Not-So-Intelligent Design

The Scientist ^ | Mar. 4, 2002 | Neil S. Greenspan and Anthony Canamucio

[Karl_Lembke]

The Scientist 16[5]:12, Mar. 4, 2002

OPINION

Not-So-Intelligent Design

By Neil S. Greenspan
Anthony Canamucio

Some members of the Ohio State Board of Education are maneuvering to have "intelligent design" (ID) taught to Ohio students as an alternative to teaching them about biological evolution.1 These board members were pursuing the inclusion of ID in the biology curriculum despite unambiguous opposition from the relevant science advisory committee. One board member apparently regards this development as a chance for Ohio "to be on the cutting edge." Unfortunately, this cutting edge will only serve to whittle away a bit more of the collective intellect of the citizenry of Ohio, and the implications reach much farther than the state's boundaries.

According to the enthusiasts for ID, metabolic systems, such as the clotting cascade, are too complex ("irreducibly complex" in their preferred wording) to have arisen through evolution.2 Problems with this view are readily apparent. First, complexity is problematic to define, and irreducible complexity more so.

At present, it is doubtful whether it is possible to measure, prospectively and precisely, the complexity of biological systems so as to distinguish systems that are irreducibly complex from those that are reducibly complex. The concept of irreducible complexity is simply asserted; it is not based on either evidence or compelling logic. Consequently, proponents of ID must decide, essentially arbitrarily, what is too complex to have evolved. They can claim that all of life is too complex to have evolved. Or, are we to believe that bacteria evolved but that humans (or mammals, or whatever groups of organisms) were designed? Would it make any more sense the other way around?

A truly fundamental problem with the notion of ID, as a scientific idea, is that, ultimately, it has effectively no explanatory or predictive power. Suggesting that an unknown Intelligent Designer of unspecified attributes designed the eye, the clotting cascade, or the immune system offers no scientific insights into these biologic marvels and suggests no incisive experiments. There is also the nagging issue of how the Intelligent Designer implements designs without being noticed. How do ID proponents explain the existence of defective genes, no longer capable of expression, in one species that are strikingly similar to still functional genes in a related species? What insights does ID provide in accounting for the origin and spread of bacterial resistance to antibiotics? These phenomena are consistent with the principles of evolution, which find application from the molecular level to the level of ecosystems.

Were the genes associated with conditions such as sickle cell disease or cystic fibrosis designed by The Intelligent Designer, or by her sister, The Not-So-Intelligent Designer? If the response is that we do not understand the motives or goals of the Designer, then of what use is it to posit this inscrutable being in explaining such realities as the relatively high frequencies of these genes in the human population.

On the other hand, evolutionary principles provide a compelling rationale for the high prevalence of the b-globin allele associated with sickle cell disease: in a single copy it provides protection from the deadliest effects of one type of malaria parasite. Consistent with this hypothesis, sickle cell disease is prevalent almost exclusively in populations that live in, or are descended from those who lived in, malaria-endemic regions of the globe. Whereas some ID advocates suggest that mutations are uniformly harmful, there are thoroughly documented human mutations, such as the mutation associated with sickle cell disease, that are alternately harmful or beneficial depending on the exact genotype and the environmental circumstances.

Enthusiasts for ID ignore the growing laboratory evidence for the selection of biological function from random collections of proteins and nucleic acids.3,4 Molecular biologists and biotechnologists have shown that selection acting on randomly generated libraries of billions or trillions of biological polymers, such as peptides or RNA molecules, can produce molecules with useful biological functions, such as specificities for small ligands or catalytic activities. Computer scientists, complexity theorists, and even physical chemists have also documented striking examples of order that develops spontaneously.5,6 It is simply no longer tenable to equate order, complex structure, or sophisticated function uniquely with conscious design.

The Design advocates also ignore the accumulating examples of the reducibility of biological systems. As Russell Doolittle has noted in commenting on the writings of one ID advocate, mice genetically altered so that they lack either thrombin or fibrinogen have the expected abnormal hemostatic phenotypes.7 However, when the separate knockout mice are bred, the double knockouts apparently have normal hemostasis (reducible complexity after all), at least in the laboratory.8 These results cast doubt on the claim by proponents of ID that they know which systems exhibit irreducible complexity and which do not.

