Intelligent Design:
Alfred A. Brooks -11/15/07
After viewing the NOVA TV documentary of the Dover trial, Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., between concerned parents and the Dover Area School Board concerning the mandatory teaching of Intelligent Design in the classroom, and the NOVA website (JUDGMENT DAY: Intelligent Design on Trial), I feel that some additional remarks should be made. Some of the remarks supply background information, some are an extension of themes in the documentary and some are additional points not discussed on PBS. None of the remarks are intended to denigrate any of the PBS presentation as it was well-done.
Background Information
The topic of how the universe (earth and life) began has
been ever with the human race. The current topic, Intelligent Design, was first
introduced by William Paley in 1802 and was rebutted
by
On the religious side, there is currently a time-progression of proposed explanations from purely religious belief to those which are claimed by some to be science-based:
1) Young Earth Creationism Literal Genesis, God created everything in its present form. Age of the earth is 4,000 to 6,000 years
2) Old Earth Creationism Genesis allowing for the time necessary for certain geologic processes. The age of the earth is in the millions of years.
3) Creation Science Genesis in that God created everything and acted largely through natural laws to evolve the current state. This explains most of the evolutionary evidence and in the extreme is 'Deism'.
4) Intelligent Design This belief is that some of the evolutionary constructs (such as eyes, flagella, etc.) are too complex to be assembled by chance alone and thus required the intervention of an intelligent designer. More characteristics of ID will be discussed later.
The current scientific explanation of the origin and
evolution of the universe is known as the (extended) Big Bang Theory which is
based on the General Theory of Relativity, the Theory of Quantum Mechanics, the
Standard Model and the Theory of Evolution.
The Controversy
There were two major themes to the controversy of the
1) Was the Requirement by the School Board to Teach about Intelligent Design Religious in its Intent or in its Result?
This question is important because
the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court earlier prohibits teaching
any topic which is religious in its intent or in its result. It was necessary
at
2) Was Intelligent Design Science or Pseudoscience?
This question was important because
the teachers were being required to read a statement that Intelligent Design
was a viable scientific alternative to
This is a two part question: Is ID a proper subject for application of the scientific methodology or not? And, once evaluated, does the Intelligent Design explanation adequately explain the many observations relevant to the underlying phenomena?
These questions may seem trivial
and unimportant but they open the door to require teaching a wide range of
non-science as science or require a teacher to give equal teaching time to
impotent or outdated theories and established theories. Both of these practices
serve to confuse the student and thus the public as to the true nature of the
science methodology. This in turn reduces the ability of an individuals and
their host culture to solve problems and to compete in the global systems.
These are not casual predictions but are documented in history. Examples are:
1)
Above all, these actions place science under the control of the political system and what is correct in science is determined, not by evidence and the consensus of experts, but by the vote of lay persons who have little knowledge of science.
Characteristics of
Intelligent Design
It is at times difficult to find an accepted definition of ID and a description of how it fits into the total creation landscape although the varying descriptions do not seriously affect the basic discussions. For example, the choice of the Young Earth or the Old Earth variations affects only the age of the earth discussions and the time allowances for certain geological processes to occur. We shall comment on only a few key aspects of the entire progression described above.
The Religious Nature of Intelligent Design
The proponents of Intelligent Design claim their theory is
not based on religion, only on scientific evidence. The book, Pandas[1],
is often cited as evidence for this claim. The book was published shortly after
the Supreme Court ruling that teaching creationism in the public schools was a
violation of the first amendment. Yet when the pro-evolution forces searched,
they found a pre-ruling draft of Panda and a post-ruling draft wherein the word
creationism had been systematically replaced in many locations by intelligent
design; the remainder of the sentence being identical. In fact, some of the
replacements failed and inserted the new words in to the center of the old
words, a smoking gun if there ever was one. Clearly, the book used as the
principal support of Intelligent Design was originally intended to justify
Creationism, a topic prohibited in the public schools by the Supreme Court. This
evidence alone was sufficient to convince the judge that Intelligent Design was
an updated version of Creationism and was religious in nature and had the
intent to introduce religion into the public schools.
The Political Religious Nature of Intelligent Design
If the evidence in the foregoing paragraph is not convincing, the reader should consider a second publication closely associated with the Intelligent Design movement. This tract, The Wedge Strategy, expresses the goals of the movement. A single, verbatim quote of their published goals will suffice:
"Goals
[CENTER FOR THE
RENEWAL OF SCIENCE & CULTURE]
Governing Goals
Five Year Goals
Twenty Year Goals
A reading of The Wedge is very revealing: it is a plan to restructure the fundamentals of Western Civilization with the first attack on the public schools through the court system. 'Christians' are to be the standard bearers.
