Is Intelligent Design Theory Scientific?

This most elegant system of the sun, planets, and comets could not have arisen without the design and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being. --Sir Isaac Newton, The Principia

2005-12-20 -- If you've participated in online debates about the theory of evolution, you know the standard arguments of evolutionists. Their "trump card" is the claim that Intelligent Design (ID) theory is simply outside the realm of science. This claim is not that ID has insufficient empirical corroboration, although they often make that claim too. This claim is that ID is not even a valid scientific theory because it is "unfalsifiable."

The notion that ID theory is fundamentally "unscientific" is based on the philosophy originated by Karl Popper (1902-1994), who postulated a set of rules for science known as "Falsificationism." The main idea is that a hypothesis or theory does not qualify as "scientific" unless it is "falsifiable" (which is independent of whether it is actually "true" or "false"). Popper is revered by evolutionists, but certainly even they would agree that we should not blindly accept his word as revealed truth. So let us consider some of the implications of his "falsifiability" criterion.

Consider first the hypothesis that "extraterrestrial intelligent life does not exist." If a spaceship landed on earth carrying aliens from another planet, this hypothesis would obviously be disproved or "falsified." If an intelligent message were indisputably received from a non-man-made source in space, that would also disprove the hypothesis. Hence, this hypothesis clearly meets the falsifiability criterion and is therefore "scientific" according to Popper's definition.

Now consider the opposite hypothesis, namely that "extraterrestrial intelligent life exists." How could this hypothesis be falsified? The only way to falsify it would be to prove that absolutely no intelligent life exists anywhere in the entire universe other than on (or from) earth. Because that is obviously impossible to prove, this hypothesis fails the falsifiability criterion and is therefore "unscientific."

According to Popper's criterion, therefore, the hypothesis that "extraterrestrial intelligent life does not exist" is "scientific," but the opposite hypothesis, that "extraterrestrial intelligent life exists," is not. But if the former "scientific" hypothesis is disproved, then the latter "unscientific" hypothesis is obviously proved! Hence, a hypothesis about the natural world can be proved true yet still be "unscientific" according to Popper's criterion. Popper's definition of science is therefore misleading if not just plain nonsensical.

Popper's followers readily concede that what they call an "unscientific" hypothesis can be true. For example, the hypothesis, "nutritional supplements can improve a person's health," is "unscientific," yet it is also certainly true. The problem is that their misleading technical definition of science is used by evolutionists to deceive the public about ID theory. Hence, a substantial percentage of the public has been fooled into believing that, because ID theory is "unscientific" (according to Popper), it must also be untrue or bogus.

Several years ago the "Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence" (SETI) project was initiated. Large radio telescopes were used to receive radio signals from space, and massive computing facilities were used to analyze those signals in search of "intelligent" messages that could be presumed to have originated from an "intelligent" life form. Apparently, nobody informed the SETI team that their motivating hypothesis -- that "extraterrestrial intelligent life exists" -- is "unscientific"!

Suppose an apparently "intelligent" message were detected by SETI. The first question would be whether the message really originated from space and not from a man-made source, but suppose a man-made source could be ruled out. The next question would be whether the message really originated from an intelligent source, or whether it was merely a statistical fluke that only appeared to have come from an intelligent source.

Suppose the message contained the first 100,000 binary digits of pi, repeated indefinitely, with each repetition separated by a "spacer" of 1000 zeros. Now, one cannot "prove" with absolute mathematical certainty that such a sequence cannot occur by random chance, but most reasonable people would agree that the probability would be extremely low. In fact, most would agree that the probability of a such a signal originating from an "unintelligent" source would be zero for all intents and purposes.

The repeating pi signal coming from a non-man-made source in space would therefore conclusively prove the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence, and it would prove it even if the location and identity of the source were never determined. But according to Popper's falsifiability criterion, the hypothesis that "extraterrestrial intelligent life exists" does not even qualify as "scientific." Thus, SETI would be in the strange position of having proved a truly monumental -- but "unscientific" -- fact about the universe!

The hypothesis of extraterrestrial intelligence can shed some badly needed light on the philosophical debate over whether or not intelligent design theory is "scientific." The philosophical question is not about how much order or complexity is needed to reasonably prove the existence of Intelligent Design; that is a scientific and mathematical question. The philosophical question is whether any amount of evidence for ID could be enough to get evolutionists to concede that it ID is even a possible explanation. Apparently the answer is no, because they have ruled ID "out of bounds" from the start.

