Intelligent Design and Evolution at the White House

SETI Institute ^ | August 2005 | Edna DeVore

[PatrickHenry]

On August 1, 2005, a group of reporters from Texas met with President Bush in the Roosevelt room for a roundtable interview. The President’s remarks suggest that he believes that both intelligent design and evolution should be taught so that “people are exposed to different schools of thought.” There have been so many articles since his remarks that it’s useful to read the relevant portion of published interview:

“Q: I wanted to ask you about the -- what seems to be a growing debate over evolution versus intelligent design. What are your personal views on that, and do you think both should be taught in public schools?

THE PRESIDENT: I think -- as I said, harking back to my days as my governor -- both you and Herman are doing a fine job of dragging me back to the past. (Laughter.) Then, I said that, first of all, that decision should be made to local school districts, but I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught.

Q: Both sides should be properly taught?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, people -- so people can understand what the debate is about.

Q: So the answer accepts the validity of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution?

THE PRESIDENT: I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought, and I'm not suggesting -- you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.”

(Transcript released by the White House and published on August 2, 2005 at WashingtonPost.com)

The reporter got it right: there is an ongoing debate over intelligent design vs. evolution, at least in the media and in politics. There is not a debate in the greater scientific community about the validity of evolution. Further, the vast majority of scientists do not consider intelligent design as a viable alternative to evolution.

Dr. John Marburger III, Presidential Science Advisor, tried to dispel the impact of the President’s comments. On Aug. 2, The New York Times quoted a telephone interview with Marburger in which he said, “evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology” and “intelligent design is not a scientific concept.” Certainly, no one doubts where Marburger stands. One might question whether the President takes Marbuger’s scientific advice seriously, or is simply more concerned about pleasing a portion of the electorate.

Marburger also spoke with Dr. Marvin Cohen, President of the American Physical Society, and recipient of the National Medal of Science from President Bush in 2002. In an Aug. 4 release, Cohen explains that the APS is “…happy that the President’s recent comments on the theory of intelligent design have been clarified. As Presidential Science Advisor John Marburger has explained, President Bush does not regard intelligent design as science. If such things are to be taught in the public schools, they belong in a course on comparative religion, which is a particularly appropriate subject for our children given the present state of the world.” It would be better to hear this directly from the President. Likely, the intelligent design advocates will ignore Marburger’s explanation. Like the fabled little Dutch boy, Marburger, stuck his finger in the dike in hopes of saving the day.

Unlike the brave boy, Marburger did not prevent the flood of print and electronic coverage that ensued. From August 2 to the present, Google-News tracked more than 1,800 articles, commentaries, and letters to the editor on intelligent design. That’s about 120 per day since the President’s remarks.

In the days following the interview, major educational and scientific organizations issued statements that criticized the President for considering intelligent design as a viable alternative to evolution, for confusing religion with science, and for advocating that intelligent design be taught in schools.

“President Bush, in advocating that the concept of ‘intelligent design’ be taught alongside the theory of evolution, puts America’s schoolchildren at risk,” says Fred Spilhaus, Executive Director of the American Geophysical Union. “Americans will need basic understanding of science in order to participate effectively in the 21 st century world. It is essential that students on every level learn what science is and how scientific knowledge progresses.” (AGU, Aug. 2, 2005) AGU is a scientific society comprising 43,000 Earth and space scientists.

Likewise, the American Institute of Biological Sciences criticized the President: “Intelligent design is not a scientific theory and must not be taught in science classes,” said AIBS president Dr. Marvalee Wake. “If we want our students to be able to compete in the global economy, if we want to attract the next generation into the sciences, we must make sure that we are teaching them science. We simply cannot begin to introduce non-scientific concepts into the science curriculum.” (AIBS, Aug. 5, 2005) The American Institute of Biological Sciences was established as a national umbrella organization for the biological sciences in 1947 by 11 scientific societies as part of the National Academy of Sciences. An independent non-profit organization since 1954, it has grown to represent more than 80 professional societies and organizations with a combined membership exceeding 240,000 scientists and educators. (AIBS website)

Science educators are equally dismayed. “The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), the world’s largest organization of science educators, is stunned and disappointed that President Bush is endorsing the teaching of intelligent design – effectively opening the door for nonscientific ideas to be taught in the nation’s K-12 science classrooms. We stand with the nation’s leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president’s top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science. Intelligent design has no place in the science classroom, said Gerry Wheeler, NSTA Executive Director.” (NSTA, Aug. 3, 2005) NSTA has 55,000 members who teach science in elementary, middle and high schools as well as college and universities.

The American Federation of Teachers, which represents 1.3 million pre-K through 12 th grade teachers, was even harsher. “President Bush’s misinformed comments on ‘intelligent design’ signal a huge step backward for science education in the United States. The president’s endorsement of such a discredited, nonscientific view is akin to suggesting that students be taught the ‘alternative theory’ that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth. Intelligent design does not belong in the science classroom because it is not science.” (AFT, Aug. 4, 2005)

There is a problem here. Obviously, scientists and educators understand that intelligent design has no place in the classroom. Intelligent design is, simply, one of several varieties of creationism that offer religious explanations for the origin and current condition of the natural world. As such, it does not merit being taught alongside evolution as a “school of thought.” There’s significant legal precedent from US Supreme Court that creationism - in any clothing - does not belong in the American classrooms. Teaching creationism is in violation of the separation of church and state, and has been ruled illegal by the US Supreme Court in several cases. It’s unfortunate that the President apparently does not understand that science is not equivalent to a belief system but is description of how the natural world works. Creationism, including intelligent design, is a religious point of view, not science.