Evolution is best regarded as a fact. What is more, it is a fact that is inescapable. The resistance of bacteria to overused antibiotics, viruses to inhibitors of viral replication, and insects to pesticides, are all examples of the evolutionary process in operation. If you do research with cells or microorganisms, genetic variation and selection are continuously in evidence, even when you would prefer them not to be. Thus, that evolution occurs, and has occurred, is not in doubt. It has been directly observed in operation not only in the laboratory but also in the field.9 Where there is still room for argument and discussion is in the precise contributions of different mechanisms to evolutionary change. In this vibrant debate, intelligent design offers no meaningful contribution.

The effort to insert nonscientific ideas into Ohio's science curriculum is being carried out under the banner of promoting critical thinking.10 Perhaps other scientists will be as surprised as I was to learn that the education bill, "No Child Left Behind," signed into law by President George W. Bush on Jan. 8, originally contained an amendment from US Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.). This amendment, ultimately removed from the bill, comprises the following two statements: "It is the sense of the Senate that: (1) good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; and (2) where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why the subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject."

It would appear that a new and clever strategy has been found to get religious ideas into biology class. Those in other states concerned that the science curriculum remains focused on science should be vigilant against similar campaigns in their own states. Otherwise, they could find that the officials crafting the science curriculum for their schools are engaged in a process that comes closer to deserving the label "subversive design" rather than "intelligent design."

Neil S. Greenspan, MD-PhD, is professor of pathology at the Institute of Pathology, Case Western Reserve University, Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44106-4943.

References
1. J. Mangels, S. Stephens, "Evolution targeted in curriculum study," The Plain Dealer, Jan. 15, 2002, pp. A1, A9.
2. M.J. Behe, Darwin's black box: The biochemical challenge to evolution, New York: Free Press, 1997.
3. J.R. Lorsch, J.W. Szostak, "Chance and necessity in the selection of nucleic acid catalysts," Accounts of Chemical Research, 29[2]:103-10, 1996.
4. J.K. Scott, G.P. Smith, "Searching for peptide ligands with an epitope library," Science, 249:386-90, 1990.
5. S.A. Kauffman, The origins of order: Self-organization and selection in evolution," New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
6. D. Kestenbaum, "Gentle force of entropy bridges disciplines," Science, 279,1849, 1998.
7. R. F. Doolittle, R.F. "A delicate balance," Boston Review, February/March 1997, or online at bostonreview.mit.edu/br22.1/doolittle.html.
8. T.H. Bugge, "Loss of fibrinogen rescues mice from the pleiotropic effects of plasminogen deficiency," Cell, 87:709-19, 1996.
9. J. Weiner, The beak of the finch: A story of evolution in our time, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1994.
10. R. Lattimer, J. Calvert, "Intelligent design is a matter of academic freedom," The Plain Dealer, Jan. 18, 2002, p. B9.

The Scientist 16[5]:12, Mar. 4, 2002

[Karl_Lembke]

Consider another fire lit.....

[Karl_Lembke]

Onto list.

[arepublicifyoucankeepit]

Wake up people the "missing link" was never found. The whole dam chain is missing.

If they're going to teach the religion of Evolution then by all means teach Creation.

[gcruse]

"subversive design"

Religion, the weapon of choice
in the attack on human advancement.

[adakotab]

The concept of irreducible complexity is simply asserted; it is not based on either evidence or compelling logic. Consequently, proponents of ID must decide, essentially arbitrarily, what is too complex to have evolved.

Apparently the author hasn't read much, if anything, of William Dembski's articles on Intelligent Design. Dembski explains in detail how irreducible complexity is determined.

Par for the course from some evolutionists to cry deceit while themselves deceiving.

[marktwain]

Another problem caused by "winner take all" public schools. If we had school choice, I could send my kids to a school that taught evolution, and religious people could send their kids to a school that taught creationism.

[Cicero]

Smug pseudo-scientists. Intelligent Design and General Evolution are both theories put forward to explain the evidence. Intelligent Design makes some sense. General Evolution doesn't. Freud and Marx have both been widely discredited among people with sense, and Darwin is next on the list.

