Recently I wrote an article featuring a letter from a librarian in the UK who uncovered an attempt to get an Intelligent Design textbook into school libraries by donating it labled as a science book. It generated a lot of comments which I've tried to address but the answer to a somewhat testy comment from "Ray" started to take on a life of its own and grew long enough to make an essay out of. I don't worry about the more irrelevant parts of his comment like, "why are you evolutionists so afraid of dissenting opinions that you would even prevent books being offered for private consumption?" (Hello? School libraries here - not private consumption) but I did want to address his first question. It, and my answer to it, start below.
Hello Ray. You ask, "Should it be illegal to teach anything?" Well, that depends on what you want to teach, doesn't it? You can teach about fascism in a history or political science class but should you be teaching fascism to the class? Can you imagine teachers telling their students, "fascism is a system that many people, some very well known in their fields, believe provides better explanations for human behavior and far more efficiently and happily harnesses that behavior toward societal goals than competing systems, like democracy. I'm not advocating replacing democracy with fascism, of course. I'm just teaching the controversy."
You know Ray, there's not a word in that imaginary lesson that's untrue... at least not until the last two sentences anyway. By using this language, the teacher has purposely planted doubts about democracy and promoted a controversy that exists only in the fevered minds of small political fringe groups. That's the verdict of history and it's borne out by the proliferation of democracies since WWII and the marginalization of remaining dictatorships.
.jpg)
The same is true of Intelligent Design. It may use the language of science but it's not science. It's Creationism dressed in a lab coat and it's used as a wedge to legitimize a place for Creationism in the science classroom. This is not my verdict. This is the verdict of the US District Court in the 2005 case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District where Judge John E. Jones III, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (quote from Wikipedia).That's also the verdict of The U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (which terms it "pseudoscience"). Here's a little more from the ID entry in Wikipedia:
The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.
So, do I think Intelligent Design should be illegal to teach about? Nope, not if it's treated in its context as a social and historical phenomenon. But teaching it as science? I go along with the courts on that one. It's unconstitutional. And teaching it as a viable alternative to current science is as morally reprehensible as teaching that fascism is a viable alternative to systems based on individual civil liberties... like democracy.
Photo Credit:
1) The Flying Spaghetti Monster - one possible candidate for the designer in the Theory of Intelligent Design.
Feel free to link to this article.
If you enjoy my articles, you can click on "Subscribe by email" to receive notification when new ones are posted.
Comments
I read the Kitzmiller decision in its entirety and was amazed that the lack of understanding of basic ID theory he displayed. I'm not a proponent of teaching ID in schools (because it hasn't had time to sufficiently develop), but his reasoning was so far off that I just had to shake my head in disbelief. He continually made basic categorical errors. I wasn't impressed with the defense's use of Behe as its "star witness" either, as he only represents a specific type of ID, not ID proper.
While I don't favor teaching ID in the classroom, I do favor allowing books by ID proponents to be available in libraries for those interested in the subject to check out. After all...they can do this with books on Facism, can't they?? ;)
"I do favor allowing books by ID proponents to be available in libraries for those interested in the subject to check out. After all...they can do this with books on Facism, can't they?? ;)"
There is a difference between stocking books about fascism and stocking books that promote fascism. Besides this is quite frankly a very poor analogy. Fascism was a polictical ideology that had a dramatic affect on the history of the 20th century it is very much a legitimate field of study in itself, ID is not a field of study it is an opinion on an already existing field of study(biology) an opinion that has produced no evidence to back its claims and is supported only by a tiny minority of scientists in the relevent area. Holding books supporting ID in a school library would not be the same as holding books about fascism it would be the same as holding books supporting fascism.
Bravo for taking this very tough discussion on Hugh, keep up the great work- and here is my answer to your question...NO
Not unless they plan on teaching individual classes on every myth or mythology out there and stating that they could all be "correct."
Intelligent design is the alternative for creationist myth, and it is not theory- However, with time they may have enough people and or proof to begin teaching the idea...who knows.
I still say it was aliens, "no god" just aliens...(all credit given to Tom Cruise for that line)
"ID is not a field of study it is an opinion on an already existing field of study(biology) an opinion"
Tilley, can you tell me what exactly ID consists of? Is Stephen Meyer's newest book really just "opinion" with no data to support it? Or might you be overstating the case for rhetorical one-upsmanship? ;)
Actually JM, I heard a talk in October by biologist PZ Myers about what he learned from attending lectures by Dr. Behe, Dembski, John West, Stephen Meyer and others. Here, as closely as I remember it, is what PZ said he learned from their presentations:
"Complexity. Complexity, complexity. Complexity, complexity, COMPLEXITY. Complexity, complexity... complexity, complexity. Complexity, complexity, COMPLEXITY, complexity... therefore, design."
