Objectivity

  results from the use of the scientific method without philosophic or religious assumptions in seeking answers to the question: Where do we come from? We believe objectivity in the institutions of science, government and the media will lead not only to good origins science, but also to constitutional neutrality in this subjective, historical science that unavoidably impacts religion. YOU HAVE A RELIGIOUS FAITH BELIEF WHEN YOU WAKE UP THAT YOU ARE ALIVE.  YOU MAY NOT THINK IT IS A RELIGION BUT YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE IN SOMETHING.

 THE AUTHORS, http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/ promote the scientific evidence of intelligent design because proper consideration of that evidence is necessary to achieve not only scientific objectivity but also constitutional neutrality. WHO IS GOING TO DECIDE THAT YOU ARE RIGHT IN PROVING WHAT YOU FEEL IS THE TRUTH.

Intelligent Design
 http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

	The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause WELL WHAT CAUSED IT.?? rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion. In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause IS THE CAUSE A PERSON?  for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences. NOT CLEAR TO ME. ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion.
	Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the "messages," and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation.  THIS IS GETTING WORDY. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life.  FROM THE SCIENTIFIC POINT OF VIEW YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE A TOUGH TIME PROVIDING THAT INFORMATION.
	Intelligent Design is an intellectual movement that includes a scientific research program for investigating intelligent causes WHO IS TO JUDGE THAT THE CAUSES WERE INDEED INTELLIGENT.?    and that challenges naturalistic explanations of origins which currently drive science education and research.