[earplug]

I think a loving god would have told us to boil water, wash often with soap and avoid lead, mercury, arsenic and fleas. But we pay our 10% and hope for eternal life. I feel so warm and fuzzy.

[cookcounty]

"How do ID proponents explain the existence of defective genes, no longer capable of expression, in one species that are strikingly similar to still functional genes in a related species? "

It seems the author of this article has seiously misunderstood ID. First of all, ID is NOT the same thing as "Perfection of Design, nor does it categorically deny evolution.

For crying out loud, even the Six-Day creationists believe in evolution of a degradationist type (the gradual loss or invalidation of information).

[AmericaUnited]

It's easier to believe in the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus than the Theory of Evolution. So much evidence is piling up to discredit evolution. The emperor has no clothes any more, never did.

[AmericaUnited]

I think a loving god would have told us to boil water, wash often with soap and avoid lead, mercury, arsenic and fleas.

He did, by giving you a brain. You do know about those things. Thank God.

[TailspinJim]

Wrong about the six day creationists....read "Genesis and The Big Bang" and "The Science of God" by Doctor Gerald L. Schroeder.

[cookcounty]

"First, complexity is problematic to define, and irreducible complexity more so."

Oh, give me a break. The reason that we would be surprised to find a mushroom having a litter of puppies is that it is far too COMPLX of a transformation.

"Can't define 'complexity.'" Don't be silly.

[cookcounty]

I haven't read Schroeder, but I have to say, I'm sure you're mistaken. The idea of harmful mutations taking hold in a population are widely suported by 6-dayers. (are you saying they believe all mutations are neutral, or that they don't believe there are mutations?)

[jlogajan]

Dembski explains in detail how irreducible complexity is determined.

Yeah, he makes up odds for things that have already occurred. Most people can understand the folly of that.

For instance, calculate the odds that at this moment I just picked up a pencil. Using Dumbowski's method, he'd compute a series of improbabilities and say that the chance of me picking up a pencil just then is 1 in 10^76.

Of course, I did pick up the pencil, so there is no probability calculation that matters. It is a certainty. It already happened. Applying probability to prove it couldn't or didn't happen is hilariously inane.

But that's all ID has. Too bad for them.

[cookcounty]

"Really. Could you list the 5 most cited, peer reviewed articles, of 2001 that discredit evolution?"

Please list 5 journals that will accept non-evolutionary viewpoints for peer review. OK, name one, then. You can't complain about lack of peer-reviewed articles, if such articles are, a priori ruled out. It's an illogical question you suggest.

[jennyp]

I think a loving god would have told us to boil water, wash often with soap and avoid lead, mercury, arsenic and fleas.

He did, by giving you a brain. You do know about those things. Thank God.

Oh? I recall that in the Roman Empire, a very popular type of ceramic used in pots & mugs & wine bottles was high in lead. Rome, of course, was by far the most advanced society in Europe/Africa at the time. Far more advanced than God's favorite tribe was at the time.

Mercury was used for a number of things until recently that would make us blanch. And wasn't arsenic used in patent medicines as a pick-me-up? Or was that strychnine? (Actually, consulting my 1912 New Standard Formulary, all three, sometimes together. Yikes!)

You do realize of course how we did eventually learn why we should avoid lead, arsenic, mercury, & fleas? Godless, philosophically materialistic science! (Oh the horror :-)

[jennyp]

OK, how about if we rephrase the question...

Could you list the 5 best arguments as of 2001 that discredit evolution?

[cookcounty]

"Yeah, he makes up odds for things that have already occurred. Most people can understand the folly of that."

But lots of us can't understand it.

The example of your intelligent mind choosing to pick up a pencil is not a particularly cogent argument for the power of random non-intelligent processes.

How about this: You come to my house and find 10,000 pennies on the driveway, all facing heads up. Then I tell you they got that way by my flipping them out the window.

You express your skepticism about my flippping the coins.

Then I explain: 'You can't argue with it. It's already happened!

[TailspinJim]

I'm talking about time dialation,due to the fact that we're traveling at near the speed of light from the reference point of the big bang, not mutations. Schroeder says the l5 + billion yrs since the big bang can and do fit into the six days (Gods time) it took him to accomplish the "creation". According to Schroeder, we're now in the latter portion of the sixth day!

