Intelligent design - coming to a school near you

The New Zealand Herald ^ | August 27, 2005 | Chris Barton

[snarks_when_bored]

Intelligent design - coming to a school near you

 

David Jensen says the evolutionists' perspective relies on unproven scientific facts and theories. Picture / Greg Bowker

 

27.08.05

 

By Chris Barton

 

Science teachers say it has no place in the classroom. Christian educators say children shouldn't be denied alternative views.

Science teachers retaliate that it's not science, it's religion behind a mask and they don't want a bar of it. Christian educators argue they can teach it alongside traditional science, so what are science teachers so afraid of?

Science teachers' blood begins to boil. "It's not science."' they fume.

"It" is "intelligent design" - a challenge to the theory of evolution described by some as creationism in disguise. But it's a challenge that's garnering support from high places.

"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," United States President George W. Bush said this month. "If you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes."

The topic is also the subject of court action in Pennsylvania, taken after the Dover Area School Board decided to revamp its biology curriculum to include intelligent design.

In December, 11 parents sued the district and its board members, claiming they were bringing God into the science class. The case is being watched closely by 21 states across America facing controversies over how evolution is taught to high school students.

The debate also has been simmering in New Zealand. Chief proponents of intelligent design here include Investigate magazine editor Ian Wishart and Auckland University School of Engineering associate professor Neil Broom, author of How Blind Is a Watchmaker?

The argument was rekindled last week when 500 New Zealand schools received unsolicited DVDs and workbooks from the Christian-based Focus on the Family organisation.

The material comes via the Centre for Science and Culture (CSC), a division of the Discovery Institute, a religion-based conservative think-tank in Seattle. It criticises Darwinism and promotes the idea of an "intelligent designer" outside the laws of nature to explain the intricate complexity of living organisms.

"Intelligent design people will tell you it doesn't mean there was a God. It just means something intelligent designed it. I'm much more comfortable saying God's there and he made it," says Michael Drake.

The principal of Carey College looks pleased with his answer. It avows his faith. Drake exudes the unshakeable rightness, some might say smugness, of a committed Christian.

The private school in Panmure teaches a literal interpretation of creation found in Genesis alongside the teaching of evolution. Drake believes in a young Earth - one that's about 6000 to 10,000 years old because that's what you get if you add up all the begats in the Bible.

Questions of carbon dating are not a problem. "It's perfectly possible to say God created the world at a point in time and at that point in time it [the Earth] was fixed with so many carbon 14 and so many ordinary carbon molecules - why not? God is God."

It's the sort of statement (given ample evidence that the world is at least 4.6 billion years old) that gets science teachers spluttering into their coffee.

"There are no geologists I am aware of who think the world is only 10,000 years old. That's the most fatuous idea one has ever come across," says Martin Hanson, a science teacher of 40 years and author of nine textbooks including Apes and Ancestors II.

Drake is unbowed, pointing to the swag of science awards the school has won. "Our kids will leave this school understanding evolutionary theory and creation theory and being able to work with both right through the science syllabus."

David Jensen, principal of Immanuel Christian School, holds a similar view.

"People have to see that evolution is as much a religious faith-based position as is creationism. Our creationist beliefs rest on faith in God as creator. An evolutionist perspective is just as religious.

"It relies on unproven scientific facts and theories - that's why it's called a theory of evolution. It's not the fact of evolution - it's called a theory for good reason. No one can prove it."

Science teachers splutter in unison with incredulity. "These people talk about evolution as a theory in crisis - they don't understand the word theory," says Alan Munro, head of science at Southland Boys' High.

"In layman's terms a theory is just a guess or something unproven, but in science a theory implies something that has been proven and generally accepted as true."

Hanson agrees, pointing to atomic theory. "No chemist has the slightest doubt about the existence of atoms. They're using theory in quite a different sense - it's a framework of knowledge and ideas which has great predicative value and is solidly based."