Natural History magazine is the voice of The American Museum of Natural History. Its April 2002 issue featured the special report "Intelligent Design?" which is reprinted here by permission. more on contributing authors	evolution: science and belief Intelligent Design?  a special report reprinted from Natural History magazine   reporthighlights  Three proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) present their views of design in the natural world. Each view is immediately followed by a response from a proponent of evolution (EVO). The report, printed in its entirety, opens with an introduction by Natural History magazine and concludes with an overview of the ID movement. The authors who contributed to this Natural History report are: Richard Milner and Vittorio Maestro, ed. (introduction) Michael J. Behe, Ph.D. (ID) and Kenneth R. Miller, Ph.D. (EVO) William A. Dembski, Ph.D. (ID) and Robert T. Pennock, Ph.D. (EVO) Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. (ID) and Eugenie C. Scott, Ph.D. (EVO) Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. (overview) ActionBioscience.org has added "learn more links" to this report which consist of author-recommended links to online information to help readers learn more about each author's views.  An "educator resources" section has also been created by ActionBioscience.org that includes additional links and an original class lesson for high school students through college undergraduates to accompany this report. Links can be accessed at the end of each author's comments or by scrolling to the bottom area of this web page. introduction   Behe/Miller   Dembski/Pennock   Wells/Scott   overview learn more links       educator resources
April 2002 Brian's comments will be in upper case CAPITAL LETTERS to give you more to think about. Intelligent Design? A special report reprinted from Natural History magazine     Darwin's evidence convinced scientists that  natural selection can better explain life's complexity than  intelligent design (ID).   Introduction Prepared by Richard Milner & Vittorio Maestro, senior editors of Natural History The idea that an organism's complexity is evidence for the existence of a cosmic designer was advanced centuries before Charles Darwin was born. Its best-known exponent was English theologian William Paley, creator of the famous watchmaker analogy. If we find a pocket watch in a field, Paley wrote in 1802, we immediately infer that it was produced not by natural processes acting blindly but by a designing human intellect. Likewise, he reasoned, the natural world contains abundant evidence of a supernatural creator. The argument from design, as it is known, prevailed as an explanation of the natural world until the publication of the Origin of Species in 1859. The weight of the evidence that Darwin had patiently gathered swiftly convinced scientists that evolution by natural selection better explained life's complexity and diversity. "I cannot possibly believe," wrote Darwin in 1868, "that a false theory would explain so many classes of facts."HOW DID HE KNOW IT WAS A FALSE THEORY? ID proponents  accept that some species do change and that Earth is much more than 6,000 years old but reject that evolution accounts for the array of species. In some circles, however, opposition to the concept of evolution has persisted to the present. The argument from design has recently been revived by a number of academics with scientific credentials, who maintain that their version of the idea (unlike Paley's) is soundly supported by both microbiology and mathematics. WHAT PAPERS ARE THEY REFERRING TO AND WHO HAS JUDGED THEM?. These antievolutionists differ from fundamentalist creationists in that they accept that some species do change (but not much) and that Earth is much more than 6,000 years old. Like their predecessors, however, they reject the idea that evolution accounts for the array of species we see today, and they seek to have their concept -- known as intelligent design -- included in the science curriculum of schools. ID is getting a hearing in some political and educational circles.   Most biologists have concluded that the proponents of intelligent design display either ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of evolutionary science. Yet their proposals are getting a hearing in some political and educational circles and are currently the subject of a debate within the Ohio Board of Education. Although Natural History does not fully present and analyze the intelligent-design phenomenon WHO SAID IT WAS A PHENOMENON?  in the pages that follow, we offer, for the reader's information, brief position statements by three leading proponents of the theory, along with three responses. The section concludes with an overview of the intelligent-design movement by a philosopher and cultural historian who has monitored its history for more than a decade. THAT IS ONLY 10 YEARS.   author bios    suggested links   educator resources introduction   Behe/Miller   Dembski/Pennock   Wells/Scott   overview   Brian's comments will be in upper case CAPITAL LETTERS to give you more to think about. Intelligent Design position statement The Challenge of Irreducible Complexity Every living cell contains many ultrasophisticated molecular machines. By Michael J. Behe Black box: a system whose inner workings are unknown. Scientists use the term "black box" for a system whose inner workings are unknown. To Charles Darwin and his contemporaries, the living cell was a black box because its fundamental mechanisms were completely obscure. We now know that, far from being formed from a kind of simple, uniform protoplasm (as many nineteenth-century scientists believed), every living cell contains many ultrasophisticated molecular machines. SO WHERE DID THESE COME FROM? Does natural selection account for  complexity that exits at the molecular level? How can we decide whether Darwinian natural selection can account for the amazing complexity that exists at the molecular level? Darwin himself set the standard when he acknowledged, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Irreducibly complex systems: systems that seem very difficult to form by successive modifications. Some systems seem very difficult to form by such successive modifications -- I call them irreducibly complex. THINGS ARE ONLY COMPLEX WHEN YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THEM.  An everyday example of an irreducibly complex system is the humble mousetrap. It consists of (1) a flat wooden platform or base; (2) a metal hammer, which crushes the mouse; (3) a spring with extended ends to power the hammer; SO THE SPRING GIVES THE HAMMER POWER?  (4) a catch that releases the spring; and (5) a metal bar that connects to the catch and holds the hammer back. You can't catch a mouse with just a platform, then add a spring and catch a few more mice, then add a holding bar and catch a few more. All the pieces have to be in place before you catch any mice. SOMEONE HAS TO CONTROL THE MICE. DO MICE DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO?  Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working so irreducibly complex biological systems pose a powerful challenge to Darwinian theory.   Irreducibly complex systems appear very unlikely to be produced by numerous, successive, slight modifications of prior systems, because any precursor that was missing a crucial part could not function. Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working, so the existence in nature of irreducibly complex biological systems poses a powerful challenge to Darwinian theory. We frequently observe such systems in cell organelles, in which the removal of one element would cause the whole system to cease functioning. THEN IT IS NOT THE ORIGINAL WHAT EVER IT WAS AND WE HAVE ALTERED IT'S STRUCTURE. The flagella of bacteria are a good example. They are outboard motors that bacterial cells can use for self-propulsion. They have a long, whiplike propeller that is rotated by a molecular motor. The propeller is attached to the motor by a universal joint. The motor is held in place by proteins that act as a stator. Other proteins act as bushing material to allow the driveshaft to penetrate the bacterial membrane. Dozens of different kinds of proteins are necessary for a working flagellum. In the absence of almost any of them, the flagellum does not work or cannot even be built by the cell. OBVIOUSLY THE ITEM HAS CHANGED SO WE CAN NO LONGER TREAT I AS THE ORIGINAL. Constant, regulated traffic flow in cells is an example of a complex, irreducible system. Another example of irreducible complexity is the system that allows proteins to reach the appropriate subcellular compartments. In the eukaryotic cell there are a number of places where specialized tasks, such as digestion of nutrients and excretion of wastes, take place. Proteins are synthesized outside these compartments and can reach their proper destinations only with the help of "signal" chemicals that turn other reactions on and off at the appropriate times. WHO DO YOU THINK IS DESIGNING THESE THINGS? This constant, regulated traffic flow in the cell comprises another remarkably complex, irreducible system. All parts must function in synchrony or the system breaks down. Still another example is the exquisitely coordinated mechanism that causes blood to clot. Molecular machines are designed.   Biochemistry textbooks and journal articles describe the workings of some of the many living molecular machines within our cells, but they offer very little information about how these systems supposedly evolved by natural selection. THAT IS WHERE FAITH COMES IN. Many scientists frankly admit their bewilderment about how they may have originated, but refuse to entertain the obvious hypothesis: that perhaps molecular machines appear to look designed because they really are designed. HOW ELSE COULD THEY BE BUT TO BE CREATED BY SOMETHING. Advances in science provide new reasons for recognizing design. I am hopeful that the scientific community will eventually admit the possibility of intelligent design, even if that acceptance is discreet and muted. My reason for optimism is the advance of science itself, which almost every day uncovers new intricacies in nature, fresh reasons for recognizing the design inherent in life and the universe. WE HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO TO REALLY UNDERSTAND A TINY BIT OF WHAT HAS BEEN CREATED.   author bio     author-recommended links       educator resources Brian's comments will be in upper case CAPITAL LETTERS to give you more to think about. Evolution response to Michael J. Behe The Flaw in the Mousetrap Intelligent design fails the biochemistry test. By Kenneth R. Miller Michael J. Behe fails to provide biochemical evidence for intelligent design.   To understand why the scientific community has been unimpressed by attempts to resurrect the so-called argument from design, one need look no further than Michael J. Behe's own essay. He argues that complex biochemical systems could not possibly have been produced by evolution because they possess a quality he calls irreducible complexity. Just like mousetraps, these systems cannot function unless each of their parts is in place. Since "natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working," there is no way that Darwinian mechanisms could have fashioned the complex systems found in living cells. And if such systems could not have evolved, they must have been designed. That is the totality of the biochemical "evidence" for intelligent design. Parts of a supposedly irreducibly complex machine may have different, but still useful, functions.   Ironically, Behe's own example, the mousetrap, shows what's wrong with this idea. Take away two parts (the catch and the metal bar), and you may not have a mousetrap but you do have a three-part machine that makes a fully functional tie clip or paper clip. Take away the spring, and you have a two-part key chain. The catch of some mousetraps could be used as a fishhook, and the wooden base as a paperweight; useful applications of other parts include everything from toothpicks to nutcrackers and clipboard holders. The point, which science has long understood, is that bits and pieces of supposedly irreducibly complex machines may have different -- but still useful -- functions. Evolution produces complex biochemical machines. Behe's contention that each and every piece of a machine, mechanical or biochemical, must be assembled in its final form before anything useful can emerge is just plain wrong. Evolution produces complex biochemical machines by copying, modifying, and combining proteins previously used for other functions. Looking for examples? The systems in Behe's essay will do just fine. Natural selection favors an organism's parts for different functions. He writes that in the absence of "almost any" of its parts, the bacterial flagellum "does not work." But guess what? A small group of proteins from the flagellum does work without the rest of the machine -- it's used by many bacteria as a device for injecting poisons into other cells. Although the function performed by this small part when working alone is different, it nonetheless can be favored by natural selection. The blood clotting system is an example of evolution. The key proteins that clot blood fit this pattern, too. They're actually modified versions of proteins used in the digestive system. The elegant work of Russell Doolittle has shown how evolution duplicated, retargeted, and modified these proteins to produce the vertebrate blood-clotting system. Working researchers see evolution  in subcellular systems.     