The Intrinsic Religious Nature of Intelligent Design
The question remains is Intelligent Design intrinsically
religious or could it be recast in a form that could be properly regarded as
scientific? The question was not important to the
It is not clear that the intelligent designer is a God or not but at least he is supernatural in that he can accomplish things the natural laws cannot. It is also unclear just what complex features of evolution required the Intelligent Designer and which did not. Most importantly, it is not clear if and when the intelligent designer was created. Or, in other words, what was the first complexity that required his services. An additional question is: what created the intelligent designer? It seems only reasonable that the intelligent designer must have been more complex than what he created and in turn was created by something more complex than himself. It seems reasonable that God (as the only existing entity more complex than natural processes could produce) must have created the Intelligent Designer but why would an omnipotent and omniscient God create such a powerful assistant and then claim to be the only God? This all seems a bit convoluted. ????
The important point in the discussion is: the Intelligent
Designer was able to abrogate the natural laws and by doing so created the
necessary complex structures. The deed is done: the intelligent designer is not
predictable since there is no assurance that his actions are predictable and
that under the exact same circumstances will produce the same results. Ergo,
Intelligent Design is NOT a proper subject for the scientific methodology
and is not a science. To impose the property of predictability on the
intelligent designer is to strip him of his supernatural powers and reduce him
to a euphemism for some collection of natural processes that produces complex
structures. Intelligent Design is intrinsically religious in nature and will
remain so as long as it involves an unpredictable entity or a requirement that
natural laws be abrogated.
More Impedimenta for
Intelligent Design
Assuming that for the purpose of discussion that Intelligent
Design was a proper candidate for science methodology, how does it fare as a
proven explanation and in competing with
The Intelligent Design Claims
The proponents of intelligent design appeal to a form of proof that claims: if Explanation A can be shown to be wrong then Explanation B must be true. Of course, this is faulty logic: Errors in A do not prove the lack of errors in B; Explanation B must be valid in its own right. The proponents of Intelligent Design attempt to invalidate Evolution in many ways such as:
Theory vs Law Evolution
must be wrong since it is just a theory and not a Law. A casual examination of
a dictionary reveals that theory has two definitions that are opposite
in meaning. This is unfortunate but has no substantive bearing on the validity
of Evolution.
Gaps in Evolution Theory - Granted that there were
gaps in
If one replaces a 'gap' by an intelligent designer or other godly action then no further search is necessary as there is no test by which the new proposal can be better than the action of a supernatural being and the need for further research has vanished. These supernatural inserts have been dubbed, 'Science stoppers'.
The proponents of intelligent design never specify who or what determines when the intelligent designer will be called into action? If it is God then there is no new problem: God is known to be omnipotent and omniscient. However, if it is the intelligent designer, is he sufficiently omnipotent and omniscient to replace God in this difficult matter without being a God himself, contradictory to scriptures? How did he fail to get an honorable mention in Genesis? Are there complexities that he cannot deal with?
Transitional Evolutionary Forms The proponents of Intelligent Design claim no fossils exist that represent the transition from one species to a subsequent species. The simplest thin to be said about this claim is: It's wrong, transitional fossil forms do exist but not in as large numbers as one might expect. A few of the most extensive or well-known collections are:
Evolution of mammalian
auditory ossicles
Considering that the fossil record spans 3.5 billion years and the early life forms were quite probably soft-tissue organisms and do not, except under rare circumstances, leave fossils, it is not unexpected that only a very small percentage of the life forms produce fossils or are found. Some extinct species are known by a very few bones and individual specimens. (The oldest fossils, stromatolites, are largely the layers of calcium carbonate secreted by the life-form and are recognized as life-forms by their similarity to modern species.) The challenge is to describe what you have in a reasonable explanation and search for what is missing. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence nor is it evidence that some alternative is correct.
Evolution of Complex Forms
Complex forms in evolution often occur in soft tissues and soft tissues often leave no fossil remnants. How ever, there is an opportunity to find 'living fossils, i.e., still active remnants of some portion of a complex form that has an unrelated use. One known example is a bacterial protein structure which appears in protein-content and physical appearance similar to the bacterial flagellum except some identifiable subparts are missing and its use is to operate a poisonous barb. As micro-biology progresses more of these intermediate forms may be discovered. In any event there are numerous examples of modern complex organs, such as, eyes, that can be traced back to primitive light-sensitive eye spots.