Jensen's faith is also unshakeable. "At the very least it's intellectually honest to give a reasonable amount of attention to the deficiencies of the theory of evolution as well as having a look at other competing theories, creationism being one."

Jensen is not as hard-line as Drake in terms of the age of the Earth. He's comfortable putting that aside as "a bit of a grey area". He claims evolutionists are fixated on the Earth being millions of years old because that is what evolution requires.

His main problem with evolution lies with its notions of chance mutations and accidental events creating complex forms of life. He rejects more figurative interpretations of the Bible which allow some Christians to see evolution as part of God's plan.

"It makes no sense. Why would God use a process of death and random events to create when he can create things as good?" And he sees it as inconsistent that "a good God" used millions of years of death and suffering.

For Jensen such an idea doesn't fit with Genesis, where it says, "God created and it was good." And with the description of the Garden of Eden - "an amazing place where animals were not ripping each other apart and devouring each other".

The intelligent design argument is more sophisticated. It doesn't retreat to a belief in the Bible as its founding truth. And it doesn't directly refer to God. But it shares with creationists the same difficulty in accepting the role of chance, accident or randomness in explaining the origin of life.

Drake sums up the problem for all. "Evolutionary theory says if there is a God, then he has not made things by means of design, purpose or, in the creationist point of view, with immediacy."

Hanson is scathing. "Intelligent design people are nice people, but they have difficulty in confronting complex realities - they need simple truths. There are a tiny number of biologists who do have problems with evolution, but they are such a minute, microscopic rump that they are hardly worth considering."

The Privileged Planet, one of a set of three DVDs distributed by Focus on the Family, sets out to show through maths and astronomy that purpose and design are everywhere.

The Earth, rather than being an inconsequential, chance speck in a vast universe, is the perfect viewing platform from which to appreciate God's handiwork. Similarly it's hard to accept that humans might not be the special objects of God's creation but simply a product of natural selection brought about by "numerous successive slight modifications".

Enter Icons of Evolution to cast doubt on the formulation of Charles Darwin's theory. Munro, who has assessed some of the DVDs, is annoyed by its bias and use of outdated information. "They say 'here was an error that was made back in the 1860s' and, therefore, because of this error the whole of evolution is wrong."

He points out the nature of science is to test theories for validity and be prepared to accept the theory can be proved false. "You come up with a theory and later evidence changes the story and we have to do a rethink, but we've never found anything which totally disproves evolution."

The material, Munro thinks, should probably be returned to sender. But he's toying with the idea of using some of it in a lesson on testing whether evidence is valid. "If it was going to go to the library, I'd file it under something like fairytales and fables - it's not scientific."

Intelligent design's king hit argument against evolution is found in the third DVD Unlocking The Mystery of Life. It claims to have found a scientific principle ("irreducible complexity") which proves certain structures could not have been produced by evolution.

The argument asserts that structures like the bacterial flagellum (a whip-like motor found in single cell organisms) and the human eye are so enormously complex that if you take them down into their constituent parts, the simpler bits and pieces don't have a function.

Take one part away and the eye or the flagellum doesn't work. In other words, it's irreducibly complex and must have been designed.

While evolution doesn't have a clear explanation for the development of the eye or the flagellum, biologists say they can show that both are not irreducibly complex.

"As soon as you look at bacterial flagellum and find that the various structures that go to make it up do have a function, and look at the complexity of the camera eye and find that there are much simpler versions available, the argument gets pulled to pieces," says Alison Campbell, a former secondary school science teacher and now senior lecturer in biology at Waikato University.

Campbell, who helps run the Evolution for Teaching website, points to a paper - The Flagellum Unspun - which claims to undo some of the probability equations used to make the irreducible complexity case.

Intelligent design may not be in our science curriculum, but it's not exactly out, either. The Ministry of Education's national administration guidelines don't place any restrictions on its teaching. Nor do they specifically restrict the teaching of young Earth creation or theistic evolution. So does the science curriculum allow for alternative theories to evolution to be taught?