After that summation, he dissected their claims a little less generally. If you want to see a video of PZ Myers' talk, just google "PZ Myers complexity, complexity." It was the first listing that came up on my search.
"Tilley, can you tell me what exactly ID consists of?"
According to the Discovery Institute its this: "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection".
"Is Stephen Meyer's newest book really just "opinion" with no data to support it?"
While I haven't read his latest book I'm going to make a guess based on his previous output and go with yes. Of course if you can direct me to the peer reviewed data he produced to back up his claims I'll be happy to reconsider.
"Or might you be overstating the case for rhetorical one-upsmanship? ;)"
Nope.
Since the book is essentially an expansion of his doctoral disseration at Cambridge...I assume his doctoral supervisors who awarded him his Ph.D for this particular research would count as "peers", would they not?
Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument from authority) again, eh JMS? How about an argument from evidence instead? What are the falsifiable propositions Meyer puts forth? How do you test for intelligent design in an organism? What are the mechanisms an intelligent designer uses? To simply say that an organ (or organism) is too complex to have been made by anything but an intelligent designer just begs the question.
When asked for "peer review" it is perfectly acceptable to reference authorities in the field (which I assume Cambridge doctoral committees count as!). Perhaps you should break away from common anti-ID tactics and read Meyer's work and weigh the evidence for yourself rather than just going with the crowd. That's an approach that so many ardent opposers of ID seem unwilling to adopt...and they even go so far as to bash or discredit anyone who doesn't share their view, even atheist philosophers. Why is this? Perhaps THAT would make for a good topic for the LA Atheist Examiner to address... ;)
"Since the book is essentially an expansion of his doctoral disseration at Cambridge...I assume his doctoral supervisors who awarded him his Ph.D for this particular research would count as "peers", would they not?"
Indeed they do, however his Ph.D was in "history and philosophy of science" and his dissertation was not a research project but a review of the literature of the time entitled "Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of origin of life studies". I have no doubt that his dissertation was a perfectly legitimate piece of work but it was not hard experimental data in support of intelligent design.
"his dissertation was not a research project but a review of the literature of the time entitled "Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of origin of life studies". I have no doubt that his dissertation was a perfectly legitimate piece of work but it was not hard experimental data in support of intelligent design."
Then at the very least, one cannot dismiss his thesis as "opinion" or "unsubstantiated" since it is a reflection of the current state of origins of life research, wouldn't you agree?
I have no problem with someone rejecting ID; what annoys me to no end is the dishonest and acrid manner in which it is done by so many who ought to know better (because they are the same ones who decry such tactics when used by Creationists!). ID may turn out to be garbage in the end...only time will tell...but the constant mischaracterization, dogmatism and character assassination by its opponents has no place in any rational debate.
"Then at the very least, one cannot dismiss his thesis as "opinion" or "unsubstantiated" since it is a reflection of the current state of origins of life research, wouldn't you agree?"
I don't dismiss his thesis, however I somewhat doubt that his thesis was writtern in support of intelligent design, . For starters he wrote it sometime before he became involved with the intelligent design movement and lets face it if it had been pro ID and made it through peer review the Discovery Institute would be crowing to high heaven about it. Also if it had made it through and been pro ID then why the follow up in books? Why not go the whole way and continue with the peer review?
"I have no problem with someone rejecting ID; what annoys me to no end is the dishonest and acrid manner in which it is done by so many who ought to know better (because they are the same ones who decry such tactics when used by Creationists!). ID may turn out to be garbage in the end...only time will tell...but the constant mischaracterization, dogmatism and character assassination by its opponents has no place in any rational debate."
Oh come on the Discovery Institute gives as good as it gets, in fact despite having been around for nearly 20 years and with a yearly budget of several million dollars all they seem to have done is exchange rhetoric with the scientific establisment. Theres been no attempts at research, thats why the Templeton Foundation withdrew their funding and support. So far they've been entirely political and have behaved almost exactly the same as every other pseudoscientific movement out there from the anti-vaccine people to homeopaths.<continued next comment>
<continued> You can continue to wait James, but I've seen enough. Just out of interest though how will you know if intelligent design turns out to be garbage, the scientific establisment already considers it to be but you clearly disagree, the Discovery Institute aren't going to admit defeat. So how will you decide?
"Oh come on the Discovery Institute gives as good as it gets"
So, you take a lowest-common-denominator approach? Two wrongs don't make a right, do they? It's extremely rare to find actual engagement with Meyer's or Behe's work that's not dismissive and/or question-begging to begin with. The rancor with which ID is dealt with and the conspiracy-theory hysteria that many otherwise rational thinkers evidence toward any discussion of it is far beyond anything experienced by any other "pseudoscience." Because unlike other things that can be easily dismissed, ID is asking questions that are foundational and that origin-of-life research has been unable to answer for 50+ years, though Neo-Darwinians confidently pronounce otherwise.