And Behe may throw up his hands and say that he cannot imagine how the components that move proteins between subcellular compartments could have evolved, but scientists actually working on such systems completely disagree. In a 1998 article in the journal Cell, a group led by James Rothman, of the Sloan-Kettering Institute, described the remarkable simplicity and uniformity of these mechanisms. They also noted that these mechanisms "suggest in a natural way how the many and diverse compartments in eukaryotic cells could have evolved in the first place." Working researchers, it seems, see something very different from what Behe sees in these systems -- they see evolution. Behe's points are philosophical, not scientific.   If Behe wishes to suggest that the intricacies of nature, life, and the universe reveal a world of meaning and purpose consistent with a divine intelligence, his point is philosophical, not scientific. It is a philosophical point of view, incidentally, that I share. However, to support that view, one should not find it necessary to pretend that we know less than we really do about the evolution of living systems. In the final analysis, the biochemical hypothesis of intelligent design fails not because the scientific community is closed to it but rather for the most basic of reasons -- because it is overwhelmingly contradicted by the scientific evidence.   author bio     author-recommended links     educator resources introduction   Behe/Miller   Dembski/Pennock   Wells/Scott   overview Intelligent Design position statement Detecting Design in the Natural Sciences Intelligence leaves behind a characteristic signature. By William A. Dembski Chance, necessity, or design covers every eventuality in ordinary life. In ordinary life, explanations that invoke chance, necessity, or design cover every eventuality. Nevertheless, in the natural sciences one of these modes of explanation is considered superfluous -- namely, design. From the perspective of the natural sciences, design, as the action of an intelligent agent, is not a fundamental creative force in nature. Rather, blind natural causes, characterized by chance and necessity and ruled by unbroken laws, are thought sufficient to do all nature's creating. Darwin's theory is a case in point. Does nature require no help from a designing intelligence?   But how do we know that nature requires no help from a designing intelligence? Certainly, in special sciences ranging from forensics to archaeology to SETI (the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence), appeal to a designing intelligence is indispensable. What's more, within these sciences there are well-developed techniques for identifying intelligence. Essential to all these techniques is the ability to eliminate chance and necessity. Complex, sequenced patterns exhibit intelligence in their design.       For instance, how do the radio astronomers in Contact (the Jodie Foster movie based on Carl Sagan's novel of the same name) infer the presence of extraterrestrial intelligence in the beeps and pauses they monitor from space? The researchers run signals through computers that are programmed to recognize many preset patterns. Signals that do not match any of the patterns pass through the "sieve" and are classified as random. After years of receiving apparently meaningless "random" signals, the researchers discover a pattern of beats and pauses that corresponds to the sequence of all the prime numbers between 2 and 101. (Prime numbers, of course, are those that are divisible only by themselves and by one.) When a sequence begins with 2 beats, then a pause, 3 beats, then a pause . . . and continues all the way to 101 beats, the researchers must infer the presence of an extraterrestrial intelligence. If a sequence lacks complexity, it could easily happen by chance.   Here's why. There's nothing in the laws of physics that requires radio signals to take one form or another. The sequence is therefore contingent rather than necessary. Also, it is a long sequence and therefore complex. Note that if the sequence lacked complexity, it could easily have happened by chance. Finally, it was not just complex but also exhibited an independently given pattern or specification (it was not just any old sequence of numbers but a mathematically significant one -- the prime numbers). Specified complexity: the characteristic trademark or signature of intelligence. Intelligence leaves behind a characteristic trademark or signature -- what I call "specified complexity." An event exhibits specified complexity if it is contingent and therefore not necessary; if it is complex and therefore not easily repeatable by chance; and if it is specified in the sense of exhibiting an independently given pattern. Note that complexity in the sense of improbability is not sufficient to eliminate chance: flip a coin long enough, and you'll witness a highly complex or improbable event. Even so, you'll have no reason not to attribute it to chance. Specifications must be objectively given. The important thing about specifications is that they be objectively given and not just imposed on events after the fact. For instance, if an archer shoots arrows into a wall and we then paint bull's-eyes around them, we impose a pattern after the fact. On the other hand, if the targets are set up in advance ("specified") and then the archer hits them accurately, we know it was by design. Undirected natural processes are incapable of generating the specified complexity in organisms. In my book The Design Inference, I argue that specified complexity reliably detects design. In that book, however, I focus largely on examples from the human rather than the natural sciences. The main criticism of that work to date concerns whether the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection and random variation is not in fact fully capable of generating specified complexity. More recently, in No Free Lunch, I show that undirected natural processes like the Darwinian mechanism are incapable of generating the specified complexity that exists in biological organisms. It follows that chance and necessity are insufficient for the natural sciences and that the natural sciences need to leave room for design.   author bio     author-recommended links       educator resources   Brian's comments will be in upper case CAPITAL LETTERS to give you more to think about. Evolution response to William A. Dembski Mystery Science Theater The case of the secret agent. By Robert T. Pennock Science requires positive evidence that biological complexity is intentionally designed.   William A. Dembski claims to detect "specified complexity" in living things and argues that it is proof that species have been designed by an intelligent agent. One flaw in his argument is that he wants to define intelligent design negatively, as anything that is not chance or necessity. But the definition is rigged: necessity, chance, and design are not mutually exclusive categories, nor do they exhaust the possibilities. Thus, one cannot detect an intelligent agent by the process of elimination he suggests. Science requires positive evidence. This is so even when attempting to detect the imprint of human intelligence, but it is especially true when assessing the extraordinary claim that biological complexity is intentionally designed. William A. Dembski has no way to show that genetic patterns are set up in advance.   In this regard, Dembski's archery and SETI analogies are red herrings, for they tacitly depend on prior understanding of human intellect and motivation, as well as of relevant causal processes. A design inference like that in the movie Contact, for instance, would rely on background knowledge about the nature of radio signals and other natural processes, together with the assumption that a sequence of prime numbers is the kind of pattern another scientist might choose to send as a signal. But the odd sequences found within DNA are quite unlike a series of prime numbers. Dembski has no way to show that the genetic patterns are "set up in advance" or "independently given." Antievolutionists claim that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, but this misunderstands how the law applies to biological systems.  Dembski has been promoted as "the Isaac Newton of information theory," and in his writings, which include the books he cites in the essay here, he insists that his "law of conservation of information" proves that natural processes cannot increase biological complexity. He doesn't lay out his case here, and a refutation would require too much space. Suffice it to say that a connection exists between the technical notion of information and that of entropy, so Dembski's argument boils down to a recasting of an old creationist claim that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. Put simply, this law states that in the universe, there is a tendency for complexity to decrease. How then, ask the creationists, can evolutionary processes produce more complex life-forms from more primitive ones? But we have long known why this type of argument fails: the second law applies only to closed systems, and biological systems are not closed. Random genetic variation is subjected to natural selection by the environment. In the evolutionary process, an increase in biological complexity does not represent a "free lunch" -- it is bought and paid for, because random genetic variation is subjected to natural selection by the environment, which itself is already structured. In fact, researchers are beginning to use Darwinian processes, implemented in computers or in vitro, to evolve complex systems and to provide solutions to design problems in ways that are beyond the power of mere intelligent agents. Dembski's hypothesis of design provides precious little that is testable.   If we really thought that genetic information was like the signal in Contact, shouldn't we infer we were designed by extraterrestrials? Intelligent-design theorists do sometimes mention extraterrestrials as possible suspects, but most seem to have their eyes on a designer more highly placed in the heavens. The problem is, science requires a specific model that can be tested. What exactly did the designer do, and when did he do it? Dembski's nebulous hypothesis of design, even if restricted to natural processes, provides precious little that is testable, and once supernatural processes are wedged in, it loses any chance of testability. Darwin followed the clues given in nature to solve the mystery of origins.   Newton found himself stymied by the complex orbits of the planets. He could not think of a natural way to fully account for their order and concluded that God must nudge the planets into place to make the system work. (So perhaps in this one sense, Dembski is the Newton of information theory.) The origin of species once seemed equally mysterious, but Darwin followed the clues given in nature to solve that mystery. One may, of course, retain religious faith in a designer who transcends natural processes, but there is no way to dust for his fingerprints.   author bio     author-recommended links     educator resources introduction   Behe/Miller   Dembski/Pennock   Wells/Scott   overview Brian's comments will be in upper case CAPITAL LETTERS to give you more to think about. Intelligent Design position statement Elusive Icons of Evolution What do Darwin's finches and the four-winged fruit fly really tell us? By Jonathan Wells Many features of living things appear to be designed. Charles Darwin wrote in 1860 that "there seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows." Although many features of living things appear to be designed, Darwin's theory was that they are actually the result of undirected processes such as natural selection and random variation. Darwin's finches are one of the "icons of evolution." Scientific theories, however, must fit the evidence. Two examples of the evidence for Darwin's theory of evolution -- so widely used that I have called them "icons of evolution" -- are Darwin's finches and the four-winged fruit fly. Yet both of these, it seems to me, show that Darwin's theory cannot account for all features of living things. Finch beaks appear to be adapted to different foods through natural selection. Darwin's finches consist of several species on the Galápagos Islands that differ mainly in the size and shape of their beaks. Beak differences are correlated with what the birds eat, suggesting that the various species might have descended from a common ancestor by adapting to different foods through natural selection. In the 1970s, biologists Peter and Rosemary Grant went to the Galápagos to observe this process in the wild. Direct evidence for this was found in the 1970s. In 1977 the Grants watched as a severe drought wiped out 85 percent of a particular species on one island. The survivors had, on average, slightly larger beaks that enabled them to crack the tough seeds that had endured the drought. This was natural selection in action. The Grants estimated that twenty such episodes could increase average beak size enough to produce a new species. Modern scientists did not observe new species emerging.  