Intelligent Design
Though the details of an intelligent design bill are still evolving, I received a thoughtful email from a retired BYU science professor that I thought readers might enjoy. It reads,
I oppose any legal requirement that “intelligent design”, or comparable idea, be taught along with evolution as a competing theory. I have several reasons for my opposition:
1. It would create a problem where none exists. The problem would be that students would be forced to choose between intelligent design and evolution and, by extension, religion and science. This choice is not necessary and would do harm. Over my professional career, I have talked with a number of people (or their relatives) who have chosen science and left their religion, falsely believing that they were antithetical. But it is possible to accept both, if one is willing to wait to resolve apparent conflicts (point 3 below.)
2. Intelligent design, or similar ideas, is not a scientific theory. It cannot replace evolution. To try to force a thinking student to do so will often push him or her to gravitate to the science and drop the religion (point 1.) It’s like trying to prove the existence of God with science or math—it can’t be done. Teachers know that; students know that; legislators know that.
3. Our understanding, in both science and religion, is highly inadequate. The history of science shows that it is a mistake to try to invoke God to explain scientific mysteries, because the mysteries often get explained later and the religionists then look foolish. Because of our incomplete understanding, there are often apparent contradictions. (I can cite several.) It is better to wait for our religious and scientific understandings to progress—and this may take a while!—rather than to try to wrench one side to fit the other, as Procrustes stretched or compressed people to fit his bed in the old myth.
4. There is an implied assumption held by a number of people in this state that the LDS Church opposes evolution. This is false. See the comments in my earlier letter (attached) about, say, the statement in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. There is a packet, available at BYU, containing statements made or approved by the LDS First Presidency, which statements make it clear that the question is not settled.
5. Evolution, while still a developing area, has considerable scientific evidence supporting it. It is a unifying principle in modern biology. As noted above, to force a choice may push people to choose the science over religion.
6. The debate in Dover, PA, over this issue has caused hard and divisive feelings among the citizens of that community. It is not necessary to cause such a division in our community; as noted above, this is not a problem. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”
7. There is the possibility of legal action if apparently religious agenda are promoted by the legislation.
Now—some of you may think there is a problem. It is true that some scientists will baldly state that evolution implies that there is no God. These may be found in a number of universities. It is better to help our students realize that they need not have to choose so that they can meet tough challenges to their beliefs elsewhere. Such a problem occurs typically at the university level, not the public school level, which is what the proposed legislation likely will address. This also results from a confusion over the origin of life as opposed to the development of life (although some people will say that the origin question is settled.)
I personally believe that God somehow arranged the development of man, and man’s body, to achieve the potentially divine body that he now has. I also believe that He used an evolutionary process to do this. There are lots of gaps in my beliefs, and I don’t understand how He did this to achieve such a well-functioning, complicated being as man is. I am content to wait to find that out. I doubt it will happen in my lifetime. But I feel my religious and my scientific understandings are satisfactory for the time being.
You may want to make it possible for teachers to say something like, “The origins of life and particularly of the bodies of men and women are unsettled and are largely a matter of one’s religious belief. We cannot and do not address that here. However, many people regard their science and their religion as compatible.” That would be fine, as long as teachers then do not go on to promote their own particular religious beliefs.
Food for thought.
I oppose any legal requirement that “intelligent design”, or comparable idea, be taught along with evolution as a competing theory. I have several reasons for my opposition:
1. It would create a problem where none exists. The problem would be that students would be forced to choose between intelligent design and evolution and, by extension, religion and science. This choice is not necessary and would do harm. Over my professional career, I have talked with a number of people (or their relatives) who have chosen science and left their religion, falsely believing that they were antithetical. But it is possible to accept both, if one is willing to wait to resolve apparent conflicts (point 3 below.)
2. Intelligent design, or similar ideas, is not a scientific theory. It cannot replace evolution. To try to force a thinking student to do so will often push him or her to gravitate to the science and drop the religion (point 1.) It’s like trying to prove the existence of God with science or math—it can’t be done. Teachers know that; students know that; legislators know that.
3. Our understanding, in both science and religion, is highly inadequate. The history of science shows that it is a mistake to try to invoke God to explain scientific mysteries, because the mysteries often get explained later and the religionists then look foolish. Because of our incomplete understanding, there are often apparent contradictions. (I can cite several.) It is better to wait for our religious and scientific understandings to progress—and this may take a while!—rather than to try to wrench one side to fit the other, as Procrustes stretched or compressed people to fit his bed in the old myth.