Evolutionists often point out that ID theory "makes no testable predictions and explains nothing." But what "testable predictions" can be made based on the hypothesis that extraterrestrial intelligence exists? None. So, what do evolutionists say about the potential for intelligent messages from deep space? Do they insist that such messages wouldn't prove anything and should simply be ignored? I doubt the SETI team would agree with that, yet it is the logical equivalent of the evolutionist position on ID. The irony is that evolutionists would probably be the first to embrace the idea of extraterrestrial intelligence because it would transform the origin of life from a "miracle" to a "statistic," as Carl Sagan once explained. Indeed, most or all of the SETI participants probably are evolutionists!

Both professional and amateur evolutionists will continue to arrogantly asert that ID theory cannot possibly be "scientific." If a famous philosopher said it, apparently that's all the "proof" they need -- common sense notwithstanding. And that's just the start of their many ridiculous assertions. After explaining that ID is "unfalsifiable," many evolutionists then proceed to explain that it has indeed been falsified anyway! "It can't be done, but by golly we did it anyway just to reassure ourselves"! And the significance of the fact that their premise and their conclusion are identical apparently escapes them.

Another popular evolutionist canard is that ID theory is nothing more than a "thinly veiled" cover for Biblical creationism and is therefore unscientific. Never mind that many ID advocates were originally evolutionists before they studied the matter in depth. By the same "logic," evolution could be considered a "thinly veiled" cover for atheism, of course. Nonsense. Both atheists and creationists may indeed be biased, but attributed biases are never directly relevant to the actual validity of any scientific theory. The validity of Einstein's theory of relativity is completely independent of whatever personal biases he may have had!

In any significant online debate over evolution, some genius will inevitably proclaim that Intelligent Design theory is meaningless until the actual "Intelligent Designer" is physically located and identified. That is logically equivalent to claiming that the pi signal mentioned above would not prove the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence until the source of the message was explicitly located and identified. A related and equally absurd notion is that purely naturalistic evolution must remain the accepted theory until the "Designer" can be understood and explained scientifically. That is the logical equivalent of a prosecutor claiming that a criminal defendant must be presumed guilty unless or until another culprit is found. The truth is that, just as a defendant can be exonerated before an alternative suspect is identified, purely naturalistic evolution can be disproved before an alternative theory is fully understood or even available.

The point here is not that ID theory is true and purely naturalistic evolution is false. The point is that reasonable people can disagree on the issue, and both positions should be respectfully permitted to co-exist in the spirit of free and open inquiry. That is not what is happening today. A misleading definition of science is being used to exclude ID a priori. A judge recently ruled that even mentioning ID is prohibited in the science classes of a particular public school system. That kind of censorship is certainly more in the spirit of the Soviet Union than of the United States. Professors have been publicly censured by their peers for espousing ID. One can only wonder if Isaac Newton would be censured today for his professed belief in the intelligent design of the universe.

Centuries ago the church was the ultimate authority, and dissenters from orthodoxy were excommunicated and punished for their supposed heresy. But science and the church have reversed positions in modern times, and secularized scientific institutions now have the upper hand. Scientists who deviate in their public writings or teachings from the prevailing naturalistic orthodoxy are now ostracized, ridiculed, and sometimes even denied tenure or research funding. Those dissenters are modern day Galileos who are standing up to the Neo-Darwinian dogma and the misleading attacks by its believers, who fear the truth just as the church did centuries ago.

Some people seem to be whining about the testimony concerning the laughable "peer-review" of Behe's Book that was presented on this thread last night. Specifically, the complaint is that the details of ONE "reviewer" (and I use that term in the loosest possible sense of the word), is not representative of what other "reviewers" of Behe's book thought of it.

In the interests of a more complete record of the responses of Behe's book "reviewers" I commend the readers to the following information. I think they will find it "highly instructive."

October 27, 2005

Two of Behe's Reviewers Speak Out

Last week I wrote about the fact that Michael Behe claimed under oath in the Dover case that his book, Darwin's Black Box, received even more thorough peer review than a scholarly article in a refereed journal. Now more and more facts are coming to light. We only know the names of 3 of the 5 reviewers - Michael Atchison, Robert Shapiro and K. John Morrow. Atchison, I've already documented, did not review the book at all. He had a 10 minute conversation about the book over the phone, without ever seeing the text, with an editor who was concerned about whether it would sell, not whether the science was solid. Skip Evans contacted Robert Shapiro and was told that he did review the book, and while he agreed with some of his analysis of origin-of-life research, he thinks his conclusions are false. He did, however, say that he thought that Behe's book was the best explanation of the argument from design that was available.
Now, what of Morrow? As it turns out, this is the best of all. Over on the Panda's Thumb, a commenter has left the text of an email from K. John Morrow in response to an inquiry about his review of Behe's book. I contacted Dr. Morrow and we've spent some time on the phone over the last couple days discussing the situation. He has given me permission to post his response in full, with one disclaimer:
He dashed this response off pretty quickly in response to an inquiry and in retrospect he isn't certain whether he reviewed the book for Free Press, who ultimately published the book, or for an earlier publisher who was considering publishing it. His recollection from a decade ago is that after he had given his review of the book and the review written by Russell Doolittle of part of the book, the editor told him that they didn't think they were going to go ahead with publishing the book. But he can't be certain at this point whether that was an editor for Free Press or an editor from a different publisher who was considering the book for publication. Ultimately this doesn't matter. Behe himself named Morrow as a reviewer of the book in his testimony, so his views on the book are obviously germane to the question of the rigor of the peer review and whether it determined whether the book should be published. With that disclaimer, the post of his full response after the fold:

