Intelligent Design and Peer Review

Discovery Institute ^ | November 1, 2003 | William A. Dembski

[Heartlander]

Intelligent Design and Peer Review
A Response to Eugenie Scott and the NCSE

By William A. Dembski
Discovery Institute
November 1, 2003

---

Originally published Oct. 10, 2003

Eugenie Scott’s letter of September 30, 2003 to members of the Texas State Board of Education purports to show that intelligent design research is not published in the peer-reviewed literature. But in fact, Scott has purposely failed to disclose certain key items of information which demonstrate that intelligent design research is in fact now part of the mainstream peer-reviewed scientific literature.

I can substantiate the charge that Scott has purposely failed to disclose key information in this regard. Scott and I have met at several conferences and debates, and we correspond typically a few times a year by email. Here is a paragraph from an email she sent me on December 3, 2002 (in context, Scott is disparaging my work on intelligent design because, so she claims, it has not been cited in the appropriate peer-reviewed literature):

“It would perhaps be more interesting (and something for you to take rather more pride in) if it were the case that the scientific, engineering, and mathematical applications of evolutionary algorithms, fuzzy logic and evolution, etc., referenced TDI or your other publications and criticisms. In a quick survey of a few of the more scholarly works, I didn’t see any, but perhaps you or someone else might know of them.”

The abbreviation “TDI” here refers to my book The Design Inference (more about this book in a moment because Scott disparages it also in her letter of September 30, 2003). Now the fact is that this book has been cited in precisely the literature that Scott claims has ignored it. I pointed this out to her in an email dated December 6, 2002. Here is the key bibliographic reference, along with the annotation, that I sent her:

Chiu, D.K.Y. and Lui, T.H. Integrated use of multiple interdependent patterns for biomolecular sequence analysis. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems. Vol.4, No.3, Sept. 2002, pp.766-775.

The article begins:
“Detection of complex specified information is introduced to infer unknown underlying causes for observed patterns [10]. By complex information, it refers to information obtained from observed pattern or patterns that are highly improbable by random chance alone. We evaluate here the complex pattern corresponding to multiple observations of statistical interdependency such that they all deviate significantly from the prior or null hypothesis [8]. Such multiple interdependent patterns when consistently observed can be a powerful indication of common underlying causes. That is, detection of significant multiple interdependent patterns in a consistent way can lead to the discovery of possible new or hidden knowledge.”
Reference number [10] here is to The Design Inference.

Not only does this article cite my work favorably, but it makes my work in The Design Inference the basis for the entire article. When I sent Scott this information by email, she never got back to me. Interestingly, though, she has since that exchange dropped a line of criticism that she had previously adopted; namely, she had claimed that intelligent design is unscientific because intelligent design research is not cited in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. There’s no question that it is cited (and favorably at that) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

What about actual intelligent design research being published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature? Scott doesn’t want to allow that my book The Design Inference properly belongs to this literature. In her letter of September 30, 2003, she remarks that this book “may have undergone a degree of editorial review” but it “did not undergo peer-review in the sense in which scientific research articles are peer-reviewed.” She then adds that The Design Inference “does not present scientific research -- Dembski’s book was published as a philosophy book.”

Every one of these remarks is false. What’s more, their falsity is readily established. Editorial review refers to a book submitted to a publisher for which the editors, who are employees of the publisher and in the business of trying to acquire, produce, and market books that are profitable, decide whether or not to accept the book for publication. Editorial review may look to expert advice regarding the accuracy, merit, or originality of the book, but the decision to publish rests solely with the editors and publishers. Peer-review, on the other hand, refers to journal articles and academic monographs (these are articles that are too long to be published in a journal and which therefore appear in book form) that are submitted to referees who are experts in the topic being addressed and who must give a positive review of the article or monograph if it is to be published at all. The Design Inference went through peer-review and not merely editorial review.