I know that the Raelians and other UFO groups believe in Intelligent Design, and we could feasibly work panspermia into that. It doesn't exclude natural selection of course, which is going on all the time. As a Gnostic, I tend to be geared toward and Unitelligent Design point of view, and in truth, the Pastafarian religion which borrows its stories from the bible, just as Judaism borrowed from Ugaritic mythology, is "drunken" or at least "Qualified Intelligent Design", not a purely ID perspective. If the FSM hadn't been wasted at the time of creation, the universe might look less ugly, empty and dark.
Gnostic guy,
I'm curious as to which Ugaritic mythology Judaism "borrowed." When it comes to ID and issues of science, I must admit to being only an "interested layman" (i.e. not a working scientist); but Ancient Near East and Biblical texts is an area that I am at home in, and I see far too many people pick up something in a comparative religions course or online somewhere about the Old Testament's ANE parallel literature and assume vastly unwarranted conclusions based on the data.
I realize that I am subject to this charge by those of the Neo-Darwinian camp, so that's why I stress that ID's validity lies in *the questions it is asking at a philosophical/methodological level* and the implications it has for scientific naturalism as a worldview. I concede that it hasn't developed into a full-fledged scientific discipline...which is why I don't favor it being taught in classrooms (though it should be available in libraries for interested students to look into).
The three explanations most often used to try to prove ID are "living things are designed, so require a designer" (pure opinion), "some things are irreducibly complex, so couldn't have evolved" (opinion, and shown to be false), and "DNA is a language, so requires a programmer" (opinion, DNA isn't a programming language, it's just presented that way). There is no scientific evidence that supports those suppositions. In fact Kenneth Miller, a Christian biologist, shows how they fail in "Only a Theory"
James-Michael Smith, I'm sure you are an expert on biblical archeology, theology, astrotheology and all the other story telling. Who doesn't love a good yarn?
I'm sure you believe in ID as the Raelians, Scientologists, and Pastafarians do. I find the UD perspective works for me and should you change your mind, why can't I teach My Controversy? I'd love nothing more than to trash the Demiurge and his Holographic fraud of a universe to your atheist, and abrahamic children alike.
Steve-in-SA,
You left out the idea of Specified Complexity (of which "Irreducible Complexity" is a subset). I've read Miller's critique of Behe and it seemed to be a lot of just-so stories. "Well a flagellum part could've had a previous purpose as an injection apendage and then adapted to become a propeller"...leaving behind the extremely implausible details of how such adaptation would've occurred. Not that this *couldn't* have happened in theory; but to appeal to a hypothetical as "proof" that a system with all the marks of design came about apart from any intelligent agency is extremely question-begging I believe.
And to clarify, I'm not an ID proponent. I'm an honest-debate proponent. Some Darwinists are to be commended for their rejection of ID after a fair hearing and honest disagreement. The majority, however, seem incapable of doing this and resort to fear rhetoric ("closet creationism" etc.) instead.
"So, you take a lowest-common-denominator approach?"
I personally don't but when the DI spends the majority of its time mud flinging I don't see why they or you should get offended when their opponents respond with the same.
"It's extremely rare to find actual engagement with Meyer's or Behe's work that's not dismissive and/or question-begging to begin with."
There are numerous rebuttals to the works of Behe and Meyer for example the likes of talkorigins or the pandas thumb.
"The rancor with which ID is dealt with and the conspiracy-theory hysteria that many otherwise rational thinkers evidence toward any discussion of it is far beyond anything experienced by any other "pseudoscience.""
I disagree, have you seen the Jenny Mccarthy bodycount? ID is often treated extremely well in the american media, many news outlets treat it as though it is an equal opponent to the theory of evolution.
"Because unlike other things that can be easily dismissed, ID is asking questions that are foundational and that origin-of-life research has been unable to answer for 50+ years, though Neo-Darwinians confidently pronounce otherwise."
So now evolution is abiogenesis? Nice slight of hand there. The reason why ID can't be easily dismmissed is because it currently offers nothing to dismiss, as I stated earlier the likes of the Discovery Institute have offered no experimental data to back their claims. It is an unsupported assertion not in any shape or form a scientific theory
You're right, I did leave out Specified Complexity. It's not one of the ones I've heard argued often. Specified Complexity is based on flawed statistics. Even if his calculations weren't based on inconsistencies and flawed math, you have to remember "There are three types of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics" -Benjamin Disraeli.