I did review Behe’s book for a publisher who, if I recall correctly, turned it down on the basis of my comments, and those of others (including Russell Doolittle who trashed it). When I reviewed Behe’s book I was much more polite than Doolittle, who didn’t mince words. Eventually Behe found another publisher, so he’s right; it was peer reviewed. What he doesn’t say is that is was rejected by the first set of reviewers.
I also debated Behe in Dallas in 1992. Once, again, I attempted to be civil, professional and dignified. Behe’s response was aggressive, condescending and simply rude.
I will say, unequivocally, I am (as practically every professional working biologist I have ever met) convinced by the overwhelming body of evidence that Darwin’s concept of evolution, and its subsequent modifications by the last 150 years of investigation, is the correct, and the best explanation for the great cornucopia of living creatures with which we share this planet.
I’m absolutely appalled by Behe’s arguments, which are simply a rehash of ideas that Darwin considered and rejected. There is not a shred of evidence to support intelligent design, and a vast body of evidence that argues against it. It is not a scientific hypothesis, it is simply the philosophical wanderings of an uniformed (or disingenuous) mind.
At present I’m involved in product development for an immunodiagnostics company, and we are discussing how to approach to Avian flu, and how we can design a test that takes into account the constantly evolving nature of the RNA viruses. Do the intelligent designers want to return us to a time when mankind attributed disease to evil spirits, and allow us no tools to understand the ravages of epidemic diseases, and how to design therapies and diagnostics against them?
I believe that the argument is not about science at all, but simply right wing fundamentalists using a different tactic to force religious teaching in the public schools. I thought that Judge Overton had put this case to rest 30 years ago, but apparently not.
Thanks for this opportunity to clarify my feelings on this subject.

He mentioned Russell Doolittle in that letter. Dr. Doolittle is perhaps the world's foremost expert on the evolution of blood clotting, so Dr. Morrow asked him to review the section on blood clotting in Behe's manuscript. He then sent Doolittle's brief review to the publishers along with his own review of the rest of the manuscript. Both Morrow and Doolittle have given us permission to make public the review Doolittle wrote back in 1995. Here is the full text:

