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.

[Doctor Stochastic]

If you are an edged tool, you should be sharp though.

[Right Wing Professor]

Of course, now you cannot be knighted as sir fd claims to be.

Someone told him he was benighted, but he misunderstood.

[Southack]

"That item x in E is contained in D does not imply that item y in C is contained in D."

That's correct, though irrelevant to the point that I was debunking (i.e. "bears no relation").

It's also worth pointing out that nothing precludes item y from being in both sets C and D.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Actually, most scientists that I know believe that the GOP is just stupid rather than anti-science. Of course, they then extrapolate that to other fields, economics, foreign policy, etc. If someone can't get simple science right, why should they be trusted to do something more complicated?

[johnnyb_61820]

"If something can be explained without the necessity of a designer, why is ID a better explanation?"

Two questions to yours: (1) If there was a leaf on the floor, and both my wife went in the house and there was a windgust, and the leaf wound up in the trash can, would design or naturalism be the better explanation to the leaf being in the trash can? (2) Why do you think that they even think that they would propose a designer if it could be explained without one? While (because of #1 above) I personally would not necessarily choose naturalism over design simply because the naturalistic explanation is possible, many ID people definitely would, and are in ID precisely because they do no think that any naturalistic explanations do (in some cases) or could (in other cases) hold water.

[b_sharp]

"It must have happened already. Otherwise you would not have deleted your post.

Ouch. That was definitely below the belt.

[Southack]

"What is the operational test for "kindness"? Responding to a creationist..."

Question 1: are ad hominems flowing only from Darwinists?

Question 2: Can Darwinists debate without injecting personal attacks?

[plain talk]

Actually I agree with some of what you said about how close Kerry came etc.

But it has nothing to do with the original point I responded to which is that it is absurd to think ID/Creationism is the 3rd most important issue for the American people. Are you saying that it is? If so, where is the poll data to support such a contention?

[b_sharp]

Draw him a Venn diagram.

[Chameleon]

"You still gave no answer to the question."

That's because it's the wrong question.

Whether a duck or a rock has a purpose has no relation to whether organic systems have a purpose (or function if you're using a broader definition of purpose.)

[Doctor Stochastic]

Asking you people for your definitions isn't ad homimem. If you cannot answer simple questions about the concepts you use, you run the risk of being misunderstood at best.

What is your definition of "kind"?
What is your operational test for "kindness"?

[RadioAstronomer]

Of course, now you cannot be knighted

And I was so looking forward to that!

[Dimensio]

Odds are that you could have stopped with, Well now, this is a new one. I had no idea God created species, and made an accurate representation of your belief system.

But then he wouldn't have fully exposed the total lack of applicability of your failed analogy. I guess you would have preferred that, though.

[Southack]

"Asking you people for your definitions isn't ad homimem."

I agree. I trust that I didn't suggest any such thing.

[malakhi]

Evolutionists see observed changes happen within a species, then they assume it is the process by which new species emerge. But this assumed event has not been observed and cannot be tested, since evos claim this event happens over millions of years.

Well, that's why science is about evidence and theories, rather than 'proof'. The best science can do is come up with the best explanation for the available evidence.

I agree that this, from my limited knowledge, is not falsifiable

And I have no problem with ID, provided that it is presented as a philosophical or religious concept, and not as science.

[Chameleon]

"Ah yes, a gap in the fossil record. When a transitional form is found between the two there will then be TWO gaps. Aha! Creationism always wins!"

No. Creationism doesn't win, but gradualism loses.

The stasis in the fossil record of hominids, combined with the lack of transitional fossils suggests unambiguously that gradualism is not the answer to how hominids have evolved.

People who cannot accept are arguing from faith in gradualism - not from any logic or evidence.

[ml1954]

"Either an ID did or did not create mankind. If an ID did not then the ID "theory" is wrong."

No, ID is the correct theory for explaining all transgenic animals (e.g. laboratory pigs gene-spliced to produce human hormones), regardless of the origin of man.

We've already been through that. The ID known as mankind created "laboratory pigs gene-spliced to produce human hormones".

If ID "theory" doesn't claim that an ID created mankind, then ID "theory" simply states that ID'ers (of which mankind is one) can create different living things, but may or may not have created mankind. This makes ID "theory", as you state it, a tautology, and useless.

[Dimensio]

Purpose. Things are designed/created for a reason and a purpose, just as a watch is created with a reason and a purpose. This is very elementary and could be considered vague, but there ya go.

And how do you discern deliberate purpose rather than something that appeared and stuck around because its presence was advantageous?

Yes! A new kind of animal emerging/evolving from an existing kind. i.e. An Ape gives birth to a human or something clearly not an Ape.

How, exactly, would such an absurd occurence falsify ID? What in ID theory states that this is impossible, and why does ID state that it is impossible?

[b_sharp]

"Lacking any priors, the odds of something being 'designed' by a designer you would recognize as such is approximately zero." [underline mine]

"I disagree. I fully recognize the designer of all transgenic animals. So do you.

I think you missed an essential part of tortoise's statement. [see underlined portion]

[Dimensio]

Now, I admit, I cannot properly articulate the qualities of design that would stand out in observing phenomena or structure, but when I see the pyramids, I see design, structure, and purpose. And when I see DNA, I see design, structure, and purpose.

Until you can quantify the qualities in DNA from which you derive purpose, you're not making a valid argument. You're simply arguing from unsupported opinion.