"Schools and teachers have a responsibility to select theories widely accepted by the scientific community," says the ministry's curriculum manager Mary Chamberlain. "A full exploration of these theories should include a consideration of challenges that have been made to them."

Even if the challenges are non-scientific? "We are not suggesting that teachers teach it as accepted science," says Chamberlain. "We are suggesting that challenges to accepted scientific understandings should be considered in science lessons" - such as in the "Making sense of the nature of science" strand.

Southland High's Munro rejects the interpretation of the syllabus. "A science controversy has to have science on both sides."

Campbell is not impressed, either: "It's a non-controversy as far as the wider scientific community is concerned." There is only one theory - evolution - and to suggest otherwise is to fall into the trap of misunderstanding what a scientific theory is.

She says neither young Earth creationism nor intelligent design offer any reasonable challenge to evolutionary thinking.

"It's the thin edge of the wedge - as soon as you introduce intelligent design into the classroom in any guise, then it's in the classroom and it gives it some legitimacy and I don't think that legitimacy is warranted. It's not science."

[dynoman]

I'm not sure I agree because as The Origins of Life Prize site states, Any scientific life-origins theory must connect with "life" as we observe it (the "continuity principle"). The theory of evolution by nature has to include the origin of life question since it is attempting to explain where "life as we observe it" came from. The Continuity Principle demands this. If it doesn't why do the evolutinists associated with the Origions of Life Prize say so?

[longshadow]

The Origins of Life Prize site states, Any scientific life-origins theory must connect with "life" as we observe it (the "continuity principle").

First of all, the requirement is being imposed on life origin theory, not the theory of Evolution. Secondly, all it really means is the theory of life origins has to be compatible with the way subsequent life works (i.e., the theory of Evolution.) What they mean by this is that a theory of life origins that explains a form of life NOT compatible with the subsequent evolution of that life form is not acceptable to the people offering the prize. An example of a life origin theory that was discontinuous with the theory of evolution might be one that posits some sort of silicon-based chemistry for the first life form. Obviously, this doesn't fit with the carbon-based chemistry of subsequent life forms that have existed.

So, back to my point, so long as one has a theory of origins of life that gives rise to life with the kind of biochemistry that the Theory of Evolution is compatible with, there is "continuity" between the two theories. It makes no difference what the explanatory model is for the origin of life, as long as it gives rise to something Evolution can subsequently work on.

So again, in that sense, Evolution is no more contingent upon how the first life form originated than Hydrology is contingent upon how water came into existence. Both are compatible with ALL explanations which result in the respectively required raw materials.

[dynoman]

How can you chop the continuous process of life from "origin of life" to "life as we observe it" into seperate blocks and attribute separate blocks to different theories? That doesn't make sense. This is why IMO

"Inanimate stepping stones of abiotic evolution are essential components to any natural process theory of the molecular evolution of life."

See?

[snarks_when_bored]

(laughing)

"Hydrology -- a theory in crisis!"

Good 'un, ls.

[PatrickHenry]

Evolution is no more contingent upon how the first life form originated than Hydrology is contingent upon how water came into existence. Both are compatible with ALL explanations which result in the respectively required raw materials.

Which is precisely why the origin of life -- although an interesting question -- is irrelevant to the theory of evolution, and not a part thereof. Although the evolution of species and the origin of life both involve organic chemistry, they are discrete phenomena, with separate mechanisms. (Similarly, practicing medicine and petroleum engineering involve organic chemistry, but ... well, you get the picture.)

Theists should rejoice in this distinction, rather than trying to bash evolution for it. Why rejoice? Because it leaves a great big gap they can, if they wish, fill with a supernatural agency. But trying to explain an abstract concept to a creationist is a fool's errand.

[longshadow]

How can you chop the continuous process of life from "origin of life" to "life as we observe it" into seperate blocks and attribute separate blocks to different theories? That doesn't make sense.