4. There is an implied assumption held by a number of people in this state that the LDS Church opposes evolution. This is false. See the comments in my earlier letter (attached) about, say, the statement in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. There is a packet, available at BYU, containing statements made or approved by the LDS First Presidency, which statements make it clear that the question is not settled.
5. Evolution, while still a developing area, has considerable scientific evidence supporting it. It is a unifying principle in modern biology. As noted above, to force a choice may push people to choose the science over religion.
6. The debate in Dover, PA, over this issue has caused hard and divisive feelings among the citizens of that community. It is not necessary to cause such a division in our community; as noted above, this is not a problem. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”
7. There is the possibility of legal action if apparently religious agenda are promoted by the legislation.
Now—some of you may think there is a problem. It is true that some scientists will baldly state that evolution implies that there is no God. These may be found in a number of universities. It is better to help our students realize that they need not have to choose so that they can meet tough challenges to their beliefs elsewhere. Such a problem occurs typically at the university level, not the public school level, which is what the proposed legislation likely will address. This also results from a confusion over the origin of life as opposed to the development of life (although some people will say that the origin question is settled.)
I personally believe that God somehow arranged the development of man, and man’s body, to achieve the potentially divine body that he now has. I also believe that He used an evolutionary process to do this. There are lots of gaps in my beliefs, and I don’t understand how He did this to achieve such a well-functioning, complicated being as man is. I am content to wait to find that out. I doubt it will happen in my lifetime. But I feel my religious and my scientific understandings are satisfactory for the time being.
You may want to make it possible for teachers to say something like, “The origins of life and particularly of the bodies of men and women are unsettled and are largely a matter of one’s religious belief. We cannot and do not address that here. However, many people regard their science and their religion as compatible.” That would be fine, as long as teachers then do not go on to promote their own particular religious beliefs.
Food for thought.
posted by steve u. at 12/19/2005
Subscribe
24 Comments:
Most of his arguments against teaching Intelligent Design (ID) in schools are based on the idea that ID a promotion of religion. This is a false pretense and thus makes most of his points mute. Specifically, it mutes 1-4.
His point 7 is actually quite interesting. Why is the conservative right so afraid of "legal action"? The left are pushing for it and we are avoiding it. Perhaps it's because most judges are left leaning. But I feel that it just a fear that the left wants us to believe. So, I find point 7 mute too.
As for point 5, if evolution is still evolving, then why can't ID which is still evolving be taught? If evolution is still being developed as a theory, where was it when it was approved to teach in schools? If it was at the same stage as ID, then why not teach ID too?
That leaves point 6. And I feel that most people find the education system to be broke. So it needs fixing.
That being said, I have to add that I don't think that there should be a law requiring ID to be taught. Rather a resolution stating that ID could be taught as an alternative to evolution would be good. But, I think that it would require an excellent understanding of what ID is before it is taught because I think that religion would creep in where it isn't supposed to be (at least according to the ID theory).
Personally I agree that ID shouldn't be taught as a competeing theory, because it isn't science. Scientific method requires testing by experimentation, mathmatics, and other empirical means. As far I know noone has developed a scientific means of proving ID as an absolute. I agree that ID and evolution shouldn't be considered an either/or scenario.
Having said that ID does deserve a place in philosophical discussions in school where world religions are glossed over. To totally disallow ID in school because of its Judeo-Christian roots is pure cowardice to threat of legal action from the atheistic left wing.
P.S. From your last post, I was still wondering about the proposed tax credits involved in the proposed flatter tax.
"As for point 5, if evolution is still evolving, then why can't ID which is still evolving be taught"
Simple. Evolution has quantifiable, existing proof that justifies it as a theory. It has some holes and obvious shortcomings, but it also has proof. Intelligent design has no proof, no quantifiable evidence and no connection to any scientific observations.
The basic tenant of intelligent design is this: Because evolution is an incomplete theory, it cannot be said to be wholey correct, therefore other ideas must be considered as true.
Here's the logic written out in a simplified form. See if you can get why this argument is moot...
Known: If A exists, then B can not exist. They are mutually exclusive.
Observed: A does not exist.
Concluded: ???
If you answer B exists, then you're part of the problem. You see, all we know is that If A is, then B isn't. If A isn't, we can't make any conclusions pertaining to B.
OR...