When the rains returned, however, average beak size returned to normal. Ever since, beak size has oscillated around a mean as the food supply has fluctuated with the climate. There has been no net change, and no new species have emerged. In fact, the opposite may be happening, as several species of Galápagos finches now appear to be merging through hybridization. Natural selection works only within established species. Darwin's finches and many other organisms provide evidence that natural selection can modify existing features -- but only within established species. Breeders of domestic plants and animals have been doing the same thing with artificial selection for centuries. But where is the evidence that selection produces new features in new species? Major evolutionary changes require anatomical as well as biochemical changes. New features require new variations. In the modern version of Darwin's theory, these come from DNA mutations. Most DNA mutations are harmful and are thus eliminated by natural selection. A few, however, are advantageous -- such as mutations that increase antibiotic resistance in bacteria and pesticide resistance in plants and animals. Antibiotic and pesticide resistance are often cited as evidence that DNA mutations provide the raw materials for evolution, but they affect only chemical processes. Major evolutionary changes would require mutations that produce advantageous anatomical changes as well. The four-winged fruit fly is another "icon of evolution."   Normal fruit flies have two wings and two "balancers" -- tiny structures behind the wings that help stabilize the insect in flight. In the 1970s, geneticists discovered that a combination of three mutations in a single gene produces flies in which the balancers develop into normal-looking wings. The resulting four-winged fruit fly is sometimes used to illustrate how mutations can produce the sorts of anatomical changes that Darwin's theory needs. This fly does not provide evidence for evolution.   But the extra wings are not new structures, only duplications of existing ones. Furthermore, the extra wings lack muscles and are therefore worse than useless. The four-winged fruit fly is severely handicapped -- like a small plane with extra wings dangling from its tail. As is the case with all other anatomical mutations studied so far, those in the four-winged fruit fly cannot provide raw materials for evolution. Intelligent design should be taught in school.  In the absence of evidence that natural selection and random variations can account for the apparently designed features of living things, the entire question of design must be reopened. Alongside Darwin's argument against design, students should also be taught that design remains a possibility.   author bio     author-recommended links       educator resources   Evolution response to Jonathan Wells The Nature of Change Evolutionary mechanisms give rise to basic structural differences. By Eugenie C. Scott Darwin proposed a scientific rather than a religious explanation of nature.   Without defining "design," Wells asserts that "many features of living things appear to be designed." Then he contrasts natural selection (undirected) with design (directed), apparently attempting to return to the pre-Darwinian notion that a Designer is directly responsible for the fit of organisms to their environments. Darwin proposed a scientific rather than a religious explanation: the fit between organisms and environments is the result of natural selection. Like all scientific explanations, his relies on natural causation. Modern science can now draw on evidence from biological processes. Wells contends that "Darwin's theory cannot account for all features of living things," but then, it doesn't have to. Today scientists explain features of living things by invoking not only natural selection but also additional biological processes that Darwin didn't know about, including gene transfer, symbiosis, chromosomal rearrangement, and the action of regulator genes. Contrary to what Wells maintains, evolutionary theory is not inadequate. It fits the evidence just fine. Darwin's conclusion that Galapágos finches had a common ancestor is  confirmed by modern genetic analysis.   Reading Wells, one might not realize the importance of the Grants' careful studies, which demonstrated natural selection in real time. That the drought conditions abated before biologists witnessed the emergence of new species is hardly relevant; beak size does oscillate in the short term, but given a long-term trend in climate change, a major change in average size can be expected. Wells also overstates the importance of finch hybridization: it is extremely rare, and it might even be contributing to new speciation. The Galápagos finches remain a marvelous example of the principle of adaptive radiation. The various species, which differ morphologically, occupy different adaptive niches. Darwin's explanation was that they all evolved from a common ancestral species, and modern genetic analysis provides confirming evidence. The discovery of Ubx genes shed light on how body plans evolve.   Wells admits that natural selection can operate on a population and correctly looks to genetics to account for the kind of variation that can lead to "new features in new species." But he contends that mutations such as those that yield four-winged fruit flies do not produce the sorts of anatomical changes needed for major evolutionary change. Can't he see past the example to the principle? That the first demonstration of a powerful genetic mechanism happened to be a nonflying fly is irrelevant. Edward Lewis shared a Nobel Prize for the discovery of the role of these genes, known as the Ubx complex. They are of extraordinary importance because genes of this type help explain body plans -- the basic structural differences between a mollusk and a mosquito, a sponge and a spider. A very small Ubx change results in a big difference in the body plan of organisms.     Ubx genes are among the HOX genes, found in animals as different as sponges, fruit flies, and mammals. They turn on or off the genes involved in -- among other things -- body segmentation and the production of appendages such as antennae, legs, and wings. What specifically gets built depends on other, downstream genes. The diverse body plans of arthropods (insects, crustaceans, arachnids) are variations on segmentation and appendage themes, variations that appear to be the result of changes in HOX genes. Recent research shows that fly Ubx genes suppress leg formation in abdominal segments but that crustacean Ubx genes don't; a very small Ubx change results in a big difference in body plan. These genes allow for anatomical experimentation.   Mutations in these primary on/off switches are involved in such phenomena as the loss of legs in snakes, the change from lobe fins to hands, and the origin of jaws in vertebrates. HOX-initiated segment duplication allows for anatomical experimentation, and natural selection winnows the result. "Evo-Devo" -- the study of evolution and development -- is a hot new biological research area, but Wells implies that all it has produced is crippled fruit flies. Science only has tools for explaining things in terms of natural causes. Wells argues that natural explanations are inadequate and, thus, that "students should also be taught that design remains a possibility." Because in his logic, design implies a Designer, he is in effect recommending that science allow for nonnatural causation. We actually do have solid natural explanations to work with, but even if we didn't, science only has tools for explaining things in terms of natural causation. That's what Darwin did, and that's what we're trying to do today.   author bio     author-recommended links      educator resources introduction   Behe/Miller   Dembski/Pennock   Wells/Scott   overview   Brian's comments will be in upper case CAPITAL LETTERS to give you more to think about. Overview The Newest Evolution of Creationism Intelligent design is about politics and religion, not science. By Barbara Forrest Intelligent Design (ID) proponents put most of their effort in swaying politicians and the public. The infamous August 1999 decision by the Kansas Board of Education to delete references to evolution from Kansas science standards was heavily influenced by advocates of intelligent-design theory. Although William A. Dembski, one of the movement's leading figures, asserts that "the empirical detectability of intelligent causes renders intelligent design a fully scientific theory," its proponents invest most of their efforts in swaying politicians and the public, not the scientific community. The leading ID organization is the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC).   Launched by Phillip E. Johnson's book Darwin on Trial (1991), the intelligent-design movement crystallized in 1996 as the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC), sponsored by the Discovery Institute, a conservative Seattle think tank. Johnson, a law professor whose religious conversion catalyzed his antievolution efforts, assembled a group of supporters who promote design theory through their writings, financed by CRSC fellowships. According to an early mission statement, the CRSC seeks "nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its damning cultural legacies." The CRSC calls its strategy the "Wedge," because it wants to liberate science from "atheistic naturalism."   Johnson refers to the CRSC members and their strategy as the Wedge, analogous to a wedge that splits a log -- meaning that intelligent design will liberate science from the grip of "atheistic naturalism." Ten years of Wedge history reveal its most salient features: Wedge scientists have no empirical research program and, consequently, have published no data in peer-reviewed journals (or elsewhere) to support their intelligent-design claims. But they do have an aggressive public relations program, which includes conferences that they or their supporters organize, popular books and articles, recruitment of students through university lectures sponsored by campus ministries, and cultivation of alliances with conservative Christians and influential political figures. Philip E. Johnson: "This isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy." The Wedge aims to "renew" American culture by grounding society's major institutions, especially education, in evangelical religion. In 1996, Johnson declared: "This isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy." According to Dembski, intelligent design "is just the Logos of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." Wedge strategists seek to unify Christians through a shared belief in "mere" creation, aiming -- in Dembski's words -- "at defeating naturalism and its consequences." This enables intelligent-design proponents to coexist in a big tent with other creationists who explicitly base their beliefs on a literal interpretation of Genesis. At heart, ID proponents are not motivated to improve science but to transform it into a theistic enterprise.       "As Christians," writes Dembski, "we know naturalism is false. Nature is not self-sufficient. … Nonetheless neither theology nor philosophy can answer the evidential question whether God's interaction with the world is empirically detectable. To answer this question we must look to science." Jonathan Wells, a biologist, and Michael J. Behe, a biochemist, seem just the CRSC fellows to give intelligent design the ticket to credibility. Yet neither has actually done research to test the theory, much less produced data that challenges the massive evidence accumulated by biologists, geologists, and other evolutionary scientists. Wells, influenced in part by Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon, earned Ph.D.'s in religious studies and biology specifically "to devote my life to destroying Darwinism." Behe sees the relevant question as whether "science can make room for religion." At heart, proponents of intelligent design are not motivated to improve science but to transform it into a theistic enterprise that supports religious faith. The ID movement is advancing its strategy but its tactics are no substitute for real science.   Wedge supporters are at present trying to insert intelligent design into Ohio public-school science standards through state legislation. Earlier the CRSC advertised its science education site by assuring teachers that its "Web curriculum can be appropriated without textbook adoption wars" -- in effect encouraging teachers to do an end run around standard procedures. Anticipating a test case, the Wedge published in the Utah Law Review a legal strategy for winning judicial sanction. Recently the group almost succeeded in inserting into the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 a "sense of the Senate" that supported the teaching of intelligent design. So the movement is advancing, but its tactics are no substitute for real science.