[BMCDA]

Here is a website of a guy who debunks the "theories" of ID-ists like Dembski, Behe, Johnson et al. The e-mails of his conversation with some of them are also available on his site.

[anniegetyourgun]

Now, now - you know we can't have those publik skool kids doing any critical thinking among multiples.

[Free the USA]

Bump List

[cookcounty]

I hear this "you can't calculate the odds for things that have already happened," but that's nonsense. In the case of the 10,000 heads-up pennies on the driveway, YOUR only argument against randomness would be a calculation of odds---even though the pennies were already there when you arrived!

In other words, only an idiot would NOT try to calculate the odds of this past event.

[longshadow]

I'm talking about time dialation,due to the fact that we're traveling at near the speed of light from the reference point of the big bang,.... [snip]

That's very interesting. Could you provide us with the coordinates for the "reference point of the Big Bang"? In other words, were do you think the BB was located?

[Doctor Stochastic]

... then by all means teach Creation.

Which version? The one where the Flute-Playing Locust leads the Souls of Men through the Sipapu into the Third World?

[TailspinJim]

At the center of the universe, of course.

[Sabertooth]

This is such a silly controversy.

"Proofs" or "disproofs" of ID, or some sort of random or "natural cause" of the Universe (or the principles governing it) ALL speculate on causes that will more than likely remain outside the purview of science, because they tread outside the space-time continuum.

I happen to think that the Laws of Physics are a product of ID, but it's just my hunch or belief... The same would be true if I thought they came about "spontaneously" after a "spontaneous" Big Bang.

I also happen to believe that Evolution is governed and driven by more than just random mutation filtered by natural selection over a vast backdrop of time.

But even if we discover Laws of Biology, as we have Laws of Physics and Chemistry, we will forever beg the question (scientifically, anyway) of how and why those laws came to be... Because all speculation on those matters involves knowing what is or isn't going on outside of space-time. So what?

What's the problem with saying at some point, "Science can't answer, or hasn't answered that?"

[rdb3]

I'm ashamed that this clown lives in my hometown.

[Exnihilo]

You know, before you open your mouth and make yourself look like an uninformed idiot, you might take the time to learn that Phillip Johnson has no "theories", so there is nothing to debunk.

[Exnihilo]

It isn't even agreed upon by physicists and astronomers if there IS a "center" of the universe.

[TailspinJim]

I'll second that.

[rdb3]

The emperor has no clothes any more, never did.

Thank you. Evolution, at face value, is absurd.

[TailspinJim]

Perhaps then, you subscribe to Sabertooth's post number 29?

[Doctor Stochastic]

"Please list 5 journals that will accept non-evolutionary viewpoints for peer review."

Acta Biotheoretica
Bioscience
Genetics, Selection, Evolution
Mammalian Genome
Nature
Trends in Biological Sciences

Of, course, the paper must be scientific, not religious. Certainly none of the self-published papers on Dembski's (as of last fall) would qualify.

[Exnihilo]

I agree with you. These things are ultimately beyond our ability to know with certainty. The only thing that grates my nerves is how the naturalists who espouse Darwinian orthodoxy pretend that they do so from an objective, unbiased view point; that their desires, psychological make-up, or feelings towards religion and/or God(s) do not in any way effect the way that they view and/or interpret the evidences presented by both sides. The "Creationists" (whatever that happens to mean at any given time in a discussion), readily admit that they are theistic, and make no bones about their feelings about God and/or religion. The gaul of the naturalists to sit there and honestly claim that they are some how "more objective" than the opposition is the height of absurdity. They make themselves look worse with the never-ending name calling, the attempts to insult and intellectually marginalize those who disagree with them, and on and on. Table pounding rhetoric may convince those who want to believe, but it doesn't persuade anyone who has critical thinking skills.

[Exnihilo]

Indeed, see my above post.

[TailspinJim]

Touche'

[Exnihilo]

Hi Doctor Stochastic. I was wondering if you could explain for us, specifically how Dr. Dembski's ID Theory is religious. I'm confident that you've taken the time to read all of his work, and that you understand what his theory says. So, please I ask you, tell us how ID theory is "religious". I would encourage you to cite specific papers that Dembski has published, and you might go so far as to quote him in order to make your case. I'll even go further and allow you to discontinue use of the word "religious" and simply go to "unscientific". Definitions of the terms you use here will also help. I'm sure we will all be anxiously awaiting your thorough explaination!

