Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

we don't fear anything. We are open-minded to what science can explain to us about our environment and our species.

Bringing scientific thought to bear on creationism
(By Gerry Rising, The Buffalo News, 06/10/07)

Charles Rulon, professor emeritus of Long Beach City College, was asked to debate a Discovery Institute representative on intelligent design. His opening remarks were published in the May/June "Skeptical Inquirer" and, because I believe they are so appropriate, I summarize them here.

Although he went ahead with the debate, Rulon offered five reasons why scientists avoid such confrontations.

First, to scientists it is "rigid application of the scientific method that counts, not oratory skills." To a largely uninformed audience, it is "the emotional rapport, public speaking skills, likability and believed authority of the debaters" that counts, not the scientific evidence they have to offer.

Second, the creationists have nothing to lose. "If a scientist debates, it's ?'proof' to many listeners that a scientific controversy actually exists."

Third, "creationists can churn out more scientific misinformation in 30 minutes, than I could possibly refute in a week." They know that their audience "does not have the necessary experience in evolutionary biology, historical geology, anthropology and paleontology to be able to separate scientifically solid evidence from halftruths, poor logic, outdated references, misleading quotations, selective data and outright falsehoods."

Fourth, debates allow equal time. The scientific method is not about equal time but about all the evidence, which is overwhelmingly on the side of evolution. "To require science teachers to ?'teach the controversy,' to give equal time to evolution and ID [intelligent design] is, in essence, to require teachers to lie to their students."

Fifth, the debates are publicity stunts that increase the membership of campus clubs that spread falsehoods regarding evolution, "thus creating serious obstacles to the ongoing science education of students. To make matters worse," Rulon says, most of these clubs "also hold religious beliefs that can seriously interfere with rational, compassionate and scientifically informed discussions related to other vitally important areas such as emergency contraceptive pills, the abortion pill, gay rights, death with dignity and overpopulation."

"And then," he adds, "there's the extremely scary Armageddon theology belief currently held by millions of Americans. After all, why be concerned about destroying the planet's life-support systems when the destruction of the world is already inevitable as foretold in Scripture?"

Even though he lists those reasons for not debating, Rulon concludes: "Today the United States is being confronted with large numbers [of people] who are locked into ultra-religious, anti-scientific views and who want to force these views on others through our elected officials, our courts, and our schools. That's why I'm here today."

I honor Rulon for his views and for the moxie he shows in stepping forward to defend evolution in this kind of unfair confrontation. I am reminded here of my friend Professor Jack Nelson's excuse when he refused an invitation to appear on a radio talk show. "Are you kidding?" he responded. "Talking with them is like entering a boxing ring against a contender with both hands tied behind you."

But what does the average biology classroom teacher do, given the challenges with which they are confronted? Sadly, some simply avoid evolution, the driving force behind everything they teach.

Happily, for those who do seek to address the challenges to evolution, an excellent new resource is available. It is "The Counter-Creationism Handbook" by Mark Isaak (University of California Press). This book responds to more than 400 individual arguments posed by creationists. That number alone suggests how difficult it is for an individual to be able to answer the wide range of attacks. The responses here are organized under philosophy and theology, biology, paleontology, geology, astronomy and cosmology, miscellaneous antievolution, Biblical creationism, intelligent design and "other" creationism topics. Individual questions offer source quotations, point-by-point responses and references for further reading.

They know that their audience "does not have the necessary experience in evolutionary biology, historical geology, anthropology and paleontology to be able to separate scientifically solid evidence from halftruths, poor logic, outdated references, misleading quotations, selective data and outright falsehoods."

Do positions on evolution really matter in 2008 race?
(By DeWayne Wickham, USA Today, June 12, 2007)

During a televised debate among GOP presidential candidates last month in California, Sen. John McCain of Arizona was asked whether he believes in evolution. McCain first answered with one word: "Yes." Then he quickly added: "I believe in evolution. But I also believe, when I hike the Grand Canyon and see it at sunset, that the hand of God is there also."

That bit of fence walking might remind some people of what comedian W.C. Fields, a life-long atheist, said when he was discovered reading a Bible shortly before his death. When a friend asked incredulously what he was doing, Fields responded: "Looking for loopholes."

But a recent USA TODAY/Gallup Poll suggests McCain's attempt to have it both ways is not an uncommon view. One-quarter of Americans think evolution, a scientific theory on the origins of life, and creationism, the biblical description of how life began, are both likely explanations. But in the world of politics, reality is too often shaped by what it takes to win over the relatively small number of voters who take part in a political party's selection process ?- not the thinking of a wider group of people.

Whatever the reason, three of the GOP presidential wannabes standing with McCain that day gave a much different answer. Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas and Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado answered with a show of hands when a reporter asked, "Is there anybody on the stage that does not agree, believe in evolution?"

This month, during a GOP debate in New Hampshire, Huckabee was asked about his rejection of evolution. "To me, it's pretty simple," the Baptist minister answered. "A person either believes that God created this process or believes that it was an accident and that it just happened all on its own."

In politics, few things are described so simply. But for many members of the religious right ?- an influential bloc in the GOP's presidential candidate selection process ?- answers to questions of faith have no middle ground. This is especially so in the long-running debate over the beginning of life.

