Posted on 08/18/2005 7:39:37 AM PDT by 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 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.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)
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.
I can forsee your argument that there haven't really been any big changes in these cases, but the changes have been big enough. The changes that result in speciation result in two genetically independent populations of organisms which can diverge even further now that there's no intermingling of genes between the two. I'm sure you are looking for observations of "a monkey giving birth to a human," but if that is what you think evolution predicts, you need to refine your understanding of evolution. Evolution predicts only small changes from one generation to the next, but that these small changes can accumulate to produce large ones.
The difference between ID and SETI is that, in the case of SETI, we have an irrefutable example of intelligent life from which to form the suspicion of there being other examples. (Indeed, given that example, the cosmological principle demands ETI as an expectation, but we scientists are more cautious.) SETI is well motivated, from a scientific perspective.
By contrast, we have NO irrefutable examples of a divine intelligence. The motivation for ID is strictly a refusal to deliberate: because some find the current hypothesis unsatisfactory, they declare it to be magic. ID is poorly motivated from a scientific perspective.
Irreducible complexity has been debunked as an argument for ID. Behe was the originator of this idea, and he pointed to the bacterial flagellum as an example of irreducible complexity. IC refers to the notion that all the parts of a particular mechanism are needed for that mechanism to function according to its intended purpose. However this assumes that there is one and only one intended purpose for a given mechanism. Essentially the IC argument is a circular one, namely that organisms must be designed because the systems they contained that are designed for various purposes could not have performed that function without ALL the parts. This presupposes design of these systems in the first place, the very thing ID'ers are trying to demonstrate. In an evolved system, it is very common for parts of a system to evolve and perform unrelated functions and then be coopted after all the parts are in place to form a functioning system.
Even granting for the sake of argument that it's not possible for an species to evolve subsystems for unrelated functions and then coopt these subsystems to form a functioning IC system, there's another problem with the whole IC argument. Suppose an organism possesses a part A, which performs a given function in a rudimentary way. A new part B then evolves which, when combined with A, produces a system that performs the function better than A alone. Now suppose that parts C, D, and E evolve, each of which improves the functionality of the system. Now we have organisms with the system ABCDE to perform a function, but suppose that the systems BCDE and CDE can perform the function equally as well as ABCDE. We now have a situation where A, AB, ABC, ABCD, ABCDE, BCDE and CDE are the only systems that can perform a given function. No other combination of parts results in a functioning system. Evolution may very well lead to a LOSS of parts as well as a gain of parts, so it's not unreasonable to assume that the next evolutionary step might be the formation of system BCDE, followed by the formation of CDE. However, note that if you remove any part from the system CDE, you no longer have a functional system. Therefore CDE is an irreducibly complex system, and that system has been formed by a stepwise evolutionary process. This was exactly what Behe declared impossible, and hence Behe's argument is debunked.
There are no scientific tests proving ANY theory, so how is evolution any different from the rest of science?
A good example of parts being adapted for other purposes is the bones of the middle ear. Because bones are the body part most likely to be preserved, we have a pretty good sequence for the evolution of the ear.
Hearts, on the other hand, are not preserved as fossils, so creationists are free to argue that multichambered hearts were poofed into existence.
True.
"But saying that it is just "manipulation" and not "design" is kind of like calling a programmer who assembles others' code objects into new programs a "software manipulator".
Not really. A closer analogy would be to take an existing program of unknown origin, and use a disk editor to view each line of code in hexadecimal. As you view each word size group of hexadecimal numbers, manually convert them into assembler looking for whatever LOOP instruction controls registration or password input. Once the LOOP (or whichever loop instruction is used) instruction is found, change it to a JCXZ instruction. Or the entire loop can be removed, or another loop inserted. Since all that was done to the program was a crack, the program was not developed, just manipulated.
Remember to use an accurate analogy in an argument by analogy.
However, purpose may very well be in the eye of the beholder. You may see purpose in DNA, but another person may not see purpose in DNA. Further note, even if DNA is designed, it may very well also be designed to evolve, so it is possible for both ID and evolution to be true. However, evolution is scientific and ID is not because evolution is testable via OBJECTIVE evidence, and ID has only subjective impressions such as the impression of purpose in its support.
I can't agree with your conclusions here.