How can you chop the continuous process of water from the "formation of water" to the "action of water as we observe it" into seperate blocks and attribute separate blocks to different theories?

See how silly the argument sounds now?

I've already answered this question; there is no contingency between the theory of Evolution and the Theory of Life Origin, so long as the Theory of Life Origin explains the existence of biology compatible with evolutionary processes, for precisely the same reason that hydrology isn't contingent upon what explanation is correct for the origin of water. Putting blinders over your eyes and ears doesn't change this.

May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage.

[dynoman]

What ties origin of life, to life as we observe it, is what we call "life", it is what is missing in roadkill when all the rest of the organic matter is still there.

Water has no component like this that is comparable.

Biophysicist Hubert P. Yockey makes the unique observation that "there is nothing in the physico-chemical world [apart from life] that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences. The existence of a genome and the genetic code divides living organisms from non-living matter." (Computers and Chemistry, 24 (2000) 105-123). This may well constitute the most concise and parsimonious dichotomization of animacy from inanimacy available in the literature.

In addition to the unique component issue there is vast difference in complexity, it's like comparing the space shuttle to a 2x4. This is why I don't think it is a good analogy, it *is* an analogy, I can see that, but there has to be better one.

[longshadow]

In addition to the unique component issue there is vast difference in complexity, it's like comparing the space shuttle to a 2x4.

None of which invalidates the point I made. Your argument is a non sequitor.

As long as a Theory of life origins explains how to get to the first life form, the Theory of Evolution explains how to get from THAT first life form to the diversity of species that have developed since that time. There's no dependency in the latter upon which theory we choose to explain the former; the theory of Evolution doesn't change depending upon how the first life form came into existence, just as the theory of Hydrology doesn't change depending upon how water came into existence.

Stuffing your fingers in your ears, covering your eyes, and waving rhetorical arguments about uniqueness and complexity around don't alter the fact that there is no dependency. If there were, you'd have pointed out the dependency long ago. You can't, because it doesn't exist.

All that Evolution needs to work is a population of some form of life that has heritable traits, variation of those traits, and a process like natural selection to act upon the population, and the games afoot. As long as the Theory of Origins explains a first life form that is compatible with what Evolution does, they are compatible with each other. Different theories of origin don't require any changes to the Theory of Evolution.

Example: assume that the first life form arose through some process of abiogenesis. The theory of evolution is perfectly compatible with with this. Now assume instead that the first life form was planted here on earth by (pick ONE, it doesn't matter): 1) space aliens or 2) a deity. In what way does the Theory of Evolution have to be modified to be compatible with either case?

The answer is: it doesn't. That's the point.

That's why The Theory of evolution is no more contingent upon the origin of life than Hydrology is contingent upon the origin of water. Both the origin of life and the origin of water represent fundamentally different processes from the mechanisms which operate upon those raw materials in accordance with Evolution and Hydrology, respectively.

That's why the origin of water is covered by a different theory than Hydrology, and that's why the origin of life is outside the scope of the Theory of Evolution. Different processes, different phenomona, different theories.

[jwalsh07]

Once they've managed to construct an artificial organism by assembling chemical units, only the most obstinate will continue to argue against the possibility.

Let me see if I've got this straight.

Once man uses his intelligence to design life from inorganic material you will have ruled out intelligent design as a possible cause of life?

[Kevin OMalley]

read later bump

[PatrickHenry]

Now assume instead that the first life form was planted here on earth by (pick ONE, it doesn't matter): 1) space aliens or 2) a deity. In what way does the Theory of Evolution have to be modified to be compatible with either case?

Of course there is no rational connection. However, there is a reason why creationists see the "origin of life" issue as a titanic problem for evolution. In the fullness of their ignorance about the nature of science, they imagine that evolution is a satanic alternative to Genesis, and of course Genesis purports to explain the origin of everything. Thus, viewing evolution as a competing cult, they point out its limited scope as a failure. Genesis is the more robust "theory" because it appears to "explain" so much more.

