to appease a small group of religious zealots, we're doing a great disservice to the students."
Plaintiff/parent Cyndi Sneath

---

"It obviously changed my life. It shoved me in the forefront of the media, which obviously was new. It's humbling to see how often the case has been case cited. I went to see the Darwin exhibit at the Franklin (Institute) exhibit and saw (the case) written on the timeline there. It was an experience I never expected to have in my life, but one that I wouldn't change."
Lead plaintiff/parent Tammy Kitzmiller

---

"The experience of participating in the trial was unlike anything I've ever done in my life. It was extraordinary to become a part of the team of people. (Meeting the plaintiffs) was remarkable. It gave the case a personal aspect that made it different from just defending science or arguing against intelligent design. These were real people who were affected in a real way by what was happening in Dover. As the case wore on, it became more and more apparent that we were becoming part of history with the Dover case. When the trial was going on, I had no idea how far-reaching the trial and the opinion would turn out to be. I now realize how many people were following this trial and how important it was for scientists and educators all across the country. ... It exposed the creationist roots of intelligent design and the complete lack of scientific support of the intelligent design movement, and in many ways exposed the duplicity of people involved in the intelligent design movement."
Brown University professor Kenneth Miller, who testified for the plaintiffs

---

"(The trial) was an unusual experience for a philosopher ... you don't expect to end up in a courtroom. I regard my involvement ... as a civic duty. As a citizen, it's probably the most gratifying thing I have ever done. The legacy of the case was the judge's decision. I think any future legal cases that come up ... they're gonna read that decision. If this case had come up differently it would be 'Katy bar the door' (because creationists would push for the teaching of intelligent design). It was very clear to everyone who followed the case that intelligent design is not science. The Discovery Institute has been trying for years to foment a court case. And they finally got one dropped in their laps and what was ironic is they didn't want it. They knew what this case would do to them."
Barbara Forrest, a professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University who testified for the plaintiffs

---

"In the long run, I don't think it (the trial) means much. The question is decided by science, not by a judge. As a legal matter, I think conflicts such as this will be around for a long time, frankly because a large portion of the population smells a rat (in relation to evolution). (Testifying) was daunting and at once exhilarating. I very much enjoyed the back and forth in the courtroom. ... I felt my own testimony went very much better than the opinion reflects. The worst part for me was reading the judge's opinion and seeing my testimony ignored and words put into my mouth essentially. That really ... kind of knocked me for a loop. I thought we presented a good case and he was unconvinced by it. The judge saying that things look rosy for Darwinism doesn't make it so. The judge can rule that the moon is made of green cheese, but that doesn't stop investigations into what it is really made of."
Biochemist and Lehigh University professor Michael Behe, who testified for the defense

Id like to know whatever became of the school superintendent and the assistant superintendent? Did the new school board renew their contract?



I notice that Mike Behes statements are becoming less quantitative and more religious, or is that me just projecting?

DOVER TRIAL PARTICIPANTS UPDATE

Quote:

"I have 10 friends in Dover that there's something there that we'll always have. I think in the end, we made Dover a better place."
Plaintiff/parent Steven Stough

"In the long run, I don't think it (the trial) means much. The question is decided by science, not by a judge. As a legal matter, I think conflicts such as this will be around for a long time, frankly because a large portion of the population smells a rat (in relation to evolution). (Testifying) was daunting and at once exhilarating. I very much enjoyed the back and forth in the courtroom. ... I felt my own testimony went very much better than the opinion reflects. The worst part for me was reading the judge's opinion and seeing my testimony ignored and words put into my mouth essentially. That really ... kind of knocked me for a loop. I thought we presented a good case and he was unconvinced by it. The judge saying that things look rosy for Darwinism doesn't make it so. The judge can rule that the moon is made of green cheese, but that doesn't stop investigations into what it is really made of."
Biochemist and Lehigh University professor Michael Behe, who testified for the defense

Source: The York Dispatch, December 20, 2006

Smithsonian "discriminated" against scientist
[Ted Agres, Scientist Magazine, 22nd December 2006]

A recently released Congressional report accuses senior officials at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) of having harassed, discriminated against, and retaliated against research associate and journal editor Richard Sternberg for allowing publication of a scientific paper supporting intelligent design (ID) in 2004.

According to the report, NMNH officials sought to discredit Sternberg and force him out of his unpaid RA position after he allowed an article by Stephen C. Meyer, director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, to be published in the August 2004 Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, a peer-reviewed journal of which he was managing editor at the time. While legally separate from the NMNH, Proceedings is governed by a council that includes NMNH scientists and receives public funds from the museum.

Meyer's article, which used information theory to support the argument for intelligent design in biological complexity, sparked controversy. It was the first pro-ID article to be published in a refereed publication, raising concern among some scientists that it might be used to enhance the academic argument for intelligent design.

The Congressional report, prepared by the staff of Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN), chairman of the Government Reform subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources and released Dec. 11, supports Sternberg's claims that NMNH supervisors investigated his political and religious beliefs, sought to discredit him, and aimed to force his removal as an RA by creating a "hostile work environment" after the article was published.