If Evolutionary theory is proven IN ITS ENTIRETY, then Intelligent design must not be true.
Evolutionary theory is proven to be incorrect.
Thus?
Nothing.
Disproving Evolutionary theory does not, in any way, give any proof to Intelligent design. More importantly, Intelligent design does not have any positive proof. There's no evidence anywhere that a "creator" designed the universe. Without this evidence ID does not belong in scientific discussions.
It's akin to saying that pigs can fly. There's no evidence that they can't, only that they haven't yet...
On The Christian Prophet blog messages from the Holy Spirit have repeatedly said that Intelligent Design is no more valuable a theory than Evolution, but the deeper problem is public schools. On The Holy Inheritance blog there is an inspirational message indicating that we were really created by love.
I agree with the anonymous poster in her/his pointing out of the logical fallacy in the basis of proponents 'proof' of ID. Just because evolution is not fully provable - and like most scientific theories, may never be - does not make ID a good scientific theory. Only giving scientific proof to ID can do that. Therein lies ID proponents' problem.
But like Travis said, ID is still evolving. It's been a while since Creationism was at the forefront of this debate, and since it didn't fare so well in the Scopes trial, it evolved into ID. Undress it, and you still get Creationism.
Not to be sardonic, but Travis said, "most people find the education system to be broke." In this case, I believe the word "broken" should be used. As in, "Maybe our educational system is broken."
Travis, I'm not picking on you, but I believe you mean 'moot', not 'mute.' It's a common mistake.
I don't think it is necessary to discount the one or the other. First, ID doesn't belong in the science class. Second, it is a philosophical idea that is widely believed around the world. It is impossible to reconcile the two scientifically, however because evolution is a incomplete theory (and likely will remain incomplete for decades if not centuries to come) evolution doesn't fully disprove the existance of a God.As the professor states:
" Our understanding, in both science and religion, is highly inadequate. The history of science shows that it is a mistake to try to invoke God to explain scientific mysteries, because the mysteries often get explained later and the religionists then look foolish. Because of our incomplete understanding, there are often apparent contradictions. (I can cite several.) It is better to wait for our religious and scientific understandings to progress—and this may take a while!—rather than to try to wrench one side to fit the other, as Procrustes stretched or compressed people to fit his bed in the old myth."
Point is ID definitely should be out of HS science courses and not taught as a competeing idea to evolution. However, belief based ideas are allowed in a philosophy or humanities classes and I believe it would be altogether reasonable to include ID in such courses.
I have enjoyed reading the comments here and listening to your comments on KSL radio today. It really is an interesting debate and the debate alone is fine. It's just too bad that so much of our civil debate is lacking in civility.
Anonymous (the first), I don't think you really know what ID is. You are basing you knowledge of ID on incorrect sources and should really do your research. ID may have some roots in theology, but so does astronomy, chemistry, and many other sciences. It is the scientific pursuit of proof that we are here as a result of some intelligent being. That being could be another alien race (like in Stargate) or it could be a God (like most religionists). And from an ID perspective either is completely acceptable.
Further, I don't know that you argument that if evolutionary theory is proven that ID must not be true. I happen to know some people who would argue that evolution was one of the many tools used by a creator to form life. According to them they can be mutually compatible theories. Not all ID supports would accept that, but there are some.
ID is a theory that has some evidence to support it. As time goes on it will gain further evidence to support it. Is it something that is ready to be taught in schools, perhaps not. But it is a theory rooted in scientific principle and shouldn't be wholly banned because it has implications for religious people.
James & Anonymous (the second),
Thanks for pointing out my errors. It looks that I too, like ID and evolution, am not infallible.
Everyone,
It is funny to me to see how ID is going through the same scrutiny that evolution did in it's beginning. It seems that even though as a society we think we are open, we are really very close minded to the possibilities that what we think is correct could be wrong.
Steve,
My apologies for commandeering your post here. I will not comment further because after all this is your blog and not mine. If others wish to further debate me on this subject I encourage you to come to my site and do so. My ID article can be found here.
"Anonymous (the first), I don't think you really know what ID is. You are basing you knowledge of ID on incorrect sources and should really do your research."
Wow.
I don't quite understand where that came from, but ok...
Intelligent design contends that the "spark of life" that eludes evolutionary theory (which I FREELY admit) did not come about by a random set of events, but rather, that it was "designed" by some creative force (God, lizards, aliens, whatever). What I'm saying is simply this, contend all you want, but without proof, it's just wishful thinking. There is simply no proof, whatsoever, for ID. Without evidence, what's the point?