Brian's comments will be in upper case CAPITAL LETTERS to give you more to think about.

 
Intelligent Design

...the odds against DNA assembling by chance are 10^40,000 to one [according to Fred Hoyle, Evolution from Space,1981]. This is true, but highly misleading. DNA did not assemble purely by chance. It assembled by a combination of chance and the laws of physics. Without the laws of physics as we know them, life on earth as we know it would not have evolved in the short span of six billion years. The nuclear force was needed to bind protons and neutrons in the nuclei of atoms; electromagnetism was needed to keep atoms and molecules together; and gravity was needed to keep the resulting ingredients for life stuck to the surface of the earth.
--Victor J. Stenger*

To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like 'God was always there', and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say 'DNA was always there', or "Life was always there',  and be done with it.  --Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker : Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design p. 141

... rarity by itself shouldn't necessarily be evidence of anything. When one is dealt a bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is less than one in 600 billion. Still, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, calculate that the probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion, and then conclude that he must not have been dealt that very hand because it is so very improbable. --John Allen Paulos, Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences

Intelligent design (ID) is an anti-evolution belief that asserts that naturalistic explanations of some biological entities are not possible and such entities can only be explained by intelligent causes.*  Advocates of ID maintain that their belief is scientific and provides empirical proof for the existence of God or superintelligent aliens. They claim that intelligent design should be taught in the science classroom as an alternative to the science of evolution. ID is essentially a hoax, since evolution is consistent with a belief in an intelligent designer of the universe. The two are not contradictory and they are not competitors. ID is proposed mainly by people at the Discovery Institute and their allies, who feel science threatens their Biblical-based view of reality.

The arguments of the ID advocates may seem like a rehash of the creationist arguments, but the defenders of ID claim that they do not reject evolution simply because it does not fit with their understanding of the Bible. However, they present natural selection as implying the universe could not have been designed or created, which is nonsense. To deny that God has the power to create living things using natural selection is to assert something unknowable. It is also inconsistent with the belief in an omnipotent Creator. 

One of the early-birds defending ID was UC Berkeley law professor Philip E. Johnson, who seems to have completely misunderstood Darwin's theory of natural selection as implying (1) God doesn't exist, (2) natural selection could only have happened randomly and by chance, and (3) whatever happens randomly and by chance cannot be designed by God. None of these beliefs is essential to natural selection. There is no inconsistency in believing in God the Creator of the universe and in natural selection. Natural selection could have been designed by God. Or, natural selection could have occurred even if God did not exist. Thus, the first of several fallacies committed by ID defenders is the false dilemma. The choice is not either natural selection or design by God or some other superintelligent creatures. God could have designed the universe to produce life by random events following laws of nature. God could have created superintelligent aliens who are experimenting with natural selection. Superintelligent aliens could have evolved by natural selection and then introduced the process on our planet. There may be another scientific theory that explains living beings and their eco-systems better than natural selection. The possibilities may not be endless but they are certainly greater than the two considered by ID defenders.

Two scientists often cited by defenders of ID are Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box (The Free Press, 1996), and William Dembski, author of Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology (Cambridge University Press, 1998). Dembski and Behe are fellows of the Discovery Institute, a Seattle research institute funded largely by Christian foundations. Their arguments are attractive because they are couched in mathematical or scientific terms and backed by what seems to be scientific competence. However, their arguments are identical in function to the creationists' arguments: rather than provide positive evidence for their own position, they mainly try to find weaknesses in natural selection. As already noted, however, even if their arguments are successful against natural selection, that would not increase the probability of ID.

Behe is an Associate Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University (read this disclaimer from his department). Behe's argument is not essentially about whether evolution occurred, but how it had to have occurred. He claims that he wants to see "real laboratory research on the question of intelligent design."*  Such a desire belies his indifference to the science/metaphysics distinction. There is no lab experiment relevant to determining whether God exists.

In any case, Behe claims that biochemistry reveals a cellular world of such precisely tailored molecules and such staggering complexity that it is not only inexplicable by gradual evolution, but that it can be plausibly explained only  by assuming an intelligent designer, i.e., God. Some systems, he thinks, can't be produced by natural selection because "any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional (39)." He says that a mousetrap is an example of an irreducibly complex system, i.e., all the parts must be there in order for the mousetrap to function. In short, Behe has old wine in a new skin: the argument from design wrapped in biochemistry. His argument is no more scientific than any other variant of the argument from design. In fact, most scientists, including scientists who are Christians, think Behe should cease patting himself on the back. As with all other such arguments, Behe's begs the question. He must assume design in order to prove a designer. The consensus seems to be that Behe is a good scientist and writer but a mediocre metaphysician.

His argument hinges on the notion of "irreducibly complex systems," systems that could not function if they were missing just one of their many parts. "Irreducibly complex systems ... cannot evolve in a Darwinian fashion," he says, because natural selection works on small mutations in just one component at a time. He then leaps to the conclusion that intelligent design must be responsible for these irreducibly complex systems. Biology professor (and Christian) Kenneth Miller responds:

The multiple parts of complex, interlocking biological systems do not evolve as individual parts, despite Behe's claim that they must. They evolve together, as systems that are gradually expanded, enlarged, and adapted to new purposes. As Richard Dawkins successfully argued in The Blind Watchmaker, natural selection can act on these evolving systems at every step of their transformation.*

Professor Bartelt writes:

if we assume that Behe is correct, and that humans can discern design, then I submit that they can also discern poor design (we sue companies for this all the time!). In Darwin's Black Box, Behe refers to design as the "purposeful arrangement of parts." What about when the "parts" aren't purposeful, by any standard engineering criteria? When confronted with the "All-Thumbs Designer" - whoever designed the spine, the birth canal, the prostate gland, the back of the throat, etc, Behe and the ID people retreat into theology.* [I.e., God can do whatever He wants, or We're not competent to judge intelligence by God's standards, or being an intelligent designer does not mean being a good or perfect designer.]

H. Allen Orr writes:

Behe's colossal mistake is that, in rejecting these possibilities, he concludes that no Darwinian solution remains. But one does. It is this: An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become - because of later changes - essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required.*

Finally, Behe's argument assumes that natural selection will never be able to account for anything it cannot account for now. This begs the question. In fact, some of the things that Behe and other ID defenders have claimed could not be explained by natural selection have in fact been explained by natural selection (Miller 2004).