As for Miller's description of how the flagellum could have evolved from the "injection appendage", all he has to do to disprove the hypothesis that the flagellum was irreducibly complex is show how it could have been useful with reduced complexity. That's the problem with trying to use irreducibly complex as evidence for your assertion.
And while you say you are not an ID proponent, your constant use of the term Darwinist to describe evolution scientists and proponents, identifies you firmly as an evolution detractor at least. This tells me that you are looking for anything you can latch onto that firmly opposes evolution.
Tilley,
No slight of hand; I never used the term "evolution" to denote abiogenesis. I used "Neo-Darwinian" to denote the overall worldview, as put forth by its most public defenders (Dawkins, Mayr, etc.), that accepts life developing by purely natural unguided means from chemical compounds. "Evolution" isn't in question by ID proponents (at least the ones I've read); even Behe accepts Common Descent (though most other ID proponents don't).
Steve,
"Darwinist" isn't a derogatory term; at least I don't intend it to be. I'm using it to denote one who holds to all of life's biodiversity arising from the mutation/selection mechanism *apart from any intelligent agent* at work before or during the process. Again, "evolution" is not, and never has been, in question by ID proponents. The Darwinian mechanism's explanatory ability to account for all of life's development is what ID questions (and I agree with them on this point).
You need to get a better view of what you're supporting.
Evolution is exactly what ID has been made to counter. You may be confused because a lot of evolution deniers try to bring abiogenesis into the picture, but abiogenesis has never been a part of Darwin's work, or evolution in general.
The term "Darwinism" has been used by those opposed to evolution as a way of implying that evolution proponents are accepting evolution on faith (belief without evidence) alone. It implies a religious devotion to Darwin and his ideas, but that's not true, scientist have been refining and even correcting his work as needed. Darwin never had access to scientific research such as radiometric dating and DNA sequencing, and had limited access to the paleontological resources now available to us. Charles Darwin will always be noted for opening up the science of evolution, but the field has continued to grow beyond his original work.
Steve, I usually try to use "Neo-Darwinism" instead, but sometimes I get sloppy. ID wasn't created to debunk "evolution"...it was created through questioning a *purely naturalistic mechanism devoid of any intelligence* guiding evolution. THAT's the whole enchilada, regardless of whatever ad hominems and mislabeling are directed against it. ID proponents believe that the current theories of how evolution happens are woefully lacking.
Here's a review of peer-reviewed critique that they are in agreement with concerning Neo-Darwinian plausibility:
www.evolutionnews.org/2009/12/new_peerreviewed_paper_demolis.html
They may overstate their case, but the questions they are asking and the points they are making are valid and not to be dismissed a priori (as many are only too quick to do!).
"No slight of hand; I never used the term "evolution" to denote abiogenesis. I used "Neo-Darwinian" to denote the overall worldview, as put forth by its most public defenders (Dawkins, Mayr, etc.), that accepts life developing by purely natural unguided means from chemical compounds."
My apologies you confused me, neo-darwinian is phrase I heard and used myself to denote a view of natural selection as the primary driving mechanism of gradual evolutionary change as opposed to other mechanisms. To be blunt I don't think your use of the term is accurate as 'darwinian' theories do not deal with the origin of life.
""Evolution" isn't in question by ID proponents (at least the ones I've read); even Behe accepts Common Descent (though most other ID proponents don't)."
I agree with you about Behe but not the others, take Phillip E. Johnson and William Dembski for instance both well known ID proponents, both reject common descent.
Yeah, like I said, Behe stands out among ID proponents because of his acceptance of Common Descent. But this illustrates that ID is not against CD per se...just against purely naturalistic (i.e. nonintelligent) CD. Some ID'ers are fine with even the mutation/selection mechanism, I believe, but argue that the information guiding the mutations has been "frontloaded" into biological systems by an intelligent agent.
The only thing ID seems to be uniform in is its rejection of Neo-Darwinian (i.e. purely naturalistic) scenarios of life's origin and development (such as proposed by Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker or Gould in The Pandas Thumb).
So that's their stance these days. They couldn't get creationism taught instead of evolution in schools, so they tried intelligent design (then it was directly opposed to evolution). Then teach the controversy (even the name said it was opposed to evolution). Now they want to say that it's compatible with evolution, so should be taught along with evolution. It's still not scientific. Oh they threw in the scientific wording to make it seem that way, but it never made it through peer review. Saying someone way smarter than us had to make us, though we don't know who (wink, wink) isn't a testable hypothesis; it will never pass peer review.
So-called "Intelligent Design" propaganda should be taught only in Modern Mythology classes... Superstition has no place in Science classes or public schools in general...
Peace.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!