I recently saw an excellent documentary on PBS’ Nova website titled “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial.” It was about the 2005 Pennsylvania State Supreme Court case, Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., in which the Dover School Board attempted to teach Intelligent Design alongside Darwin’s theory of evolution in a public high school science class.
Intelligent Design attempts to reconcile science with the Biblical creation myths by hypothesizing that each species appeared abruptly with its distinct characteristics.
The court ruled that the school board violated students’ rights by introducing a religious doctrine into a public school. The U.S. Constitution forbids the government from promoting or prohibiting any religion.
I was struck by the passion with which the Evangelical Christians argued that kids should also be taught Intelligent Design as an alternative. They emphasized that evolution was only a theory.
Scientific theories are not purely speculative, however. Evolution, like the theory of gravitation or the germ theory of disease, is supported by an enormous body of evidence that has withstood repeated testing. Darwin’s theory is foundational to the biological sciences, which would otherwise be incoherent.
Kenneth Miller of Brown University said, “Not a single observation, not a single experimental result, has ever emerged in 150 years that contradicts the general outlines of the theory of evolution. Any theory that can stand up to 150 years of contentious testing is a pretty darn good theory.”
Many Evangelicals also believe there is an ongoing debate in the scientific community on evolution versus Intelligent Design, but this is not the case. Intelligent Design is overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific community, so much so that the defense in this case had a hard time finding scientists to testify.
I was also struck by the apparent belief among Evangelicals that science could and should be re-written to fit their religious beliefs. Like police detectives, scientists go where the evidence takes them, and the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that later species evolved from earlier ones.
Should scientists ignore this massive body of evidence to spare somebody’s Bronze Age religious beliefs? Clearly, science is no respecter of religion and it shouldn’t be. Science is not a creative-writing exercise that we get to re-write at our whim.
The tenacity with which Evangelicals cling to the creation myths in Genesis seems a little arbitrary. For example, the Bible describes a flat Earth with the heavens as a dome enclosing it, within which the planets circle the Earth. Even most Evangelicals now accept the scientific theory of a round Earth that orbits the sun in infinite space, so why the attachment to such archaic creation myths?
In teaching evolution, we are teaching the overwhelmingly dominant scientific model. This is important, as good scientific training is responsible for the technological and medical breakthroughs that give us our quality-of-life.
The federal judge in the case, John E. Jones, III explained this best: “In an era where we’re trying to cure cancer, where we’re trying to prevent pandemics, where we’re trying to keep science and math education on the cutting edge in the United States, to introduce and teach bad science to ninth-grade students makes very little sense to me … And it doesn’t benefit any of us who benefit daily from scientific discoveries.”
Amen.
Christopher Herrin is a graduate Religious Studies major and a columnist for the Daily Forty-Niner.
Here’s a better link to the list…
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
Clearly, most believers in evolution consider it to be a proven scientific fact, as the comments here attest.
Balls. Evolution is a deeply ingrained pagan religious belief that goes back in one form or another to the earliest known civilizations. It has just recently been dressed up in some pseudo-science to make it look respectable.
Charles Darwin’s grandfather Erasmus Darwin was a believer in evolution long before Charles came along. That’s where Charles got his origins belief system, not from the Beagle voyage. He just rationalized it on that trip.
The fact is that evolution is a religious belief system and therefore it shouldn’t be taught in science classes.
Hey RickK, that was probably the best thumbnail summary of science that I’ve ever read.
Intelligent Design is just another “god of the gaps” argument. It has no resemblence to a scientific theory. Compare it to evolution:
Evolution offers a mechanism: replication + variation + selection = evolution
Evolution is falsifiable – there are dozens of tests, if true, that would prove evolution false
Evolution is observable – in nature, in labs (see Lenski E. coli for a good example)
Evolution makes successful predictions – the search for Tiktaalik, feathered dinosaurs, etc.
Intelligent Design offers no mechanism: does the flesh dynamically re-form to introduce design, does one creature with a “design feature” give birth to a creature with one?
ID offers no falsifiability: Is the feature evolved, or designed? If we prove one design feature could have evolved, IDers just move to a different feature.
ID offers no observability: if all this “design” is going on, why have we never witnessed it?
ID makes no predictions
Science rejects ID because, for the reasons above, ID is demonstrably not science. And the Dover trial already proved that ID and all other forms of Christian creationism evolved from a single common ancestor. “cdesign proponentsists” is just one of the transitional fossils.
There is no controversy, so there is no controversy to teach.
“Essentially the argument is this: what is the simplest explanation for one to roll a 7 (if one needs a 7) on a trillion sided dice? The simplest explanation is that the dice are rigged (designed to turn up a 7). It is possible to roll a 7 (1 in trillion chance), but nearly impossible and highly improbable. Science is interested in probabilities (not improbable possibilities). “
Actually, the simplest explanation is “you got lucky”..it even takes fewer words!