Faced with such intransigence in 1925 on the eve of the trial of John Scopes ?- a man charged with violating a Tennessee law that prohibited teaching evolution ?- H.L. Mencken, a columnist for Baltimore's The Sun, wrote, "Enlightenment, among mankind, is very narrowly dispersed." Mencken would be surprised to know that when it comes to debate over the origins of life, enlightenment is now in greater supply.

Many Americans think the theories of divine creation and evolution can coexist. And why not accept the Bible's story of God's creation of life as a metaphor, and the evolutionist's version of how life started as a more detailed account of the same event? Isn't it possible the "Big Bang" theory of the universe's beginning is just science's explanation of what happened when God said, "Let there be light?" Why worry about where presidential candidates of either party stand on this issue?

At one point in the New Hampshire debate, Huckabee bristled at being asked about his position on the origins of life. "I'm not planning on writing the curriculum for an eighth-grade science book. I'm asking for the opportunity to be president of the United States," he said.

But with that job comes significant influence over public education, as we have seen with the Bush administration's imposition of teaching standards. The Oval Office job also plays a role in defining the nation's response to harmful atmospheric changes that many scientists say are man-made, and in determining government's response to calls for expanded stem cell research, which could alter lives afflicted with disease.

Putting a religious absolutist in the White House might sharply reduce the role of science in our national life ?- and distance the next president from the thinking of a lot of Americans.

Putting a religious absolutist in the White House might sharply reduce the role of science in our national life ?- and distance the next president from the thinking of a lot of Americans.

It is a good morning exercise for a research scientist to discard a pet hypothesis every day before breakfast. It keeps him young.

It is a good morning exercise for a research scientist to discard a pet hypothesis every day before breakfast. It keeps him young.

It is a good morning exercise for a research scientist to discard a pet hypothesis every day before breakfast. It keeps him young.

One Scientist's Junk Is a Creationist's Treasure
(Catherine Shaffer, Wired.com, 06.13.07)

Without your "junk DNA" you might be reading this article while hanging upside down by your tail.

That's one of the key findings of the opossum genome-sequencing project, and a surprising group is embracing the results: intelligent-design advocates. Since the early '70s, many scientists have believed that a large amount of many organisms' DNA is useless junk. But recently, genome researchers are finding that these "noncoding" genome regions are responsible for important biological functions.

The opossum data revealed that more than 95 percent of the evolutionary genetic changes in humans since the split with a common human-possum ancestor occurred in the "junk" regions of the genome. Creationists say it's also evidence that God created all life, because God does not create junk. Nothing in creation, they say, was left to chance.

"It is a confirmation of a natural empirical prediction or expectation of the theory of intelligent design, and it disconfirms the neo-Darwinian hypothesis," said Stephen Meyer, director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle.

Advocates like Meyer are increasingly latching onto scientific evidence to support the theory of intelligent design, a modern arm of creationism that claims life is not the result of natural selection but of an intelligent creator. Most scientists believe that intelligent design is not science. But Meyer says the opossum data supports intelligent design's prediction that junk DNA sequences aren't random, but important genetic material. It's an argument Meyer makes in his yet-to-be-published manuscript, The DNA Enigma.

Scientists have made several discoveries about what some call the "dark matter of the genome" in recent years, but they say the research holds up the theory of natural selection rather than creationism.

In May 2007, Stanford scientists identified more than 10,000 "snippets" of DNA that are not genes but have been conserved across species throughout evolution.

When genes are conserved through natural selection, it's usually because they have important functions. In this case the researchers believe the DNA snippets are associated with early development.

"We are saying it's functional because we observe this trajectory of a hundred million years," said Gill Bejerano, an assistant professor of developmental biology and computer science at Stanford and co-author of the paper on the 10,000 DNA snippets. "If you disbelieve this process, then from your perspective, we haven't found anything interesting in the genome."

Geneticist Susumu Ohno coined the phrase "junk DNA" in his 1972 paper, "So Much 'Junk' DNA in our Genome." Four years later, Richard Dawkins published The Selfish Gene, which popularized the idea that genes are the basis of evolutionary selection. Any DNA that was not actively trying to get to the next generation -- namely junk DNA -- was slowly decaying away through mutation, Dawkins wrote.

With scientists increasingly believing that so-called junk DNA regulates other genes, among other functions, creationists like Michael Behe, a biochemistry professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and author of the controversial new book on intelligent design, The Edge of Evolution, are more than happy to point out their errors.

"From the very beginning Darwinism thought whatever it didn't understand must be simple, must be nonfunctional," Behe said. "It's only in retrospect that Darwinists try to fit that into their theory."

Part of the difficulty in studying junk DNA is that it's impossible to prove a negative, i.e., that any particular DNA does not have a function.

That's why T. Ryan Gregory, an assistant professor in biology at the University of Guelph, believes that nonfunctional should be the default assumption. "Function at the organism level is something that requires evidence," he said.

Many scientists, including Francis Collins, author of The Language of God and director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, believe that "junk" may have been an overstatement from the beginning.

Collins is known for believing in both evolution and God, but he stops short of using junk DNA as proof of God as the master of creation.

"I've stopped using the term," Collins said. "Think about it the way you think about stuff you keep in your basement. Stuff you might need some time. Go down, rummage around, pull it out if you might need it."

"Obviously 'junk' is pretty much a colloquial term," said Stanford's Bejerano. "There's no scientific definition of what is junk."