At a time when industrial, academic, and business leaders are calling for more American students to train in engineering, mathematics, science and technology, we need to teach science in science classrooms. Let’s teach the scientific ideas that are supported by overwhelming evidence such as gravitation, relativity, quantum mechanics, and evolution. Creationist ideas/beliefs, such as intelligent design, don’t belong in science classrooms. In our haste to leave no child behind, let’s not leave science behind either.

[Chameleon]

"SETI already know of one intelligence existing (ie us), and they are using their knowledge of us (ie that we use radio communication) to look for more intelligences in the universe."

IDers already know of one existing intelligence (ie us), and they use their knowledge of how we design things (ie that we build irreducibly complex systems) to look for more intelligence in the universe.

Both ID and SETI are on the outskirts of science. I just think its ironic that an organization like SETI, founded on the premise of seraching for extraterrestrial intelligence is attacking ID as unscientific.

[plain talk]

Of course it's absurd and is not as high a priority for the American public as terrorism, energy, taxes and Social Security. To argue otherwise is preposterous. Show me a poll that indicates it is the number 3 concern for Americans. And ... good riddance.

[Chameleon]

I don't think purpose is neccassarily indicative of design, but clearly there are countless examples of organic systems with a purpose.

[ml1954]

The conservative movement is traveling headlong into a ditch.....They're all hopped up on their new found power and so they're doing stupid things like this.

What's amazing is that the DIMs did this too for about 50 years. They got away with it because they had the news media, academia, Hollywood, and television on their side. I'm afraid we don't have this kind of firepower to help get away with doing stupid things.

[betty boop]

None of my questions have been answered either, although Betty Boop seems to have conceded that mainstream science is correct from a materialist point of view. Since that is all that science can ever attempt to do, I took it as an admission that there are no glaring errors in mainstream science, and that ID offers mostly a different philosophical perspective.

LOLOL, js1138! You are putting words in my mouth! :^)

So, are we going to try to hypothesize the complementarity of information and energy, or what?

[RadioAstronomer]

Good grief. I never thought I would see the day SETI and ID lumped together. Sigh.

[RadioAstronomer]

Thanks. :-)

However, there is a "cult" (often lumped in with the UFO groups) surrounding SETI that makes it hard to be taken seriously. :-(

[Chameleon]

They are properly lumped together because they are based on the same types of "scientific" premises.

I'm sorry if you find this offensive.

[ml1954]

"Is there any possible observation that could falsify the theory of EVOLUTION?"

A fossil record that showed that human beings co-existed with T-Rex would cause problems.

[ml1954]

Things are designed/created for a reason and a purpose.

What was the purpose of the Elephant Man.?

[malakhi]

Do you think the heart has no purpose? How about white blood cells, do they have a purpose?

They have a function. Whether or not they have a 'purpose' is a matter of philosophy or religion, not science.

[Southack]

"I'm in the eleventh day of asking ID supporters to define themselves in positive rather than negative terms. We all know that, at a minimum, ID differes from "Darwinism" by insisting that random mutations plus selection are not adequate to produce new species. That is a negative statement that does not suggest any researchable alternative. I want to know what ID supporters believe, not just what they don't believe. I want to know what they would teach as the content of science courses. Do ID advocates accept the scientific determination of the age of the earth? Do they accept the geologists explanation of the geologic column? And so forth."

Intelligent Design, as a scientific theory, incontrovertibly explains Artificial Intelligence, GM crops, genetically modified animals (e.g. laboratory pigs that produce human hormones), computer viri, and self-replicating machines.

And while remaining in the realm of science, ID and its advocates accept the best available evidence for the age of the Earth (e.g. 13 to 17 Billion years), etc.

All of the above should be taught in science classes. Likewise, the mathematics behind elemental organization (e.g. probability math) should be taught in math classes.

It should then be left up to the students themselves to decide which theories best align with our math and science.

...However, that so many Darwinists *fear* such a level playing field speaks volumes.

[ml1954]

ID is in a similar category with other "disciplines" like black studies, feminist studies, gay studies, Afro-centric studies, etc. They are utterly unproductive, and the only carrer path for a follower of these doctrines is in teaching the next generation of the gullible.

I'm inclined to include the so-called "social sciences" in this category. Or as I like to call them, the "social pseudo-sciences".

[Southack]

"Good grief. I never thought I would see the day SETI and ID lumped together. Sigh."

You've never heard of Scientology?!

[Fester Chugabrew]

A fossil record that showed that human beings co-existed with T-Rex would cause problems.

And if a living dinosaur were found today, how could that cause problems (except in Japan)? We could just assume it "evolved" like everything else.

[PatrickHenry]

One difference between SETI and ID is that SETI has defined strict parameters for what it would regard as evidence, and then it goes about a systematic search for that evidence. (ID searches for nothing.) Further, SETI makes no claims in the absence of evidence. (ID makes loads of claims, and even wants an unearned place in science class.)

[JohnnyM]

I dont know. There were some individuals who asked Jesus the same type of question concerning a man who was blind from birth. They wanted to know why he was born with such an ailment, and that it must have been because his parents sinned. Jesus replied that it was to glorify God and then Jesus proceeded to heal him. So from a purpose perspective, his blindness was to show the awesome power of God when he got healed. His story is now written for all eternity. I dont know much about the Elephant Man, so I couldn't tell you what his purpose was. You may want to ask those who he interacted with or who knew him personally.

It can be said, that his story has given hope and encouragement to many people. That his struggle was a source of inspiration. But in the end, I dont know.

JM