[Sabertooth]

The gaul of the naturalists to sit there and honestly claim that they are some how "more objective" than the opposition is the height of absurdity.

A height equalled frequently by literal Creationists when they beat their heads against the wall with the same bad science over and over again.

I find it a reasonably accurate prejudice to assume that Creationists make bad scientists and Evolutionists make bad theologians.

I will agree that Evolutionists are not so aware as they should be when they are tramping in theological woods.

[Exnihilo]

Again, I'd ask, as I've done a thousand times before on these threads that never end, for a complete and thorough definition of "Creationist" that we can all agree on. Clearly, scientific data would conflict with a literal 6-day interpretation of Genesis. That being said, what is a "Creationist" and why do you think it is that the naturalists who adhere to Darwinian orthodoxy shout "Creationist!" at their opposition as though they were shining a bright light on a dark corner of the world and exposing something? It's quite telling that the mere accusation is something that, presumably, is to be feared, avoided, and skirted at all costs in order to remain in good intellectual standing with the naturalists.

[earplug]

We have alway done it that way and will alway do it that way because we have faith. The earth is the center of the universe, the earth is flat, We can't fly, we can't do surgery, we must not deal with DNA. We can only pray in a dead language. If we get sick its not a problem, its gods idea so chill. If god wanted us to be cold, wet and hungrey he would have made us that way.

[Sabertooth]

Again, I'd ask, as I've done a thousand times before on these threads that never end, for a complete and thorough definition of "Creationist" that we can all agree on. Clearly, scientific data would conflict with a literal 6-day interpretation of Genesis. That being said, what is a "Creationist" and why do you think it is that the naturalists who adhere to Darwinian orthodoxy shout "Creationist!" at their opposition as though they were shining a bright light on a dark corner of the world and exposing something?

Well, I believe that God is the Author of the Universe and spoke it into being about 15 or so billion years ago... and things have been running more or less mechanistically ever since. So you could define Creationist broadly enough to include me, I suppose.

But I think a better definition of Creationist would be anyone who believes in Special Creation of species, regardless of time frame. That's neither provable nor disprovable, scientifically.

At that point, we'd also have to accept that the Universe was created yesterday, or tomorrow, as valid scientific theories. That's all deus ex machina, and not too compelling.

[Exnihilo]

Your reasoning is truly dizzying.

[Enlightiator]

Were the genes associated with conditions such as sickle cell disease or cystic fibrosis designed by The Intelligent Designer, or by her sister, The Not-So-Intelligent Designer?

This flippant comment shows a total lack of respect, even animosity, for a belief in God and for religion in general. How fair and scientific a review of the possiblities of intellegent design could be expected from this articles authors, Greenspan and Canamucio? After reading that sentence, I expected no fairness or scientific accuracy at all, and thats just what they delivered in the article.

None of the arguments they put forth give even the slightest proof that intellgent design could not be involved in all of the cited biological processes. Replace "evolution" in their article with "adaptation by intelligent design," and the same processes can be explained.

To answer the question of defects in mankind, when did we expect perfection in man on earth? I've never seen it, and it isn't in the bible except for on man, and he wasn't perfect physically, just spiritually.

[Sabertooth]

What's the problem with saying at some point, "Science can't answer, or hasn't answered that?"

Here's what coteblanche was replying to when she made her comment about faith. She wasn't arguing against a properly agnostic science, she was simply agreeing with the point that not all truths can be reached through science.

Just as I'm sure she'd agree that not all science can be discovered by faith.

Do you disagree?

[Doctor Stochastic]

The main failing (the big one) is that Dembski never defines his term "specified complexity" in a biologically meaningful way. He talks about as though evolution is aiming at a target. It is not. Evolution is a process, not a goal.

In other cases, he suggests an evolutionary path and then rejects that path. Other critics (you should read them) point out that there are other mechanisms which Dembski ignores.

There are no examples of something designed vs something not designed for comparison. If everything is designed, the theory is vacuous.