“Essentially the argument is this: what is the simplest explanation for one to roll a 7 (if one needs a 7) on a trillion sided dice? The simplest explanation is that the dice are rigged (designed to turn up a 7). It is possible to roll a 7 (1 in trillion chance), but nearly impossible and highly improbable. Science is interested in probabilities (not improbable possibilities). “
There is a problem with this argument. Dice tossing, like coin flipping is not cumulative. Each flip or toss is it’s own entity with no connection to the flip or toss before it or the one to follow. Natural selection does not work that way. Each change is cumulative. It builds on the previous change, creating a new and possibly more compex organism. Plus, arbitrarily assigning one number out of a trillion as “life” to make your point is a huge Straw Man. For a good article on probability in evolution check out this link http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html .
cdesign proponentsists do love to pull out Ockham’s Razor. The “the dice are rigged” argument doesn’t work as the simplest explanation. How are the dice rigged? What are they made of? Where did they come from? Who rigged them? Where did that dice-rigger come from? Who or what created…etc. To simply state that the dice are rigged does not constitute an Ockham’s Razor argument nor is it good reasoning. It’s a lazy answer to a complex question.
Please spare me the argument that ID is not the same as creationism – If not that, then what? If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and looks like a duck, it must be a duck. The ID argument is advanced by the same folks that argued for creationism. They use the same texts and their arguments are the same but they are simply dressed in different robes. As a matter of fact, I think it can be successfully pointed out as another example of evolution. Creationists were facing extinction because of their failure to adapt to modern science, so it EVOLVED into ID. But the inherent weaknesses are still in the DNA of ID. It is not science.
Intelligent design is not necessarily the same as adhering to the creation story. Many Christians accept that processes of evolution (gradual changes occurring and adding up over time due to natural selection) have been at work, but argue that God directed those processes according to His will. The story is true at it’s essence- God created over a span of time, bit by bit.
My point is – don’t attack a straw man. Yes, many people have argued poorly or refused to even consider evidence, but that does not mean all people who believe in intelligent design are unaware of scientific evidence.
I am astonished that every criticism of ID devolves into a criticism of Evangelical Christianity. Most IDers believe in the Big Bang (15 Billion Year Old Universe). Many Christians (Catholics included) believe that evolution is a viable theory for describing how life developed on the planet, just incomplete. Why all the Red Herrings. If you’re arguing with Creationism fine, but understand that Creationism is a small subcategory of Intelligent Design (as a poodle is a small subcategory of dog). Most people who subscribe to Intelligent Design do not uphold Creationism.
It seems ironic to me to hear ID advocates quote mathematic probabilities and scientific discoveries to decry the theory of evolution. All of the arguments against the big bang theory and all of the faith based proofs for ID seem to come from the work of scientists. What have I heard for IDer that is based on anything but their unquestioning faith in The Designer? And therein lays the biggest problem. At the end of their argument they have to reveal the designer and their entire thesis moves from science to philosophy or religion and that is where ID should be discussed. Gould believed in non-overlapping magisteria between science and religion and that is how the two theories are to be separated. But therein lies yet another irony – Faith based knowledge relies on a single teaching and the many disciplines of science keep crossing the line and questioning the faith based “scientific” beliefs. The earth in not at the center of the universe; the earth is more than 6000 years old, and man never walked with the dinosaurs. Please visit the Evolving Planet exhibit at the Chicago Field Museum of Natural History and then talk to students about IDs denial of evolutionary theory.
Christopher, You should know better. Intelligent design is not Creationism. 50 year Atheistic Philosopher Antony Flew saw the logic of this argument. You don’t have to be religious at all to find it to be the best answer to why the universe supports life. It is an abductive theory as many scientific theories are. It strikes one as unscientific because today scientists tend to have materialistic assumptions. If you jettison any assumption about what the universe must be and you allow inferences to consciousness at the foundation of the unvierse, then ID is a natural possible assumption.
Christopher, as a Religious Studies major you should know better. This is a Red Herring. ID is more than Creationism. Creationism is a revealed argument. You must believe that the Bible is historical to believe it. Intelligent Design is a logical argument (you don’t have to have any religious beliefs to assent to it).
Essentially the argument is this: what is the simplest explanation for one to roll a 7 (if one needs a 7) on a trillion sided dice? The simplest explanation is that the dice are rigged (designed to turn up a 7). It is possible to roll a 7 (1 in trillion chance), but nearly impossible and highly improbable. Science is interested in probabilities (not improbable possibilities). It’s a fact of the laws and constants of physics that it’s a 1 in trillion chance to have conscious life in a universe (therefore, it’s highly more probable to have a universe w/o life). One could easily argue that a universe with conscious life is more desirable than a universe without it. So, life in the universe is the 7 on the trillion sided dice the simplest (ockham’s razor) explanation is that the universe is rigged (designed by consciousness).