In fact, they should rejoice that evolution starts where life has already begun, because the currently unexplained origin of life leaves a great big gap they can, if they wish, explain with a supernatural agency.

[NCLaw441]

You said: A rational deity ought to at least insure that the punishment fits the crime. So because one chick decided to take a bite of a forbidden apple, all later generations are condemned to die—in many cases, in great pain and suffering. Sorry, that's a disproportionate punishment and, as such, it offends the rational mind.

The punishment was announced prior to the "crime." The "chick" was forewarned as to what would happen. That's what happens when you are created in the image of God-- there are consequences. Whyy do you blame God for something He didn't do?

[dynoman]

Consider the word *evolve*. The definition of the word itself forces one to run the question "evolve from what?" back, how far back does one go? At what point does one stop and why? What/who has determined evolution's starting point? Man? Then it's whatever he wants it to be isn't it, and he will defend to death won't he. I can see that *in theory* the Theory of Evolution doesn't *have to* depend on any Theory of Origion but how does one *know* it doesn't?

What is are the specific reasons the theory of evolution cannot include origin of life? Why must the two theories be separated??

Touch me with your Noodly Appendage please..... :-)

[dynoman]

In the fullness of their ignorance about the nature of science, they imagine that evolution is a satanic alternative to Genesis, and of course Genesis purports to explain the origin of everything.

Exactly *who* are you taking about?

Isn't there a word for this something like "projection" or "strawman"?? But hey it is kind of fun to beat up your imaginary straw men with your your Noodly Appendage isn't it?

[longshadow]

The definition of the word itself forces one to run the question "evolve from what?" back, how far back does one go?

Back to the first biological entity capable of passing on heritable traits to its subsequent generation, variation of those traits, and upon which natural selection can act, as I have previously explained to you.

At what point does one stop and why?

Asked and answered.

What/who has determined evolution's starting point? Man?

All scientific theories have a scope that is limited to the phenomona which are subject to the processes or mechanisms described by the theory. Evolution is about heritable traits being passed on to subsequent generations, those traits having variations across the population, and the population being subject to natural selection. Therefore, it's starting point is the earliest biological population that is capable of being characterized by that process. By definition, the first living organism arose from some other process (whether it be some form of abiogenesis, or seedlings planted by space aliens or deities.) Therefore it can't be described by the same processes that describe Evolution, as it is a different phenomona. This is identical to why the theory of the origin of water is fundamentally distinct from the theory of water dynamics, i.e., Hydrology. As I said in my last post: "Different processes, different phenomona, different theories." Which word didn't you understand?

Then it's whatever he wants it to be isn't it, and he will defend to death won't he.

No, as I have just painstakingly explained for you yet again. ("Different processes, different phenomona, different theories." Which word didn't you understand?)

I can see that *in theory* the Theory of Evolution doesn't *have to* depend on any Theory of Origion [sic] but how does one *know* it doesn't?

By paying attention to the argument I put forward three times now, instead of ignoring the content of my posts and responding with non-sequitors such as "Yes, but Evolution is unique and complex, therefore it must address Origin of Life itself!". Your conclusion does not logically follow from that premise.

What is are the specific reasons the theory of evolution cannot include origin of life? Why must the two theories be separated?

Asked and answered. ("Different processes, different phenomona, different theories." Which word didn't you understand?)

Touch me with your Noodly Appendage please..... :-)

I accept your cordial acknowledgement that you don't have a counter argument to what I've been trying to tell you for the last several posts. If you don't understand after this post, there isn't any point in my continuing this one sided dialogue. Go in peace; may all your noodles be al dente.

[dynoman]

"Yes, but Evolution is unique and complex, therefore it must address Origin of Life itself!".

I didn't say that.

[snarks_when_bored]

Once they've managed to construct an artificial organism by assembling chemical units, only the most obstinate will continue to argue against the possibility.