November 14, 1995 Professor K. John Morrow, Jr. Dept. Cell Biology & Biochemistry School of Medicine Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center 3601 4th Street Lubbock, TX 79430
Dear Dr. Morrow,
I read the draft of the chapter for a proposed book by Micheal Behe that you sent me. As you warned me on the telephone, my own writings play a prominent role in his attack on evolution. I don't know whether the word ingenious or disingenuous is more appropriate here, but he has certainly turned all my thinking completely around to suit his own ends. That it is really disingenuous is clear from the fact that he has managed to belittle important scientific findings by couching them with sarcasm.
But what annoyed me the most in the chapter was the author's appeal to Rube Goldberg, one of my favorite cartoonists, and a person I often refer to for my own perspective. On numerous occasions I have shown the two enclosed Goldberg cartoons as examples of how evolution works! Indeed, I used them in (trying to) teach our medical students about how complicated cascades work in contemporary cells. Also, I have used the same cartoons in debating our local creationist (Duane Gish), pointing out that certainly no Creator would have designed such a circuitous and contrived system. Instead, this is how the opportunistic hand of natural selection works, using whatever happens to be available at the moment. (I wonder if he knew about this?)
But let me back up a bit. First, the 1993 article of mine, which is so heavily quoted from and intentionally disparaged, was the text of a lecture I presented at an international conference on blood clotting. It was presented to an audience of mainly clinicians and biotechnologists, not persons well versed in the rudiments of protein evolution. The tone was intentionally light and breezy. My "casual language" has to be viewed in this light. My main point was to demonstrate that the delicate balance of forward and backward reactions that regulate blood clotting came about in a step-by-step process. I emphasized that the Yin-Yang was simply a metaphor and that other similar point and counterpoint comparisons could be made.
A more rigorous development of these ideas can be found in the cited references, one of which (Doolittle & Feng, 1987) is enclosed. This article predicted that certain components of the cascade appear relatively late in vertebrate evolution, and data in support of this contention are just now forthcoming (lower vertebrates appear to lack the equivalents of factors XI and XII).
A wonderful example of how gene duplications operate in this regard was noted almost 25 years ago. Thus, in hemoglobin, similar sequence extrapolations backwards in time suggested that the gene duplication leading to alpha and beta chains occurred at about the time of the diversification of fishes (see Fig. 1 of Doolittle, 1987, (enclosed). Indeed, when hemoglobin from lampreys and hagfish were examined, they were found to be single-\|chained! They had diverged before the key alpha /beta duplication that has led to the allosteric regulation of oxygen transport. Max Perutz has written elegantly about this.
Here are a few of his comments that I found most irritating.
On page IV-29 the author bold-facedly claims that "the (Doolittle) article does not explain.. how clotting might have originated and subsequently evolved." and then in italics "..no one on earth has the vaguest idea how the coagulation cascade came to be."
I disagree. I have a good idea, shared by most workers in the field, and it is a matter of the (important) details that we are trying to establish.
On page IV-24, Behe underscores that no "causative factors are cited." "What exactly is causing all this springing and unleashing?" Gene duplications, of course, the frequency of which is difficult to measure (I often note that "duplication begets more duplication," for reasons of the misalignment of similar sequences), but which is turning out to be enormously more common than expected.
Causation is tricky. Sometimes environmental or internal benefits are obvious. Often however, the rule for survival is "no harm, no foul," with adaptations occurring subsequently. For the moment, they don't even have to be slightly improved.
As for the "enormous luck needed", we are now into the crux of all evolutionary problems, which is to say, what is the probability of survival? Population geneticists are attempting to answer such questions in general terms (see, e.g., J. B. Walsh, Genetics, 139, 421-428, 1995). In fact, the product of most gene duplications, which are the heart of the evolutionary process, are doomed to random oblivion (see enclosed, Doolittle, Science, 1981).
Also, on page IV-26, he states, "the crucial issues of how much? how fast? when? where?" are not addressed. These are relevant and not unknowable matters. There is a wonderful article about to appear in Molecular Phylogenetics by D. Gumucio et al on how fetal hemoglobin has evolved in primates and that also outlines exactly the regulatory circumstances that allow its differential expression. Finally, my "model" does give some important numbers. The power of sequence-\|based analysis is that it reveals the order of appearance of new proteins, even when the sequences are limited to one or a few species. As noted above, it also has the power to make predictions about the occurrence of proteins in different creatures.
In the meantime, we must ask Mr. Behe whether he doubts the existence of gene duplications? (There are many examples of closely related species where one has n copies of a gene and the other m.) If he acknowledges their existence, then how does he account for the pseudogenes that these duplications often give rise to? Does he think they have a function? And what does he think was the origin of allosteric hemoglobins in all but the most primitive vertebrates? As I say, even his derisive comments call attention to a system that could only have come about by natural selection.
Should the book be published? Scurrilous as it is, I am a believer in a free press. I also know most publishers will publish anything that can make money, and I'm sure there's a naive market for claptrap like this.
I only ask that if you do recommend publication that you suggest that I be invited to review the book, so I can put my own Rube Goldberg cartoons to use.
Feel free to phone if there are other questions.
Sincerely,
Russell F. Doolittle
Research Professor
of Biology and Chemistry

Dr. Morrow further said in his email to me what I said a few days ago, that books and refereed journals are very different and that no book is ever as rigorously peer reviewed as a journal article for the simple reason that the book publisher's primary concern is whether the book will sell or not. He notes, "I think Mike is being pretty disingenuous (I use that word a lot) to say that the manuscript was subjected to rigorous peer review. Everyone knows that the criteria that book publishers use are mainly financial and economic."
Let me also say this: I think the book should have been published. I agree with Dr. Shapiro that while I think much of his argumentation is less than honest and his conclusions absurd, it's very well written and is probably the best example of the argument from design that has been published since Paley's day. It's a provocative and well written book on a hot subject. From the perspective of a book publisher, that certainly means the book should be published. The point of all of this is not to say that his book should have been rejected by the publishers. It is only to say that the claim that it underwent more rigorous peer review than a journal article is patently absurd and contrary to the facts.
Posted by Ed at October 27, 2005 04:08 PM

[emphasis added]

http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2005/10/more_on_peer_review_of_behes_b.php

There you have it, sports fans! Atchison never read Behe's book at all, Morrow (who DID read it) trashed it, and Doolittle rips Behe a new rectal orifice. And If you track down Shapiro's review (I did), he first compliments Behe for what he considers the best job to date of laying out the ID/irreducuble complexity argument, but then states he disagrees with most of Behe's conclusions!

My only regret is that this material never got into the testimony at the trial. I suppose the plaintiffs' attorneys probably felt it would be considering "piling on," to continue the sports metaphor.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.