If you assume the universe is only physical, then naturally this is impossible. But why would one assume that? Because of lack of evidence of dimensions deeper than the physical. First of all isn’t this arguing from negative evidence (as mentioned above). Second, this assumption doesn’t even seem supported by the ever awe-inspiring evidence developing in the physical sciences.
It’s good these ideas are coming out in colleges . Anyone who is interested in intelligent design v evolution debate should know about Kitzmiller v Dover, and PBS covered this very well. Sadly most of the persistent ID supporters rely on a few of the old canards that have been disproven over and over. It is frustrating to scientists to have to disprove this bunk so many times. Sadly there are those who will never learn like Evan. Many of them are trapped in home school teaching situations where their ability to get information from the outside world is quite restricted.
ID is essentially a negative argument, with no reasearch of their own (this came out well in the trial) They merely pick quotes from famous scientists out of context that seem to fit their argument, and from that claim that all of evolution is wrong.
The main fomenter of this nonsense in the Discovery Institute. One of their senior fellows, who does have a modicum of scientific credentials, is Jonathan Wells. He started his career as a follower of Reverend Moon with the sole purpose of his life of defeating Darwin’s theory. He has spent time in the Leavenworth military prison. He is also a supporter of AIDS denial (the wackos who think AIDS is not caused by a virus). Dr Wells is one of the leading scientists of the ID movement.
There are 65,000 different species of weevils alone. If the weevil “kind” was created 6000 years ago 10 new weevil species would have to form every year to get to where we are today. If weevils were on the ark there would have been no food left for the other animals. If God created each weevil species he would have had to do this thousands of times throughout whichever time scale you choose just to account for the weevils of the world. If ID supporters would ever propose a mechanism of their own of how species arose we could all see how ridiculous their idea is.
To the comments made in the article stating that the Bible says the earth is flat: In fact, the Bible says the opposite.
Isaiah 40:22 says
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth.
This is true because from space, the earth is in the shape of a circle
Job 26:7 says
He is stretching out the north over the empty place,
Hanging the earth upon nothing;
Before this time, people thought that the world was balanced upon the backs of elephants and had various theories about it being supported by something. They didnt believe that the earth hung upon nothing until technology, which proves the Bible’s scientific accuracy
I find it interesting that evolutionists wish to constantly avoid some of the biggest flaws in their theory. There are many definitions of “evolution”, but for the sake of brevity, let’s go with this one: “a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development”. Any problems with that? Probably not. All right then…….if evolution is indeed a a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, then why has no one ever witnessed an ape coming out of the jungle saying “I need to put some clothes on and go get a job……..”. Gradual, progressive change would be constant, meaning that different species would be at different phases of development or change……they wouldn’t all be at the same phase, “evolving” into the next species simultaneousely, now would they? Common sense logic would dictate that.
Another point……if I was taking a walk in the woods and happened upon a small rectangular, black device that played music, I would not assume that that device had formed there over millions of years of water and minerals and sunlight coming together in just the right way, would I? No, I would assume that someone had dropped their iPod……but evolutionists would have us believe that the humans that created the iPod and so many other incredible things over history, are a result of millions of years of water and minerals and sunlight coming together in just the right way. As far as non-academic, religious folks talking about genetics and biology, I wonder if God gets a little queasy when he hears the scientists of today talk about evolution. Just a thought….
Over the last 150 years, since Darwin came up with his theory, the cacophony of voices promoting it has grown louder and louder. If you hear something enough, it begins to be true. The problem is, no one is allowed to talk about alternatives to evolution, whether they are true of not. The reality is, it takes considerably more faith to believe in evolution than it does in Intelligent Design. Think about it……
Good title. I am a senior Chemistry student at Texas Southern University and I’ve taken numerous science and math related courses. The first college biology class I took the teacher asked us, “How did the earth begin?” Everyone who spoke made reference to the big bang, evolution, etc and then the professor said, “What about God? Is that a possibility? ” and from that point on we only spoke of science till the end of the semester but I liked that a scientist/botanist was open to various possibilities. Intelligent design does fit with science but I feel queasy whenever non-academic, religious folks get to explaining genetics and biology. I think it would be wrong to spend 30 minutes talking about ID but it is certainly worth a mention or reference in academic settings. I can not PROVE to you that God exists and you can not PROVE his non-existence. Where did the energy of the big bang come from? When did time begin and when does it end? How many dimensions are there to be measured? Thanks