Let me see if I've got this straight.

Once man uses his intelligence to design life from inorganic material you will have ruled out intelligent design as a possible cause of life?

No, that wasn't quite my point. The idea is this: ID'ers and others maintain that there is a fundamental difference between non-living and living things (there seems to me to be a strong vitalistic strain behind much creationist/intelligent design rhetoric). If humans can turn non-living chemicals into living organisms, it will no longer be possible to maintain that the difference between non-living and living things is fundamental.

I would argue that the only reason that humans would be required nowadays to turn non-living chemicals into living organisms is that current environmental conditions aren't conducive to this development on Earth and, in addition, we don't have millions of years to wait for it to happen.

[snarks_when_bored]

You said: A rational deity ought to at least insure that the punishment fits the crime. So because one chick decided to take a bite of a forbidden apple, all later generations are condemned to die—in many cases, in great pain and suffering. Sorry, that's a disproportionate punishment and, as such, it offends the rational mind.

The punishment was announced prior to the "crime." The "chick" was forewarned as to what would happen. That's what happens when you are created in the image of God-- there are consequences. Whyy do you blame God for something He didn't do?

Let's say you forbid your children—who don't yet grasp the difference between good and evil and who don't know that there are evil forces in the world who might induce them to do wrong—from swallowing pills which, if ingested, will teach them the difference between good and evil. Let's say you warn them that if they ingest the pills, you'll personally see to it that they ultimately die horrible deaths. Let's say that your kids go ahead and ingest the pills. Would you carry out your threatened punishment?

If so, I'd say that you'd acted justly (because of the warning), but unmercifully and also irrationally (on any rational scale I'm capable of grasping, the 'crime' of learning the difference between good and evil doesn't merit the punishment of horrible death).

More generally, the notion of a vengeful deity is something of an oxymoron. Tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner.

[CMOTB]

Actually, It was Adams fault. According to my interpretation, the actual "parole" that Adam and Eve wasn't broken until, Adam went and said, but it was that WOMAN that YOU made for me, she told me to taste the wonderful fruit. (now my little poetic license to the conversation) If you wouldn't have made That woman, I wouldn't have been tempted to eat of the fruit, so, in actuality, its YOUR fault God, you made her, she made me taste It.
Thats when all hell broke loose... pardon the pun.

[dynoman]

I'm wondering why I get in conversations like this when they usually end up being who has the bigger ego contests.

This is illustrated by you pinging PatrickHenry with your last reply to me. Why? Because you want him to see how the mighty intellectual squishes the worm?

And why the deliberately warped misquote?

Why is this?

I heard Burt Rutan talk about revolutionary vs evolutionary thinking years ago, of course he is a proponent of revolutionary thinking. Is your thinking original and revolutionary thinking? Is my thinking original and revolutionary thinking? All to often people simply say what they were taught to say - no more and certainly no less; they think how they were taught to think - no more, and certainly no less. There is plenty of evidence of this on this thread. Consider the point in time where man switched from the flat earth theory to the round earth theory. Who were the evolutionary thinkers and who were the revolutionary thinkers? Consider the point in time where man switched from thinking the sun revolved around the earth to realizing the earth revolved around the sun; Who were the evolutionary thinkers and who were the revolutionary thinkers? Both times evolutionary thinking had to buck established revolutionary thinking. So now here we are on this thread discussing evolution vs design. I don't think it would be out of line to suggest people here ask themselves if their thinking is evolutionary or revolutionary, if it simply what they were taught to think, or independent, critical and original thinking.

What major breakthroughs were the result of regurgitated, evolutionary thinking?

Revolutionary thinking will always question the status quo.

The Origin-of-Life Prize ® is interesting to me because it is encouraging revolutionary thinking as evidenced by this statement; "The winning submission will likely provide both a novel and cardinal conceptual contribution to current biological science and information theory."

That should be pretty exciting.