To see this, it is enough to note that The Design Inference was published by Cambridge University Press as part of a Cambridge monograph series: Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory. Scott doesn’t point this out in her letter of September 30, 2003 because if she had, her claim that my book being editorially reviewed but not peer-reviewed would have instantly collapsed. Academic monograph series, like the Cambridge series that published my book, have an academic review board that is structured and functions identically to the review boards of academic journals. At the time of my book’s publication, the review board for Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory included members of the National Academy of Sciences as well as one Nobel laureate, John Harsanyi, who shared the prize in 1994 with John Nash, the protagonist in the film A Beautiful Mind. As it is, The Design Inference had to pass peer-review with three anonymous referees before Brian Skyrms, who heads the academic review board for this Cambridge series, would recommend it for publication to the Cambridge University Press editors in New York. Brian Skyrms is on the faculty of the University of California at Irvine as well as a member of the National Academic of Sciences. It is easy enough to confirm what I’m saying here by contacting him. Scott either got her facts wrong or never bothered to check them in the first place.

What about Scott’s claim that The Design Inference “does not present scientific research—Dembski’s book was published as a philosophy book.” It is true that Cambridge University Press officially lists this book as a philosophy monograph. But why should how the book is listed by its publisher be relevant to deciding whether it does or does not contain genuine scientific content? The Library of Congress Control Number (LCCN) for The Design Inference is QA279.D455. As any mathematician knows, QA refers to mathematics and the 270s refer to probability and statistics. Is Scott therefore willing to accept that The Design Inference does present scientific research after all because the Library of Congress treats it as a mathematical and statistical monograph rather than as a philosophical monograph?

How this book is listed is beside the point. I submit that the book makes a genuine contribution to the statistical literature, laying out in full technical detail a method of design detection applicable to biology. Scott can dispute this if she likes, but to do so she needs to engage the actual content of my book and not dismiss it simply because the publisher lists it one way or another. Also, it’s worth noting that up until I pointed out to her that The Design Inference is cited in the peer-reviewed mathematical and biological literature, her main line of argument against the scientific merit of my work was that it wasn’t being cited in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. As I showed above, this line of criticism is no longer tenable.

I’ve discussed at length Scott’s treatment of my own work because this is where I’m best qualified to speak to the issue of peer review in relation to intelligent design. As for the other claims in her letter of September 30, 2003, let me briefly offer three remarks:

**Discovery Institute is only the tip of the iceberg for scientists who support intelligent design. Intelligent design research is being published in precisely the places Scott claims it is not being published. What’s more, intelligent design has a developing research program. For some details, see the attached ID FAQ that I handed out on September 10, 2003 at the textbook hearings in Austin. It is also available on my website: http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.09.ID_FAQ.pdf.

**Scott’s charge that critics of Darwinian evolution, like me and my colleagues at Discovery Institute, “misquote” or “quote-mine” the work of scientists has degenerated into a slogan. As a slogan, its effect is to shut down discussion before it can get started. Scientists have no special privileges over anyone else. If they say things that are false, inaccurate, or stupid, they need to be called to account. Reasoned discourse in a free society demands that people, and that includes scientists, confront the record of their words. One can dispute what the words meant in context, but it is not enough merely to assert that the words were quoted out of context.

**Finally, in her letter of September 30, 2003, Scott objects to my use of a statement she made in an interview with Salon. I am supposed to have implied that “Scott believes that textbooks should not discuss arguments about how evolution occurs.” She protests that she “was not discussing doubts about how evolution happened but rather doubts about whether evolution happened.” (Emphasis hers.) But if she really believes that there are many views of how evolution occurred, why does she and her lobbying group the NCSE support only one view on how evolution occurred, namely, the Darwinian view? Why, for instance, isn’t she demanding that the biology textbooks describe the controversy between neo-Darwinists (like John Maynard Smith) and self-organizational theorists (like Stuart Kauffman)? Neither disputes whether evolution has happened. Yet the self-organizational theorists strongly dispute that the Darwinian view adequately explains how evolution occurred. All the textbooks ignore the self-organizational challenge to Darwinism. If Scott is such a champion of pluralism concerning how evolution happened, why isn’t she pressing for the inclusion of self-organizational theory in the biology textbooks? Why do all her lobbying efforts promote neo-Darwinism as the only view of how evolution occurred that’s appropriate for the textbooks? I submit it is because, as she said in her Salon interview, to do otherwise will only “confuse kids about the soundness of evolution as a science.” In other words, to ensure that kids are not confused about whether evolution occurred, textbooks need to tell them only one story about how evolution occurred, namely, the Darwinian story. This isn’t education. It’s indoctrination.