I can claim anything I want to if evidence isn't necessary.
I think men once lived on Mars, but left for Pluto, because it got too hot for them. The religious text "Mattsaysso" closely follows this idea, and therefore it must be true...
Matt
(Anonymous, the first one)
I agree in large measure with all that the BYU science professor says. But I have a few additional comments.
ID is religiously based. Talk about “aliens” being the intelligent designer is just being ingenious. Nobody seriously believes it (after all, if aliens designed us, who designed them?). We all know why people are supporting ID, and it isn’t because of ID’s scientific acumen.
I don’t think it wise to have ID in high school at all, not even in a ‘philosophy’ course. The ‘Intelligent Design’ that is being pushed today is designed to compete with evolution. To put ID in a philosophy course will only make the philosophy course an alternative to the biology course, not a complement to it.
Also, ID and its primary concept of ‘irreducible complexity’, if it’s true (and I don’t believe it is), is in its infancy as a theory. It is going to have to go through a lot more testing and study before it can be placed on a par with or replace evolution. And for anyone considering legislation that might involve ID, one should look very closely at the Dover court proceeding and take a good look at how well ID stood up in court. Nice articles in magazines and on the web may sound convincing, but in a court of law evidence is put on the table, not cute articles. Michael Behe, one of the primary proponents of ID testified at that trial, and others had an excellent opportunity to show all the evidence they wanted for ID, but I noticed that the Judge found the evidence far from convincing.
BTW, just for your information, I am not an atheist left-winger, I am an active church going Christian, with a few left-wing tendencies :^)
http://evolutioninutah.blogspot.com
The problem with ID theory is that is is not testable via the scientific method. That is, we currently have no satisfactory repeatable procedure for demonstrating whether it really happened (or is happening). Science is about developing knowledge of truth through the scientific method.
Intrestingly, however, Darwin's theory of evolution (at least the macroevolution portion of it) also fails this same test. There is no satisfactory repeatable procedure for demonstrating whether it really happened (or is happening). We teach it because a significant number of scientists *believe* it to be the case. I'm not sure how that differs from creationist teaching prior to Scopes.
We expect our scientists to develop and research theories. However, we should not teach untested and untestable theories as fact in our science classes. Hence, we should teach neither ID nor macroevolution to our students as scientific fact. It might be fine to discuss the state of research in these fields, but let's not draw conclusions where the evidence is insufficient.
As Judge Jones said in the Dover case, ID might actually be true, but it's not science. Let's teach science in science class, not religion. It's good to see Rep. Urquhart and the BYU professor standing up for education over ID propaganda, and I say that as a liberal Democrat.
Travis,
Please don't bow out. I always enjoy your insights and civil tone. Rather than worry about people taking over the blog, I worry about yammering on about things that don't stir or even interest people. I'm always quite pleased when people talk back and forth on the topic at hand. If we get more of that, it can help open a window for the public to the character and quality of input decision-makers receive on policy issues.
One point I made on Doug Wright's show that I want to make here (and that everyone here seems to agree with by the tone of comments), this issue is important and we can have civil dialogue about it. When we are at our best as a society we can publicly discuss topics without immediately degrading to name calling. Though I believe we should not teach ID in the public schools, it thrills me that we're having policy discussions about science and the interface of morals, religion and education.
Since Steve doesn't feel that I am trying to put my nose in where it isn't wanted, I will make a few more observations.
according to Merriam-Webster Online a theory is: "6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject --theory of equations--". Based on this definition ID is a theory. Whether it is developed enough to be taught in schools is still debatable, and I myself tend to lean away from teaching it in schools (especially by government mandate).
My main reason on commenting here was to point out that most people equate ID with creationism. This BYU professor is doing just that. Chris Buttars' proposals are more creationistic than ID oriented (I completely disagree with his proposals).
Does ID need some more support/evidence? Yes, it does.
Does it have some evidence? Yes, just read a pro-ID website or book, and you will see that there is empirical evidence for it. Don't let the nay-sayer be your only source for proof.
Are there holes in ID? Of course, that's why it is only a theory and not a scientific law.
Should it be taught in schools? No, probably not yet.
Should it be discounted as bunk? If you are too closed minded to anything but Darwin, then let's get back to the dark ages and say yes.
Is ID science? Yes. Because they have a formidable hypothesis, and a method to test it.