Dembski 

William Dembski is the director of the Center for Science and Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.  According to  R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the Center for Science and Theology was established as "a representation of our commitment to be very serious about the task of the Christian worldview, its development [and] its application."*

Dembski's training is in mathematics, philosophy, and theology. He is also a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, a Christian think tank devoted largely to debunking evolution. Dembski has written several books attacking evolution and supporting ID. Even his critics admit that his books are "generally well written and packed with provocative ideas."* He claims that he can prove that it is highly improbable that life and the universe happened by chance and by natural processes; they are most likely the result of intelligent design by God. He also claims that "the conceptual soundness of a scientific theory cannot be maintained apart from Christ (Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology, 1998, p. 209)," a claim which belies his metaphysical bias.

His basic argument is that some things could not have been produced by chance. He believes that an object must be the product of intelligent design if it shows “specified complexity.” If you came home and found "I love you" spelled out in potato chips on the couch, the probability of something so specific and complex being the result of chance is nearly zero. Dembski thinks some things in nature clearly demonstrate specified complexity, e.g., the eye. A similar argument was made by William Paley (1743-1805), the Archdeacon of Carlisle, in his Natural Theology (1802). It is true that Darwin himself admitted that it seems absurd to suppose that

the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection....

However, he reasoned that

if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.

Science has proved Darwin right (Patterson 2002). We now know that the vision system consists of many different components that perform specialized tasks such as detecting edges or motion. The optic nerve takes two pathways to the brain and one obviously evolved much earlier than the other. Different kinds of visual systems have evolved at different times in different species. All these systems could have been produced by an intelligent designer but none of them requires one. Numerous gradual changes and adaptations are sufficient to explain even the most complex visual system.

Dembski also uses a number of mathematical notions to debunk evolution. "In 2002, he focused on so-called No Free Lunch, or N.F.L., theorems, which were derived in the late nineties by the physicists David H. Wolpert and William G. Macready."* Since most of us are innumerate, the arguments may seem dazzling. However, as H. Allen Orr notes: "Despite all the attention, Dembski’s mathematical claims about design and Darwin are almost entirely beside the point."*

The most serious problem in Dembski’s account involves specified complexity. Organisms aren’t trying to match any “independently given pattern”: evolution has no goal, and the history of life isn’t trying to get anywhere. If building a sophisticated structure like an eye increases the number of children produced, evolution may well build an eye. But if destroying a sophisticated structure like the eye increases the number of children produced, evolution will just as happily destroy the eye. Species of fish and crustaceans that have moved into the total darkness of caves, where eyes are both unnecessary and costly, often have degenerate eyes, or eyes that begin to form only to be covered by skin—crazy contraptions that no intelligent agent would design. Despite all the loose talk about design and machines, organisms aren’t striving to realize some engineer’s blueprint; they’re striving (if they can be said to strive at all) only to have more offspring than the next fellow.

Another problem with Dembski’s arguments concerns the N.F.L. theorems. Recent work shows that these theorems don’t hold in the case of co-evolution, when two or more species evolve in response to one another. And most evolution is surely co-evolution. Organisms do not spend most of their time adapting to rocks; they are perpetually challenged by, and adapting to, a rapidly changing suite of viruses, parasites, predators, and prey. A theorem that doesn’t apply to these situations is a theorem whose relevance to biology is unclear. As it happens, David Wolpert, one of the authors of the N.F.L. theorems, recently denounced Dembski’s use of those theorems as “fatally informal and imprecise.” Dembski’s apparent response has been a tactical retreat. In 2002, Dembski triumphantly proclaimed, “The No Free Lunch theorems dash any hope of generating specified complexity via evolutionary algorithms.” Now he says, “I certainly never argued that the N.F.L. theorems provide a direct refutation of Darwinism.” (Orr 2005) [Note: "Darwinism" is not a scientific term; it is a polemical term—like Maoism—designed to incite opposition to evolution.]

According to another critic - physicist Vic Stenger ("The Emperor's New Designer Clothes") - Dembski uses math and logic to derive what he calls the law of conservation of information. "He argues that the information contained in living structures cannot be generated by any combination of chance and natural processes....Dembski's law of conservation of information is nothing more than "conservation of entropy," a special case of the second law [of thermodynamics] that applies when no dissipative processes such as friction are present." However, the fact is that "entropy is created naturally a thousand times a day by every person on Earth. Each time any friction is generated, information is lost."

As H. Allen Orr writes:

In the end, it’s hard to view intelligent design as a coherent movement in any but a political sense.

It’s also hard to view it as a real research program. Though people often picture science as a collection of clever theories, scientists are generally staunch pragmatists: to scientists, a good theory is one that inspires new experiments and provides unexpected insights into familiar phenomena. By this standard, Darwinism is one of the best theories in the history of science: it has produced countless important experiments (let’s re-create a natural species in the lab—yes, that’s been done) and sudden insight into once puzzling patterns (that’s why there are no native land mammals on oceanic islands). In the nearly ten years since the publication of Behe’s book, by contrast, I.D. has inspired no nontrivial experiments and has provided no surprising insights into biology. As the years pass, intelligent design looks less and less like the science it claimed to be and more and more like an extended exercise in polemics. (Orr 2005)

pseudoscience

ID isn't scientific and it isn't an alternative to natural selection or any other scientific idea. The universe would appear the same to us whether it was designed by God or not. Science tries to explain how the world works, not why we have this world rather than some other world. It is not part of science to try to prove the world was or was not designed by God. It is not the job of science to try to explain the probability of biological developments happening by chance or not. If anyone wants to speculate about such matters, they are free to do so—as metaphysicians. ID is not scientific, but metaphysical. The fact that it has empirical content doesn't make it any more scientific than, say, Spinoza's metaphysics or so-called creation science.

ID is a pseudoscience because it claims to be scientific but is in fact metaphysical. It is based on several philosophical confusions, not the least of which is the notion that the empirical is necessarily scientific. This is false, if by 'empirical' one means originating in or based on observation or experience. Empirical explanations can be scientific or non-scientific. Freud's idea of the Oedipus complex is empirical but it is not scientific. Jung's notion of the collective unconscious is empirical but it is not scientific. Biblical creationism is empirical but it is not scientific. Poetry can be empirical but not scientific.

On the other hand, if by 'empirical' one means capable of being confirmed or disproved by observation or experiment then ID is not empirical. Neither the whole of nature nor an individual eco-system can be proved or disproved by any set of observations to be intelligently designed.

Science does have some metaphysical assumptions, not the least of which is that the universe follows laws. But science leaves open the question of whether those laws were designed. That is a metaphysical question. Believing the universe or some part of it was designed or not does not help understand how it works. If I ever answer an empirical question with the answer "because God [or superintelligent aliens, otherwise undetectable] made it that way" then I have left the realm of science and entered the realm of metaphysics. Of course scientists have metaphysical beliefs but those beliefs are irrelevant to strictly scientific explanations. Science is open to both theists and atheists alike.

If we grant that the universe is possibly or even probably the result of intelligent design, what is the next step? For example, assume a particular eco-system is the creation of an intelligent designer. Unless this intelligent designer is one of us, i.e., human, and unless we have some experience with the creations of this and similar designers, how could we proceed to study this system? If all we know is that it is the result of ID but that the designer is of a different order of being than we are, how would we proceed to study this system? It is presumptuous to assume that an intelligent designer would create an eye the way a human engineer would design a similar system with a similar function. By appealing to an "intelligent designer" to explain some complex phenomenon is to explain nothing about that phenomenon's relation to its alleged designer. The theory illuminates nothing.