APPENDIX
THREE FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN
Textbook Hearing, Austin, Texas, September 10, 2003
(available at www.designinference.com after September 10, 2003>
by William A. Dembski

What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design is the science that studies how to detect intelligence. Recall astronomer Carl Sagan’s novel Contact about the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (or SETI). Sagan based the SETI researchers’ methods of design detection on scientific practice. Real-life SETI researchers have thus far failed to detect designed signals from distant space. But if they encountered such a signal, as the astronomers in Sagan’s novel did, they too would infer design. Intelligent design research currently focuses on developing reliable methods of design detection and then applying these methods, especially to biological systems.


Does research supporting intelligent design appear in the peer-reviewed literature?
Here are a few recent peer-reviewed publications supporting intelligent design in biology. There is also a widely recognized peer-reviewed literature in physics and cosmology supporting intelligent design (see, for instance, the work of Paul Davies, Frank Tipler, Fred Hoyle, and Guillermo Gonzalez).

• W.A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres, 1998). This book was published by Cambridge University Press and peer-reviewed as part of a distinguished monograph series, Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory. The editorial board of that series includes members of the National Academy of Sciences as well as one Nobel laureate, John Harsanyi, who shared the prize in 1994 with John Nash, the protagonist in the film A Beautiful Mind. Commenting on the ideas in this book, Paul Davies remarks: “Dembski’s attempt to quantify design, or provide mathematical criteria for design, is extremely useful. I’m concerned that the suspicion of a hidden agenda is going to prevent that sort of work from receiving the recognition it deserves. Strictly speaking, you see, science should be judged purely on the science and not on the scientist.” Quoted in L. Witham, By Design (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2003), p. 149. • D.D. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, 301 (2000): 585–595. This work shows that certain enzymes are extremely sensitive to perturbation. Perturbation in this case does not simply diminish existing function or alter function, but removes all possibility of function. This implies that neo-Darwinian theory has no purchase on these systems. Moreover, the probabilities implicit in such extreme-functional-sensitivity analyses are precisely those needed for a design inference. • W.-E. Loennig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389–410. This article examines the role of transposons in the abrupt origin of new species and the possibility of an partly predetermined generation of biodiversity and new species. The authors’ approach in non-Darwinian, and they cite favorably on the work of Michael Behe and William Dembski.

• D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766–775. The opening paragraph of this article reads: “Detection of complex specified information is introduced to infer unknown underlying causes for observed patterns [10]. By complex information, it refers to information obtained from observed pattern or patterns that are highly improbable by random chance alone. We evaluate here the complex pattern corresponding to multiple observations of statistical interdependency such that they all deviate significantly from the prior or null hypothesis [8]. Such multiple interdependent patterns when consistently observed can be a powerful indication of common underlying causes. That is, detection of significant multiple interdependent patterns in a consistent way can lead to the discovery of possible new or hidden knowledge.” Reference number [10] here is to William Dembski’s The Design Inference.

• M.J. Denton & J.C. Marshall, “The Laws of Form Revisited,” Nature, 410 (22 March 2001): 417; M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325–342. This research is thoroughly non-Darwinian and looks to laws of form embedded in nature to bring about biological structures. The intelligent design research program is broad, and design like this that’s programmed into nature falls within its ambit.


What research topics does a design-theoretic research program explore?

• Methods of Design Detection. Methods of design detection are widely employed in various special sciences (e.g., archeology, cryptography, and the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence or SETI). Design theorists investigate the scope and validity of such methods.
  
  
• Biological Information. What is the nature of biological information? How do function and fitness relate to it? What are the obstacles that face material mechanisms in attempting to generate biological information? What are the theoretical and empirical grounds for thinking that intelligence is indispensable to the origin of biological information?
  
  
• Evolvability. Evolutionary biology’s preferred research strategy consists in taking distinct biological systems and finding similarities that might be the result of a common evolutionary ancestor. Intelligent design, by contrast, focuses on a different strategy, namely, taking individual biological systems and perturbing them (both intelligently and randomly) to see how much the systems can evolve. Within this latter research strategy, limitations on evolvability by material mechanisms constitute indirect confirmation of design.
  