Hmmm. I screwed up the link to the theory definition. Just posting to correct that.
As a former employee of the Discovery Institute, albeit not in the science program, I'll say that this professor's arguments are pretty tired and typical among religious scientists. He's the one making the science vs. religion comparison, not ID supporters (aside from Pat Robertson I guess). All of my former colleagues in the science program were once academics in the mainstream of scientific thought, and all but one to my knowledge was already a practicing religious person (Protestant, Catholic, Jew). Another is a secular Jew. They all came to see neo-Darwinism - which is NOT the same as what the good professor believes (theistic evolution) - was a shoddy theory and itself untestable. I can't speak for the Dover board's motivations but the primary academic backer of ID sees this as BAD science in the first. The judge had no idea what he was talking about, and gave a black eye to judges everywhere with his reckless, inflammatory opinion.
"“The origins of life and particularly of the bodies of men and women are unsettled "
err that statement is false
we have a very good idea about the origin of life. self-replicating RNA, a 2 and 3 code dna replaced by our current 4 code DNA.
tetrapod.
tetrapod...say it again.
synapsids....primates...apes....man
fairly clear line of evolution from tree dwelling large eye good brained opposable thumb mammals.
lets not lie to our students
"As a former employee of the Discovery Institute"
so what was the problem? you couldn't lie with enough conviction or with a straight face?
seems the only qualification needed to be a DI employee.
"My main reason on commenting here was to point out that most people equate ID with creationism. "
ehhh yaaaa...
when you use the word replace function to change creationism to ID in an entire fake textbook I say that its a good clue that ID is nothing but genesis with a haircut.
"When we are at our best as a society we can publicly discuss topics without immediately degrading to name calling"
oh come on...Travis is a doody head....Travis is a doody head....
"Are there holes in ID? Of course, that's why it is only a theory and not a scientific law."
"Based on this definition ID is a theory."
Travis is confusing the meanings of the word "theory". By which definition is ID a theory? You quoted three definitions, but did not identify which one you were actually using:
6a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument
6b: an unproved assumption
6c: a body of theorems
In scientific terms (6c), a "theory" is a well tested body of theorems that explains a large number of observations, and makes specific predictions for future tests. ID does none of this. ID isn't even a "hypothesis" (6a).
Looks to me like ID is (6b), an unproved assumption. ID assumes there is a "designer", then looks (in vein) for something to prove it.
If you're going to quote definitions, at least get them straight.
Second, ID doesn't just posit that Life was "designed". ID posits that the entire *Universe* was "designed". ID points to the exquisite sensitivity of the fundamental constants of the universe and says, "Wow. Those couldn't have happened by chance. It must have been Designed." Space aliens aren't going to have the capacity to design the universe. Aliens live IN the universe. Designing the fundamental constants of the universe sounds like part of God's resume to me. See the following for DI's claim for God-like powers:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2571
and search for the word "constant"
Third, read the Dover trial transcript. Not just the final opinion, but the entire transcript.
ID is "Creation Science", pure and simple.
Scott
"...if evolution is still evolving, then why can't ID which is still evolving be taught?"
Unfortunately for this argument, ID does not evolve. ID claims that, if we can't explain "it" (pick your favorite topic for "it"), then "it" can never ever possibly be explained, and therefore "it" must be Designed. "Poof". Period. End of discussion. End of thought. No need to go any further. We've discovered the Truth. You might as well pack your bags and go home.
This is not Science. ID is a "science stopper". Teaching ID is telling children that we already have all the answers that the universe has to offer. Don't bother going into the science field to study "it", because we already know that "it" was Designed. Studying "it" would be a waste of your time.
Instead of telling our children that science is a waste of time, we should be encouraging our children to explore the wonders of the universe. To think, to question, to touch, to open their eyes and go and find out. Then maybe, if we're lucky, our children will discover things we haven't even dreamed of.
Teaching ID kills dreams. *That's* why it is a bad idea to "teach" ID.
Scott
All very interesting and insightful. Nevertheless, the supporters of ID on this blog (as with all blogs) have failed to identify any tangible evidence that ID exists. The challenge - to identify a single tangible fact that can be used to support ID - is longstanding. I submit that the challenge will remain longstanding; the best that supporters of ID can do is identify non-tangible thought-experiments that can be twisted to argue in favor of ID. Positive, tangible evidence for the existence of ID simply does not exist!
<< Home