The ID proponents are fighting a battle that was lost in the 17th century: the battle for understanding nature in terms of final causes and efficient causes. Prior to the 17th century, there was no essential conflict between a mechanistic view of nature and a teleological view, between a naturalistic and a supernaturalistic view of nature. Nature could be thought of as a vast purposive mechanism. With the notable exception of Leibniz and his intellectual descendents, just about everyone else gave up the idea of scientific explanations needing to include theological ones. Scientific progress became possible in part because scientists attempted to describe the workings of natural phenomena without reference to their creation, design, or ultimate purpose. God may well have created the universe and the laws of nature, but nature is still a machine, mechanically changing and comprehensible as such. God became an unnecessary hypothesis. Or, if one couldn't live without God, one could identify God with Nature, as Spinoza did, and argue that belief in final causes or purposes in nature is demeaning to God and the height of folly for man.*

should ID be taught in public schools?

Ever since the failure of the creation science movement, a number of activists—many of them young-Earth Christians—have been trying to discredit evolution by claiming that ID is a scientific alternative to natural selection. These people, led by Phillip Johnson and the folks at the Discovery Institute, have been very successful in convincing member of the media, politicians, school boards, and the general public (scientifically illiterate as it is*) that the evolution is a "theory in crisis" and that ID is a viable alternative to evolution.* These two claims might well be called the ID twin towers. Neither of these claims is true but it doesn't matter at this point because they are so widely believed that we must still ask whether ID should be taught in our biology classrooms. There is also much hypocrisy and deceit in a movement that does not refer to God in published documents as the intelligent designer, but opens its public presentations with a Christian prayer and doesn't hesitate to refer to God when alternatives such as aliens as the designers are brought up.* Dembski puts it this way:

Intelligent design is a modest position theologically and philosophically. It attributes the complexity and diversity of life to intelligence, but does not identify that intelligence with the God of any religious faith or philosophical system. The task for the Christian who accepts intelligent design is therefore to formulate a theology of nature and creation that makes sense of intelligent design in light of one’s Christian faith.*

In other words, you Christians know who the intelligent designer is even though we don't mention Him by name!

As evidence of how widespread the belief is in the ID twin towers consider that the President of the United States (who has probably never even heard of Behe or Dembski, much less read anything by them*) has stated publicly that ID should be taught in our schools.* The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), the world's largest organization of science educators, issued a press release saying it was "stunned and disappointed that President Bush is endorsing the teaching of intelligent design -- effectively opening the door for non-scientific ideas to be taught in the nation's K-12 science classrooms."* I understand why the teachers are disappointed but they shouldn't be stunned. President Bush's opinion is shared by millions of Americans. According to a recent Harris poll, only 12% of Americans think evolution should be taught to the exclusion of creationism and ID.* In any case, John Marburger, the  president's science advisor, clarified Bush's remarks by telling the press that “evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology” and ''intelligent design is not a scientific concept.'' He said it would be over-interpreting Bush’s comments to interpret them to mean that the president thinks intelligent design should be placed on an equal footing with evolution. "If such things are to be taught in the public schools," said Marburger, "they belong in a course on comparative religion, which is a particularly appropriate subject for our children given the present state of the world."*

Bush's comments gave the media an excuse to jump into the fray. The August 15, 2005, cover of Time magazine, for example, has Michelangelo's Sistine chapel creator pointing the finger at a chimp. Does God have a place in the science classroom? asks Time. The article provides an overview of the controversy with a nice map of the anti-evolution proposals that have been put forth in this century by state boards of education, state legislatures, and local boards of education. Very few states are unblemished.

Jake Tapper, an ABC news reporter, recently stated while doing a story on a young-Earth theme park in Kentucky: "Religious views of creation that challenge accepted science are gaining support across the country." Others in the media often refer to ID as a growing new challenge to a faltering natural selection.*

A number of state and local school boards have brought ID into their classrooms. In 1999, the Kansas Board of Education rejected evolution as a scientific principle. The 10-member board voted six to four to eliminate evolution from the science curricula. The Kansas Board did not ban the teaching of evolution. Only the legislature has that kind of power. The Board simply deleted any mention of evolution and the Big Bang theory from the science curriculum and from the materials used to test graduating students. Creationists such as Board Member Steve Abrams, a former head of the state Republican Party, hailed the decision as a victory in the war against evolutionists. Creationists want children to believe that God made them and every other species individually for a purpose. They do not want children to think that a divine power might be behind the Big Bang or evolution of species because that opens the possibility that God might not exist. Creationism maintains that God created everything, a belief that leaves no room for an explanation of the existence and nature of things without reference to God. Abrams wanted to add to the science curriculum standards the assertion that "the design and complexity of the design of the cosmos requires an intelligent designer," but his circular reasoning was voted down.

Nevertheless, the Kansas Board recognized micro-evolution - natural selection within a species - as a fact. Perhaps the six who voted for the new standards do not understand that natural selection within species was what stimulated Darwin to his general theory of evolution. Nor do they seem to understand that you can't have a theory of evolution without the fact of evolution (any more than you could have a theory of planetary motion without the fact of planetary motion). Scientific theories are explanations as to how things happen. You don't try to explain how something happened unless it happened. Natural selection is one theory as to how evolution happened. It assumes evolution is a fact.

In 2002 an election returned a majority to the Kansas state board of education who were in favor of teaching just science in the biology classroom. In 2004 another election tipped the scales back in favor of the ID folks. The new group called for hearings to decide whether ID would be taught. The hearings were boycotted by the scientific community, party because they felt the board had already made up its mind about ID and evolution, and partly because they did not want to convey the appearance of scientific legitimacy on the ID movement. On August 9, 2005, the Kansas State Board of Education voted 6-4 in favor of new state science standards composed with the aid of a local "intelligent design" group, the Intelligent Design Network, that "systematically deprecates the scientific status of evolution."* Not only were the standards approved, but the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.* Similar proposals have been passed in school districts in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and New Mexico. However, eight school board members who passed an anti-evolution standard in Dover, Pennsylvania, were all voted out of office in November 2005. The newly elected group all support ID but think it is a religious doctrine and should be taught in a philosophy or world religions class.

Politically active creationists failed in their attempts to have creationism taught alongside evolution as a science. The Supreme Court ruled that compelling the teaching of creationism was tantamount to teaching religion, which state schools may not do under the First Amendment separation clause. The so-called creation science movement, however, is not dead. They have just changed tactics. The goal now is to debunk evolution wherever possible, using any means necessary. One of their favorite tactics today is to blame all sin and crime on lack of proper Bible study and the teaching of "godless" theories such as natural selection and the Big Bang theory. Marc Looy of the creationist group Answers in Genesis hailed the Kansas school board decision because

students in public schools are being taught that evolution is a fact, that they're just products of survival of the fittest....It creates a sense of purposelessness and hopelessness, which I think leads to things like pain, murder, and suicide.

That there is no scientific evidence to support these claims is a matter of indifference to those who believe them.

In Alabama, biology textbooks carry a warning that says that evolution is "a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things. . . .No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered as theory, not fact." Right. In Alabama, I guess, if you wake up to snow on the ground, but no one saw it snowing, then you may only propose a theory as to the origin of the snow. The great state of Alabama apparently is banking on their students being too dumb to recognize language that tries to deceive and manipulate them.