  
• Evolutionary Computation. Organisms employ evolutionary computation to solve many of the tasks of living (cf. the immune system in vertebrates). But does this show that organisms originate through some form of evolutionary computation (as through a Darwinian evolutionary process)? Are GPGAs (General Purpose Genetic Algorithms) like the immune system designed or the result of evolutionary computation? Need these be mutually exclusive? Evolutionary computation occurs in the behavioral repertoire of organisms but is also used to account for the origination of certain features of organisms. Design theorists explore the relationship between these two types of evolutionary computation as well as any design intrinsic to them. One aspect of this research is writing and running computer simulations that investigate the scope and limits of evolutionary computation. One such simulation is the MESA program (Monotonic Evolutionary Simulation Algorithm) due to Micah Sparacio, John Bracht, and William Dembski. It is available online at www.iscid.org/mesa.
  
  
• Technological Evolution (TRIZ). The only well-documented example we have of the evolution of complex multipart integrated functional systems (as we see in biology) is the technological evolution of human inventions. In the second half of the twentieth century, Russian scientists and engineers studied hundreds of thousands of patents to determine how technologies evolve. They codified their findings in a theory to which they gave the acronym TRIZ, which in English translates to Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (see Semyon 3 Savransky, Engineering of Creativity: Introduction to TRIZ Methodology of Inventive Problem Solving, CRC Publishers, 2000). The picture of technological evolution that emerges out of TRIZ parallels remarkably the history of life as we see it in the fossil record and includes the following: (1) New technologies (cf. major groups like phyla and classes) emerge suddenly as solutions to inventive problems. Such solutions require major conceptual leaps (i.e., design). As soon as a useful new technology is developed, it is applied immediately and as widely as possible (cf. convergent evolution). (2) Existing technologies (cf. species and genera) can, by contrast, be modified by trial-anderror tinkering (cf. Darwinian evolution), which amounts to solving routine problems rather than inventive problems. (The distinction between routine and inventive problems is central to TRIZ. In biology, irreducible complexity suggests one way of making the analytic cut between these types of problems. Are there other ways?) (3) Technologies approach ideality (cf. local optimization by means of natural selection) and thereafter tend not change (cf. stasis). (4) New technologies, by supplanting old technologies, can upset the ideality and stasis of the old technologies, thus forcing them to evolve in new directions (requiring the solution of new inventive problems, as in an arms race) or by driving them to extinction. Mapping TRIZ onto biological evolution provides a especially promising avenue of designtheoretic research.
  
  
• Strong Irreducible Complexity of Molecular Machines and Metabolic Pathways. For certain enzymes (which are themselves highly complicated molecular structures) and metabolic pathways (i.e., systems of enzymes where one enzyme passes off its product to the next, as in a production line), simplification leads not to different functions but to the complete absence of all function. Systems with this feature exhibit a strengthened form of irreducible complexity. Strong irreducible complexity, as it may be called, entails that no Darwinian account can in principle be given for the emergence of such systems. Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the founders of the neo-Darwinian synthesis, once remarked that to talk about prebiotic natural selection is a contradiction in terms—the idea being that selection could only select for things that are already functional. Research on strong irreducible complexity finds and analyzes biological systems that cannot in principle be grist for natural selection’s mill. For this research, which is only now beginning, to be completely successful would imply the unraveling of molecular Darwinism.
  
  
• Natural and Artificial Biological Design (Bioterrorist Genetic Engineering). We are on the cusp of a bioengineering revolution whose fallout is likely to include bioterrorism. Thus we can expect to see bioterror forensics emerge as a practical scientific discipline. How will such forensic experts distinguish the terrorists’ biological designs from naturally occurring biological designs?
  
  
• Design of the Environment and Ecological Fine-Tuning. The idea that ecosystems are fine-tuned to support a harmonious balance of plant and animal life is old. How does this balance come about. Is it the result of blind Darwinian forces competing with one another and leading to a stable equilibrium? Or is there design built into such ecosystems? Can such ecosystems be improved through conscious design or is “monkeying” with such systems invariably counterproductive? Design-theoretic research promises to become a significant factor in scientific debates over the environment.
  
  
• Steganographic Layering of Biological Information. Steganography belongs to the field of digital data embedding technologies (DDET), which also include information hiding, steganalysis, watermarking, embedded data extraction, and digital data forensics. 4 Steganography seeks efficient (high data rate) and robust (insensitive to common distortions) algorithms that can embed a high volume of hidden message bits within a cover message (typically imagery, video, or audio) without their presence being detected. Conversely, steganalysis seeks statistical tests that will detect the presence of steganography in a cover message. Key research question: To what degree do biological systems incorporate steganography, and if so, is biosteganography demonstrably designed?
  