The Non-Random Nature of Evolution
The proponents make the case that the random nature of
Mathematical Descriptions of Intelligent Design
In its journey from Old Earth Creationism, i.e., Genesis, to Intelligent Design, a visible euphemism for Creation Science, has acquired the luster of a mathematical description. Specifically, William Dembski and Robert Marks have made assertions about the nature of evolution based on a statistical model combined with certain approximations made in order to justify conclusions about evolution. Olle Haggstrom has pointed out flaws in the reasoning used and the consequences of the approximations. The exchange is documented in Uniform Distribution Is a Model Assumption which includes some mathematics. It is summarized here with as little mathematical description as possible taking material from Haggstrom.
Firstly, Dembski appeals to mathematical theory to show that evolution is no more effective than a "blind search" and that a blind search is pitifully inept at finding (producing) complex life forms due to the immensity of the process parameters. Therefore, an intelligent designer must have been involved. But this is just the claim: If not A then B discussed earlier (see lead paragraph above) and it is no more valid when obscured by mathematical notation. Again this is not evidence for intelligent design.
Secondly, Dembski, in concluding that evolution is no more effective than blind search, must appeal to the assumption that certain distribution functions associated with the evolution process are uniform. However, these assumed uniform distribution functions also will have precluded the existence of any clusters of relatively large probability that signified the existence of species in the sustaining environment. There is nothing left to evolve. He has thrown out the baby with the bath.
Haggstrom goes on to discuss more details of the proposed mathematical model and it is well worth reading.
The above several fatal flaws should serve to alert the open-minded that everything is not copasetic in the land of intelligent design. Additional observations confirming those above could be listed. Additional flaws could be described. But we shall leave it here. The culprit has been found guilty of: a) impersonating science, b) faulty logic, c) misrepresenting the established facts, d) ignoring the valid data, e) failure to under stand the current explanations, f) misapplying the mathematics g) introducing religion into the public schools and violating the constitution..
Comments on the Sections
of Judgment Day
The following are the major divisions of the NOVA on-line report with a few comments on their content. All of the sections should be read to grasp the total scenario. The reader may be lead to the conclusion that intelligent design received short shrift on the website and in the TV program. The reason is that all but one proponent design declined to participate. NOVA made every effort to present intelligent design fairly by including verbatim reenactments and direct quotes of their trial testimony.
A Q&A with Paula S. Apsell, - Excellent Review of Rational for NOVA's Production
In Defense of Intelligent Design Q&A with Phillip Johnson, father of Modern ID; thorough presentation
In Defense of Evolution Q&A with Kenneth Miller, an eminent evolutionist; science and religion relationship
Board vs. Teachers Dover School Board statements and Science Teachers' Reply; Well-done
The Judge Speaks Succinct audio tapes of Judge John Jones' Decision; very clear and unambiguous
Defining Science Seven, Very Good, Brief Expert Presentations; diverse sources, many topics
Darwin's Predictions Visuals and Descriptions of 13 Predictions; very diverse sources
Fossil Evidence Five Examples (visuals and description) of Transitional Fossils;
Video & Audio Extras Four audios/visuals on diverse topics; Judge Jones interview very informative
There are several general comments that need to be made concerning the relation of science to religion, to clarify the reason science does not deal with some religious topics, and to examine the nature of the arguments for intelligent design:
1) Predictability - One of the defining characteristics of phenomena suitable for the scientific methodology is that they are predictable taking into account that some processes are stochastic and chaotic in nature. If the phenomena cannot not be relied upon to produce the same predictable results, it simply is not a proper subject for scientific study. Religions frequently postulate omnipotent beings or Gods who have the ability to abrogate natural laws and produce results of their choosing which can change if they so desire. This does not mean that the belief in such a system is wrong but only that it is not science. Some religions do not invoke such a God and are acceptable scientific subjects. Examples are: 1) Deism that postulates a God who creates the Universe and the Natural Laws then never interferes again letting the Natural Laws run the Universe, 2) Buddhism and Confucianism which are based on the teachings of men.
The proper response of a scientist when asked about religion is: Science can say nothing about those aspects of religion that do not follow natural laws because science can not deal with entirely unpredictable events such as a god can produce. A religion is a belief system which stands on its own merits and contributes to man's understanding of topics related to morality, good and evil, and other social questions. Many religions have accommodated science by using it to account for phenomena properly described by physical laws and using the strictly religious beliefs to aid them in the remaining areas.
2) Absolute Truth It is often said that science seeks truth or absolute truth but it does not. The reasons are: a) Science has no definition of absolute truth, only for what a better explanation is, and 2) science is defined as a repetitive process seeking constant improvements and absolute truth implies the process terminates. If convinced that one had found absolute truth why would one search further? Science should not be over-sold in this regard.
