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.

[trebb]

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.

My post was every bit as applicable as the first one that speculated that it would be odd for an intelligent designer to design life where today about 90% of the species are extinct (of course Man is still walking). Then, the guy I replied to made a flippant stab at my religious beliefs. Why, if "scientific" minds get so upset about being disagreed with, would you expect someone who believes God made us to not bristle at attacks on God? Christians have a job outlined in the Bible and that's to carry the Gosple to as many folks as possible, ergo, we tend to ruffle some feathers by disagreeing with those who would treat the Bible like the Constitution and believe the parts they like and trash the parts they don't like. I'm not always good at it, but I try not to be too insulting, but an occassional riposte of what appears to be some truth is not beyond me.

God Bless.

[JohnnyM]

DNA is a medium to carry information. This idea necessitates that there is an intelligence to encode the data and an intelligence to decode it. That speaks of design.

JM

[tortoise]

Transgenic animals have been on Earth for the past two decades. Please explain how that constitutes a dearth of priors or a willful ignorance of null priors.

Priors for human-designed transgenic species are NOT priors for the design of humans. Give me a single example of design of a mammal from the molecular level all the way up for which we have a causal prior. As far as I know, we've never seen any entity do this type of design.

We cannot prove design even in the case of transgenic animals where humans are rationally believed to be involved. The situation is much worse for random patterns in nature where no entity claims design credit.

[Dimensio]

Meanwhile, another post wherein a creationist says "Stuff it homo" is still up.

[Southack]

"Your Honor, I'd like it noted in the record that this witness is uncooperative and hostile. The witness is dismissed."

One shouldn't cooperate with a lack of facts or evidence.

On the other hand, dismissing tangible evidence should be a sin.

ID explains all transgenic animals. Evolutionary Theory does not.

You've disputed none of the above facts, yet you are somehow baffled that your argument hasn't been persuasive.

What are the facts? Well, one such fact is that laboratory pigs that have been gene-spliced to produce hormones for commercial use...were and are created by Man. Another fact is that Man has some level of intelligence. Those facts mean that Intelligence created new life forms, which is what ID theory states and predicts.

Somehow you disagree with ID, yet you can't dispute the facts behind it. That leaves your argument lacking.

Attack the premise. Attack the facts (if you can).

This is precisely what should be taught and debated in school, rather than letting luddite Darwinists ban this dialog from all public classrooms.

[JohnnyM]

"As far as I know, we've never seen any entity do this type of design. "

We've never seen nature do it either, yet you are an avid supporter of evolution.

JM

[tortoise]

It might be possible for instance, that intelligent design of some sort is the only possible explanation for some life forms.

This is false in all cases, as a straight-forward consequence of the Invariance Theorem in mathematics. There are an infinite number of possible origins for all patterns, just how miniscule a subset constitutes 'intelligent design' varies depending on how the currently undefined 'intelligent design' is actually defined. Even establishing priors does not shrink the possibility space.

There cannot be a case where 'intelligent design' is the only possibility unless existence = intelligent design.

[dread78645]

On behalf of the Grand Master, I am,

Not in a box.
Not with a fox.
Not in a house.
Not with a mouse.
I do not like green eggs and ham.
I do not like them, Patrick-I-am.

[Southack]

"Give me a single example of design of a mammal from the molecular level all the way up for which we have a causal prior. As far as I know, we've never seen any entity do this type of design."

Wouldn't you get upset if I asked you to show fossils for every instance of speciation?!

On the other hand, if you just want an example of laboratory abiogensis, then I would refer you to Steen Rasmussen's current Los Alamos experiments.

[Southack]

"We cannot prove design even in the case of transgenic animals where humans are rationally believed to be involved."

Utter nonsense.

[Right Wing Professor]

Indeed. ID is a "theory" when it is used to extrapolate from known facts. Likewise, ID itself is a scientific fact when it is used to correctly explain all transgenic life forms (among other such things).

A rail is a metal object that trains run on. And a rail is also a bird. So we should teach people in biology class that the rails we find skulking around reed beds aren't hatched from eggs, they're made in metal foundries.

[PatrickHenry]

There cannot be a case where 'intelligent design' is the only possibility unless existence = intelligent design.

Ah. Someone gets it.

[ml1954]

you are somehow baffled that your argument hasn't been persuasive.

I am not baffled at all.

[Southack]

"This is false in all cases, as a straight-forward consequence of the Invariance Theorem in mathematics. There are an infinite number of possible origins for all patterns, just how miniscule a subset constitutes 'intelligent design' varies depending on how the currently undefined 'intelligent design' is actually defined."

No, it is not false in all cases. Oh, it would be if you could plug Infinite Time in the Invariance Theorem, but our universe hasn't been around infinitely long.

13 Billion years to 17 Billions years is not infinite time. Without infinite time, the possible explanations for some things may ABSOLUTELY be limited to intelligent designer(s).

To wit: gene-splice laboratory pigs that produce hormones for commercial sale.

[Dimensio]

Question 1: are ad hominems flowing only from Darwinists?

You tell me.

[Southack]

"There cannot be a case where 'intelligent design' is the only possibility unless existence = intelligent design."

Incorrect. I can easily show that all transgenic lab animals have been created by an intelligent designer (e.g. Man) in the last 20 years.

ID is the **ONLY** possibility for those cases.

[Fester Chugabrew]

What do you make of that thing?

[tortoise]

We've never seen nature do it either, yet you are an avid supporter of evolution.

Evolutionary mechanisms asserts no null priors, even if it is highly improbable as the actual mechanism. An entity that is capable of such design is a null prior. A belief in the latter cannot be rational, a belief in the former is rational even if incorrect. There are more hypotheses (including other 'materialistic ones') beyond Darwinian evolution and ID; the fact that so many people think it is a dichotomy betrays a pretty fundamental ignorance of the topic.

You assume that I am an avid supporter of evolution, but really I am just an avid detractor of ID on the basis that it displays some pretty egregious failures of mathematical understanding. Evolution is well-described in general systems theory in mathematics, so at least it is plausible in the theoretical abstract. ID makes assertions that directly contradict basic theorems of mathematics (basic to a mathematician at least), and so is immediately discardable as a working hypothesis unless one is willing to discard mathematics as well.

[Southack]

"A rail is a metal object that trains run on. And a rail is also a bird. So we should teach people in biology class that the rails we find skulking around reed beds aren't hatched from eggs, they're made in metal foundries."

Sillyness should not be taught in science classes.

On the other hand, teaching students that ID is factually responsible for all transgenic life forms is spot on.

[Chameleon]

Are people here seriously arguing that genetic engineering is not a form of intelligent design?