  
• Cosmological Fine-Tuning and Anthropic Coincidences. Although this is a well worn area of study, there are some new developments here. Guillermo Gonzalez, assistant professor of physics and astronomy at Iowa State University, and Jay Richards, a senior fellow with Seattle’s Discovery Institute, have a forthcoming book titled The Privileged Planet (along with a video based on the book) in which they make a case for planet earth as intelligently designed not only for life but also for scientific discovery. In other words, they argue that our world is designed to facilitate the scientific discovery of its own design. Aspects of Gonzalez’s work in this area have been featured on the cover story of the October 2001 Scientific American.
  
  
• Astrobiology, SETI, and the Search for a General Biology. What might life on other planets look like? Is it realistic to think that there is life, and even conscious life, on other planets? What are the defining features that any material system must possess to be alive? How simple can a material system be and still be alive (John von Neumann posed this question over half a century ago in the context of cellular automata)? Insofar as such systems display intelligent behavior, must that intelligence be derived entirely from its material constitution or can it transcend yet nevertheless guide its behavior (cf. the mechanism vs. vitalism debate)? Is there a testable way to decide this last question? How, if at all, does quantum mechanics challenge a purely mechanistic conception of life? Design theorists are starting to investigate these questions.
  
  
• Consciousness, Free Will, and Mind-Brain Studies. Is conscious will an illusion—we think that we have acted freely and deliberately toward some end, but in fact our brain acted on its own and then deceived us into thinking that we acted deliberately. This is the majority position in the cognitive neuroscience community, and a recent book makes just that claim in its title: The Illusion of Conscious Will by Harvard psychologist Daniel Wegner. But there is now growing evidence that consciousness is not reducible to material processes of the brain and that free will is in fact real. Jeffrey Schwartz at UCLA along with quantum physicist Henry Stapp at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory are two of the key researchers presently providing experimental and theoretical support for the irreducibility of mind to brain (see Schwartz’s book The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force).
  
  
• Autonomy vs. Guidance. Many scientists worry that intelligent design attempts to usurp nature’s autonomy. But that is not the case. Intelligent design is attempting to restore a proper balance between nature’s autonomy and teleologic guidance. Prior to the rise of modern science all the emphasis was on teleologic guidance (typically in the form of divine design). Now the pendulum has swung to the opposite extreme, and all the emphasis is on nature’s autonomy (an absolute autonomy that excludes design). Where is the point of balance that properly respects both, and in which design becomes empirically evident? The search for that balance-point underlies all design-theoretic research. It’s not all design or all nature but a synergy of the two. Unpacking that synergy is the intelligent design research program in a nutshell.
  
  
  Please visit our Texas Textbooks Information for more information on this and other issues related to the Texas State Board of Education's coming decision on biology textbooks.

---

Discovery Institute is a non-profit, non-partisan, public policy think tank headquartered in Seattle and dealing with national and international affairs. For more information, browse Discovery's Web site at: http://www.discovery.org.

[Right Wing Professor]

There is a reason for beauty, love and virtue and why they are good. And there is a reason why many loath beauty, love and virtue. Recognizing that there are reasons for these things is extraordinarily relevant.

A lot of societies have revered truth and love and beauty and virtue, but not all have been Christian. I agree that one should ask why, and I agree that the answer is written on the human heart, but I think the search should be open ended. A large part of the world is not Christian, and probably never will be. There needs to be an ethical code that transcends the details of religious belief.

A minor point of sensitivity. Why would you qualify God with "formed in man's image"? All it would do is get my, or somebody else's, back up and muddy the point you're making.

Blame Voltaire. "If God created us in His image, we have more than returned the compliment'.

[general_re]

Is there evidence of there being no design in nature?

It's up to those who advocate design to bring evidence to support it, rather than for those who dispute it to disprove it. That being said, nobody has really managed to describe what such evidence for design would even look like, let alone whether there actually is any.

Should the science curriculum contradict the history class?