The report suggests legislation is needed to protect the free speech of scientists at the Smithsonian and other federally funded institutions.

"While the majority of scientists embrace Darwinian theory, it is important that neither Federal funds nor Federal power be used to punish or retaliate against otherwise qualified scientists merely because they dissent from the majority view," the report states.

Sternberg, who is also a staff taxonomist at NIH's National Center for Biotechnology Information, said he is "thinking hard" about whether to file a discrimination lawsuit. "I do not think any Federal government employee should be discriminated against on the basis of their outside activities or their intellectual views, concerning theories of evolution or any other subject," Sternberg told The Scientist in an email.

The report says NMNH officials and scientists discussed among themselves in emails whether Sternberg "was a Republican," "was a fundamentalist" or "was a conservative."

It also references an Aug. 26, 2004, email from Hans Sues, NMNH associate director for research and collections, to the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) seeking help in trying to determine whether Sternberg had misrepresented himself as a Smithsonian employee, as opposed to an RA, because doing so would have constituted grounds for his dismissal.

NCSE spokesman Nicholas Matzke said his group was not part of an effort to dismiss Sternberg. "A lot of people at the Smithsonian were mad because their journal was dragged into a political issue. We wanted them to focus on the science and not persecute or discriminate against Sternberg on religious grounds," Matzke told The Scientist. "We advised them not to fire Sternberg," he said, "and they eventually followed our advice."

NMNH public affairs director Randall Kremer denied that Sternberg had been harassed or discriminated against. Smithsonian and NMNH officials investigated Sternberg's allegations and found "no basis for his complaints," Kremer told The Scientist. "Sternberg still has an office here, and he has full access to the research facility," Kremer said. "If he feels people are hostile to him, it's his feeling. It's all in the eye of the beholder."

Sternberg's appointment as an RA expires in January 2007. NMNH officials had previously offered to renew the position, but have since changed the post to that of research collaborator, which is a role for someone "less academically qualified," Sternberg said. "If this is a mistake on their part and they want to renew my former position as research associate, I will accept. Otherwise I will not."

Sternberg filed a complaint with the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), the federal agency that investigates and prosecutes prohibited personnel practices, in late 2004. OSC staff attorney James McVay reported in an 11-page letter having found evidence to corroborate complaints of religious and political-affiliation discrimination and retaliation. "It is also clear that a hostile work environment was created with the ultimate goal of forcing [Sternberg] out," McVay wrote.

However, because Sternberg was an unpaid RA and not a Smithsonian employee, the OSC lacked jurisdiction and did not pursue the matter. In August 2005, the subcommittee staff initiated its own investigation, resulting in the current report, which largely corroborates the OSC findings.

In an email to The Scientist, NCSE's Matzke asserted that both investigations were politically motivated, with Souder being "the leading ID supporter in Congress" and OSC chief Scott Bloch having been "widely criticized for using the OSC office for right-wing culture wars."

Quote:

Smithsonian "discriminated" against scientist
[Ted Agres, Scientist Magazine, 22nd December 2006]
"While the majority of scientists embrace Darwinian theory, it is important that neither Federal funds nor Federal power be used to punish or retaliate against otherwise qualified scientists merely because they dissent from the majority view," the report states.

All the scientist can do, in my opinion, is to test his theories, and to eliminate all those that do not stand up to the most severe tests he can design. But he can never be quite sure whether new tests (or even a new theoretical discussion) may not lead him to modify, or to discard, his theory. In this sense all theories are and remain hypotheses.

Focus on predictive success
(Gavin Polhemus, Ph.D., Fort Collins Coloradan, December 27, 2006)

Curt Martin claims that Intelligent Design explains the complexity of life and cosmic fine tuning (Soapbox, Dec. 22). The true test is not in offering explanations, but in making accurate predictions.

Evolution's predictive successes in biology, genetics and medicine are overwhelming. For example, evolution predicted that a transitional species between fish and land reptiles lived 370 million years ago in a particular tropical swamp. Based on this prediction, scientists went to the location (now in the Canadian arctic) and discovered fossils of this species, Tiktaalik roseae.

Results such as these confirm that evolution, not Intelligent Design, is the correct theory explaining the complexity of life.

No theory explaining cosmic fine tuning has made enough accurate predictions to gain our confidence. Some theories do not require an intelligent designer (see, for example, "The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design" by Leonard Susskind).

If any theory, Intelligent Design included, makes a prediction, scientists will rush to test it. Until then, we just don't know. Millions of dollars spent on Intelligent Design have generated only a few research papers, but dozens of popular books, hundreds of self-congratulating press releases and thousands of misleading op-ed pieces. As long as Intelligent Design's focus is promotion and not research, the scientific community will view the movement with deserved contempt.

Evolution's predictive successes in biology, genetics and medicine are overwhelming. For example, evolution predicted that a transitional species between fish and land reptiles lived 370 million years ago in a particular tropical swamp. Based on this prediction, scientists went to the location (now in the Canadian arctic) and discovered fossils of this species, Tiktaalik roseae.