The school board in Cobb County, Georgia, was perhaps inspired by Alabama. In 2003, the board claimed it was just encouraging critical thinking when it required a sticker be placed in all biology texts that states:

This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.

Six parents and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit against the Cobb County school board over the disclaimer stickers.  In August 2005, U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper ordered the school system to remove the stickers. The disclaimers, ruled Judge Cooper, are an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.

By denigrating evolution, the school board appears to be endorsing the well-known prevailing alternative theory, creationism or variations thereof, even though the sticker does not specifically reference any alternative theories.

The school board issued a statement indicating that they just don't get it.

The textbook stickers are a reasonable and evenhanded guide to science instruction and encouraging students to be critical thinkers.

The plaintiffs had argued that the disclaimers violated the separation of church and state and unfairly singled out evolution from all other scientific theories as suspect.

Judge Cooper wisely stated in his decision

While evolution is subject to criticism, particularly with respect to the mechanism by which it occurred, the sticker misleads students regarding the significance and value of evolution in the scientific community.

It certainly does. There are no stickers in the physics or chemistry books. There are none in the social science books. The only theory singled out by the school board is evolution and the reason was obvious to the judge: the theory of evolution is understood as implying that God didn't make the species one by one and that God isn't even necessary for making any species at all. If evolution is correct, the school board members and the thousands of parents (2,300, to be exact) who support them believe that then their religious views are wrong. Accepting evolution is as much as accepting atheism. It is the same as believing we have no souls and are nothing but material beings with no possibility of an afterlife. According to recent polls, about 35% of Americans believe that evolution implies no God, no soul, no afterlife, no truth in the Bible. (Other polls put the number as high as 55%. I suspect the different result is due to the way the questions were asked and the kind of responses allowed.) A 2005 national survey by the Harris polling agency found that 54% say they do not believe humans evolved from earlier species, while 64% believe that human beings were created directly by God.

As a result of the decision in the Cobb county case, the school district in Beebe, Arkansas - at the urging of the American Civil Liberties Union - removed stickers they had ordered to be placed in science textbooks ten or fifteen years earlier. The stickers described evolution as "controversial" and mentioned an "intelligent designer" as a possible explanation for the origin of life. Authorities in Alabama, however, did not follow suit. They claimed they didn't see how the ruling in Georgia applied to them.

On March 9, 2004, the Ohio state board of education approved by a 13-5 margin what it called a "Critical Analysis of Evolution" plan. An early draft of the plan made an explicit reference to Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute. The final plan made no mention of Wells or his book, but critics of the plan said it contained many of the concepts in Icons. Defenders of the decision call it a victory for common sense over scientific dogmatism. In reality, it is a victory for those who would have politicians deciding what is proper science. The first question in the "student reflection" portion of the "Critical Analysis of Evolution" is "Why is it important for scientists to critically analyze evolution?" We call this a loaded question in my critical thinking classes. The question assumes that most scientists haven't or don't critically analyze evolution, or that they don't realize it is important to do so. It assumes that scientists need to be reminded of both the question and its importance. To provide students with a lesson plan that implies that scientists have put forth their views on evolution without critical analysis would be ludicrous if it weren't so dangerous. Bettysue Feuer, regional director of the Anti-Defamation League, noted that the wedge document is at work here. If you teach that there is a controversy over evolution, intelligent design advocates get their foot in the door, and can push their religious agenda.

In Missouri Rep. Wayne Cooper sponsored legislation calling for the teaching of intelligent design alongside evolution in public elementary and secondary schools. Said Cooper: "We just want people to quit passing on their philosophic bias as though it is the truth when it's not proven." He also asserted: "If we're just a piece of matter in a meaningless universe, you're going to treat yourself different than if you're a designed product." Call me old-fashioned but I can't think of anything more degrading that being a piece of matter designed to fulfill some divine being's plan. I don't have quite the admiration Mr. Cooper does for the idea of being created to worship and obey a master. This might give his life meaning but it seems demeaning to me.

If we are going to allow the Christian version of intelligent design to be taught in our science classrooms, to be fair we should also allow the atheistic Raelians have their say. The following is from a press release from that group:

His Holiness Rael draws the exceptional accuracy of his scientific and humanitarian vision from the Message He received in 1973 from the Elohim, a very advanced race of human beings from a distant planet within our galaxy. The Elohim created all life on Earth scientifically using DNA (including humans in their image) and were mistaken for God, which explains why the name Elohim is present in all original Bibles. The Bible is, in fact, an atheist book describing the scientific creation of life on Earth. The new concept of "Intelligent Design" fits perfectly with this explanation of our origins. Thirty years ago the Elohim explained to Rael that human cloning coupled with memory transfer would one day allow humans to live forever on Earth. Today this prediction is close to becoming a reality, as it has been for millennia on the Elohim's planet. It is, in fact, how the Elohim resurrected Jesus, their messenger, as well as many others whom they sent to guide humanity and who now live on their planet.

A "critical analysis" of evolution shouldn't exclude Rael's vision, especially since the master himself thinks ID fits with his godless religion and an atheistic Bible. That's certainly an "alternative" viewpoint that you won't find in most science texts. What are the odds that Ohio—or any other state—will include it or other alternatives in a "Critical Analysis of Evolution" plan?

In October, 2004, the Dover Area School Board in York, Pennsylvania, voted 6-3 to add ID to the district’s biology curriculum. One Dover board member resigned in tears after the vote, saying she was tired of being asked if she was "born again." Only one community member spoke in favor of the ID proposal and he home-schools his kids. William Buckingham, one of the board members who led the fight for ID inclusion in the biology curriculum, was reported in the local newspaper as having "challenged people’s literacy, knowledge of American history and patriotism throughout the night." The following month the school district chose four new board members (from 13 candidates): "a preacher, a home-schooler who doesn't send his kids to public school because of his religious beliefs, and two others with barely any experience in government." No one who spoke out against intelligent design was selected. As noted above, however, all eight school board members who supported the ID requirement were voted out of office in 2005. The new board members want to see ID taught in a non-science course. In the meantime, a federal judge has heard arguments on a suit filed by several Dover parents that ID is a backdoor attempt to introduce religion into the science classroom. Whatever Judge John E. Jones III decides, it is likely that an appeal will be made to the U.S. Supreme Court. It remains to be seen whether ID will meet the same fate that creationism met in 1987 when the Court ruled religious doctrines can't be promoted in secular institutions under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

In Blufton, Indiana, the local school board announced that ID will continue to be a part of Bluffton-Harrison’s High School science curriculum. The school board voted 4-1 to continue requiring the district’s science educators to discuss “appropriate theories” — such as intelligent design and evolution — and give a “fair and balanced” presentation when teaching about the origin of the universe and life. The Discovery Institute folks must be smiling: an issue that has nothing to do with balance and fairness has been turned into a fairness issue.

So, should we teach ID in our biology classrooms even though ID is not a viable alternative to natural selection? The answer is "yes, if we teach ID properly." The answer is "no" if we are asked to teach ID as a viable scientific idea worth spending precious classroom time on. To teach ID properly would be to demonstrate to the students that nothing of scientific interest follows after one posits an external agent to explain something. To say the eye was designed by God or an alien race is to say: Stop, go no further in trying to understand this. Students might be taught that ID is just the kind of belief that some philosophers and theologians find interesting but since it doesn't lead to any deeper understanding of biological mechanisms, doesn't lead to new discoveries or research ventures, and doesn't have any practical scientific applications, it is left to those in other fields to pursue. A good biology teacher ought to be able to explain why ID, even if true, is of little scientific interest in about 15 or 20 minutes. That should leave plenty of time to instruct their students in science.