Your particular wording is helpful here - "our culture is founded on a belief in a creator who endows us with inalienable rights" is a perfectly true statement. It's also different than saying "there is a creator who endows us with inalienable rights". The first one is true, as I said, but it properly belongs in a study of culture and society, not of science. The second one may or may not also be true, but it is contentious enough that it will never be a part of any government-sponsored classroom, because most people don't want it to be part of such a classroom.

[Right Wing Professor]

That isn't exactly agnostic, but certainly a commmon opinion in scientific thinking not much different than positing the existence of a designer on the basis of the way we think. I'm always amused how easily epistemological consideration translate into existential claims--on both sides of the aisle. Logical demonstrations will only give you a conclusion making existential claims in some way plausible or sensible.

I think you have something interesting here, but for the benefit of us early-stage-Piaget types, do you think you could make it a bit more concrete?

[Nebullis]

That isn't exactly agnostic, but certainly a commmon opinion in scientific thinking not much different than positing the existence of a designer on the basis of the way we think.

There's a hopeful wish on the part of IDers that the assumption of a designer will switch the framework of science in the direction so that all evidence will point to a designer. Conversely, naturalism will only beget naturalism. If all depended on the assumptions then science wouldn't matter a bit, it would all be a senseless exercise.

[general_re]

Now, are teachers to be asked if they believe in a designer - and if so who is it? Again, litmus test? Who has an agenda here?

No, not a litmus test. You really need to go back and read what I actually posted, especially the part where I said "And when the children in science class ask you, betty, who you think the designer is..."

Whether I ask or not is neither here nor there - it is inevitable that the students will ask. And what will you say?

I am a Christian, but as a teacher and asked, “Who you think the designer is?” (because a student believed design is present) I would say if that is a good question for you to discuss with your parents.

Perhaps we ought to make teachers swear an oath similar to witnesses in a courtroom, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. You answer by ducking the question, which at least has the virtue of not being an outright falsehood, but it's not exactly the whole truth, is it? I wonder what they will infer from the fact that you are obviously hiding something. I wonder how many people will give in to the temptation to stop hiding their light under a bushel.

Now what would you say and what do you believe?

If I had to teach intelligent design, and I were asked who I thought the designer was? I choose honesty, in that case - "Thus far, there is no scientific evidence to support the theory of intelligent design - I'm only teaching this because they make me." Not that I would take such a job in the first place, mind you.

[Tribune7]

Blame Voltaire. "If God created us in His image, we have more than returned the compliment'.

Man made gods are an old, old tradition and it's one of the most specific things condemned in the Bible.

[Tribune7]

It's up to those who advocate design to bring evidence to support it, rather than for those who dispute it to disprove it.

So you believe it would be acceptible to teach that the universe has no design?

because most people don't want it to be part of such a classroom.

I don't believe that to be true. The only way to test it would be to put it to a vote with the understanding that the vote would be meaningful.

If it were true that most Americans would not accept that our rights are endowed by a creator, that's pretty much the end for us.

Why would anyone object to teaching this as a universal axiom applicable to the entire curriculum? It wouldn't have any affect on any science class since I think we all agree that science is incapable of addressing the question of God's existance.

[Virginia-American]

Until you can prove God didn't do it or something else did do it - evolution and ID has the same amount of strength.

False. Standard biology makes predictions about what will and won't be found in the field and in the lab. If these predictions turn out false, the theory is wrong and has to be modified or discarded.

Unless ID can put some sort of limitations on the hypothesized designer, it cannot make predictions, and, in particular, it is not a theory, merely a hypothesis that cannot be tested.

[general_re]

So you believe it would be acceptible to teach that the universe has no design?

I think we should teach what we know in science classes, based on the best available scientific evidence. Right now, that's the neo-Darwinian synthesis. If and when there is compelling scientific evidence to indicate design, whatever that might consist of, then we should teach that, but unless and until that happens, there's nothing there to teach yet, and so science curricula should be silent on the issue for the time being. Because of that, and because there's no agreement on what sort of creationism to teach, there's really just not a large-scale grass-roots effort to teach creationism in science class. That movement simply doesn't exist - people would rather deal with it in other ways besides sticking it into the public schools. Instead, what you have is a relatively small group of dedicated activists trying to slip it in through the back door.

Besides, why would you want the public schools teaching ID or creationism? They'll just butcher it, you know - I assure you, they are complete failures at really teaching evolution well, and I see no reason to expect they'll do a better job with something else. Hell, they can barely teach kids to read in a lot of places - why on earth would you think that ID theory will get a good treatment?