3) Proven Theory Phillip Johnson, early architect of Intelligent Design, makes much of Evolution being proven or non-proven. However it is a misnomer to say that any scientific theory is proven or not; science can only show that one theory is better than another in the sense it explains the data and other observations better than some other competing theory. Science automatically assumes a priori that some better theory exists or more data will show the need for a better theory. As much as the intelligent designer proponents harp on the unproven state of evolution, they seem to avoid discussion of their alleged proof for Intelligent Design.
4) Stability of Intelligent Design
The stability of the definition of intelligent design
becomes apparent when Phillip Johnson says that the intelligence required
"could be natural as well as supernatural". This very slight change
in the text is a giant change in the assumption and raises the question: How
does natural intelligence differ from natural causes or the results from
natural laws? If it doesn't then intelligent design does not differ from
evolution. Again Johnson says: "but I think there was a process of
creation, and the evolution that has occurred has occurred within the
boundaries originally set".
5) Analogies and Anagrams
The proponents of intelligent design use analogies but as
useful as analogies may be in fostering understanding they are not proof
especially if they support the opposing view. Johnson makes an analogy comparing
the process of mutation to the scrabbling of the letters of a word in the word
game, Scrabble, to disprove evolution. For example, take the four letter word
"ielv", form the all 24 possible
permutations and count the real words: vile, evil, veil, Levi, live. "Five"
out of 24, not to bad for a process which was touted as producing completely
random, meaningless sequences. Unfortunately, this if anything supports
evolution but is no proof for this is only part of the evolution process (See The
Non-Random Nature of Evolution above)
The Crisis in Evolutionary Theory
In spite of Phillip Johnson's claim to the contrary, there
is no crisis in Evolution Theory. New technology has produced new data and new modifications
to evolution and they have been accommodated in the original theory in an
orderly manner. Evolution has produced numerous, successful applications each
of which bears testimony to the credibility of
Conclusions
The tone of conclusions to be drawn from the TV program and the website is set by the judge's verdict and interview and of course his decision paper. It is noteworthy that Judge Jones was a conservative judge appointed by President Bush, regarded himself as unfamiliar with the controversy at the trial beginning and educated at the end, six weeks later. He seems to understand the nature of science methodology quite well and is not overwhelmed by its technicalities. His decision statements have been extremely clear and decisive: Intelligent Design has no proof, is not well accepted, is NOT science, has a religious basis and its teaching in public schools is illegal.
Is It Over?
No, it is NOT over. The religious fundamentalists do not want any portion of public education to contradict the scriptures and will go to any length to reach this goal as the Wedge and history have indicated. Nor is public education the only intended target. The one saving grace is that their plans for thought control are about as realistic as their understanding of evolution. On the other hand they do have the blessing and support of President Bush, arguably the most powerful man on earth but not the wisest. Anti-science, like the camel, has its nose in the tent.
If one looks at history as an indicator of the future, one finds conflict with the "traditional" version of the cosmos and the "modern" version. At times this conflict has been violent or at least part of a violent period of history. Frequently, "new" ideas have not been tolerated and at times the process of inquiry has been well supported. Certainly, it is not circumspect to dismiss an attempt to politically denigrate science or to adopt one religion as being correct and the others suspect as just a passing fancy. The goals expressed in The Wedge are just too threatening to our civilization. Just imagine: a) No evolution, b) No genetics, c) No agricultural breeding, d) No stem cell research, e) No vaccine research, f) No relativity, g)No global positioning systems, and ad nauseam, all because they contradicted Genesis or gave credence to something contradicting Genesis or were political. When you stop laughing, find the examples in history or the prohibitions that are just one step away. As Yogi Berra said, "It ain't over 'til it's over".
More topics
Done - Proven Theory; True
Done - Who decides ID | Ev
Done - Epigenome
Done - If A then B
Done - Protean
Done - Anagrams /Analog vague'
Done - Crisis
Proteus Trait - It's saying that there's an intelligence, but the intelligence could be natural as well as supernatural. And that if you assume it's supernatural, what the God iswell, we have nothing to say about what kind of God it is. Johnson
Q: And what is your view of the truth?
Johnson: My view of the truth is that there is a creator. I
don't know how long the creator took, but I think there was a process of
creation, and the evolution that has occurred has occurred within the
boundaries originally set. That would be my belief as of now. I tend to think
that that will prevail, because I think it's the truth. But if it's not the
truth, it won't prevail, and it shouldn't
[1] (Davis, P. Kenyon; Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins,; Foundations of Thought and Ethics, 1989