If it were true that most Americans would not accept that our rights are endowed by a creator, that's pretty much the end for us.

It's not a matter of not accepting that to be true - the vast majority of Americans do accept that to be true. What there is much less agreement on is how God figures into the development of life. And because there's a good deal of disagreement, the only thing you'll get people to agree on putting into a science class will be something so bland and watered-down that it might as well not be there at all. It's the same problem you have when ordering three pizzas for twenty random people - the only way you're likely to get agreement on what kind of pizzas to get is if they're pretty plain.

Why would anyone object to teaching this as a universal axiom applicable to the entire curriculum?

Because most people are satisfied with the status quo, and see no incentive to change, particularly when the change requires a large-scale rewrite of constitutional law.

[Virginia-American]

How does evolution make predictions?

One way is by noticing that any common ancestor of, say, cows and whales is also an ancestor of hippos, but not necessarily an ancestor of people or rhinos. It then predicts that pseudogenes, transposons, etc, found in both cows and whales will also be found in hippos, but not necessarily in people or rhinos.

Another large set of predictions made by using ToE concerns what is going to be found in new paeontological digs. For example, if a stratum is precambrian, there will never be a mammal found in it. Or trilobites and plesiosaurs will never be found together.

Predictable implies order or method or design - attributes that are not part of evolution.

Or a well understood process, like natural selection. For example, if you confine any animal species to a cave, eventually (this is the random part, it can't be predicted) a mutation will occur which makes it blind. Since there is no selective advantage to sight in the cave, this gene may spread. Given enough time, at least one such gene will.

[edsheppa]

A theory that can be used to explain anything at all explains nothing.

But it makes some folks feel better. And feelings are what count you know.

[edsheppa]

And why should an agenda that can't be advanced honestly be embraced by anyone?

But surely saving those poor souls justifies the subterfuge.

[HiTech RedNeck]

If and when she is asked what she believes, she can either profess agnosticism, or she can answer the question honestly, but she can't do both.

The fallacy of the excluded middle i.e. "I am not permitted to talk about that right here and now."

[Fledermaus]

Elbow patch geek alert.

[HiTech RedNeck]

The big question is, how do we know an "error" really is an "error"? That this "error" does not in fact facilitate something else? Without being able to 100% audit the Creator's design goals, that is a mighty arrogant statement to make. Maybe it's there for some other reason. "Apparent anomaly" would be a better term than "error."

[general_re]

The fallacy of the excluded middle i.e. "I am not permitted to talk about that right here and now."

If I thought that answer were going to be consistently and uniformly applied across the board, I'd probably be less concerned that I am. But I don't believe that will actually be the case, not for a moment - as I said before, I can't help but wonder how many will choose not to hide their light under a bushel. Unless you can guarantee that the answer will be "zero", we've got a problem.

[js1138]

Call me cynical, but something makes me doubt that agnosticism will be the order of the day, behind closed doors, when it is thought that nobody will be watching.

It would really be a special treat to watch someone try to tell a CHILD that a design can exist without a designer.

;^)

[Last Visible Dog]

Your question is a classic case of the "fallacy of equivocation" -- using a word twice *in two different senses*, and then using the (only) apparent equivalence of a word to itself in order to give the impression that you've tied together the two parts of your argument.

You have simplified the question by grossly misrepresenting what I said. Your entire response is based on your distortion of the meaning of the word design. You claim at one point design means “conscious creation for a desired purpose" – you are flat-out WRONG. There is NO conscious component to the word design thus completely deflating you answer. Try again. Later you make the laughable claim that DNA is merely a “"functional structure" – talk about gross oversimplification - you are not even close.

This is common among Orthodox Darwinists – approach difficult philosophical questions by attempting to force the world into their personal misdefinitions of words and concepts – basically twisting and distorting to force things to fit comfortably into their belief system. I guess that helps them sleep better at night.

[metacognative]

I've researched this and the only places recording increased temps are the old urban recording stations in the megalopolises of Europe and Eastern America. Oceanic and satellite data show no increase.

[Last Visible Dog]

Pffft. You can try to BS your way out of this all you like, but it won't help you.

I ask you to back up your statement with supporting evidence and you reply with this crap. To quote the Talking Heads "Same as it ever was..."