To the extent that ID is looking for "divine" intelligence, I'd agree.
But this is a misrepresentation of the "scientific" basis for ID which does not infer anything about the intelligence, but only seeks to demonstrate that it exists.
We have an irrefutable example of intelligent life...But I don't think it therefore follows that searching for other signs of intelligence beyond our planet is well-justified, but searching for it within our planet is not.
Certainly ID can be poorly motivated by those who assert it demonstrative of the divine - just as SETI could be poorly motivated by the Scientologist who uses it to look for Xenu.
But rrom an agnostic perspective, I don't really see the difference.
A premise by its very nature does not allow for an exception. It stands alone and disqualifies any propositions contrary to itself. If I name an exception, you will say it falls outside the premise.
Whether or not evolution occurred is a scientific question. There exists empirical evidence in favor of the notion that evolution did in fact occur. Whether it occurred by mutation and natural selection is also a scientific question. Such a hypothesis allows predictions to be made and tested. However, whether this is ultimately a random process or a guided one is NOT a scientific question, but rather a philosophical one.
If we stick to teaching what the theory of evolution ACTUALLY STATES, then there's no problem with bringing in this philosophical issue. The theory of evolution proposes that the variation over time of allele frequencies in organism populations accounts for the diversity of life. The main proposed mechanism is natural selection of variants.
Note that the word "random" appears nowhere in this statement. Evolution is not dependent on randomness in any way. Even if God himself determined which mutations occurred, so long as some of them reproduced more successfully than others and passed their mutations on to the next generation, the theory of evolution remains valid.
Science does assume that the mutations have natural explanations, but that's because that's how science works. Science cannot function if there is no natural explanation for a phenomenon. Therefore, if for the sake of argument, all mutations are guided by the hand of God, science will never determine this, because science cannot deal with any phenomenon that cannot be tested by observation of the natural world.
Actually the more I think about the difference between ID and SETI, I find myself changing my mind about whether SETI is scientific. It is possible, at least in principle, to falsify the hypothesis that a particular signal has an intelligent origin. Identify the location at which the signal originates and send a spaceship to that location (remember, I did say "in principle") to see if there is an intelligent civilization living there. Such a possibility doesn't exist for ID. We cannot just go somewhere to see if there's a designer, especially if that designer happens to be an omnipotent supreme being as most ID proponents would if they were honest about it.
Yes, I'd agree that things that appear irreudcibly complex are explainable through evolution. In fact, I don't think even Behe said this was "impossible".
But still, the IDers offer specific examples which are not so easily dismissed - and certainly aren't easily dismissed by a typical student's casual understanding of evolution.
I keep brining up the heart example, because while the ABCDE -> CDE example is true, it's hard to see how it applies to a 3 chamber heart with backflow piping.
It's hard to imagine what possible benefit the piping could have absent the 3rd chamber. And it's hard to imagine what possible benefit the chamber could have absent the piping.
So while it can be shown that apparently IC systems can evolve incrementally, it gets very challenging to make coherent explainations when you get to some specfic systems the IDers point to.
I dunno, Stremba...
You're assuming that the source of the signal could be located and studied. Some IDers might similarly argue that with more technology and better understanding, the source of apparent intelligence might be locatable and studiable.
From an agnostic perspective, intelligence from space is just as likely to be "divine" and unidentifiable as intelligence within earth structures.
You speak as a committed conservative. However, the political reality is that committed conservatives and committed liberals are in the minority. There is a large mass of voters that simply reacts to the issues that the MSM dredges up. Sometimes the MSM overplays issues and conservatives benefit. However, on this one the MSM will rightly be able to portray conservatives as anti-science, whereas, whether you agree with them or not, most of the American public is very pro-science. This will harm conservatives and lead to disastrous electoral results. (BTW, the "global warming/evolution/atheist crowd" does not exist. There is a legitimate scientific debate about global warming, not necessarily about whether it occurs, but rather about what the significance of human CO2 emissions is compared to natural processes and about the potential effect of warming. There also, even though you may not call them such, Christians who are evolution supporters, as well as non-Christian theists, so evolution and atheism are not identical.)
There will be no argument against IC as a falsifying test of evolution. Darwin himself came up with IC (although he didn't call it that) as a means to falsify his own theory, which is why it is such a big part of the anti-evolution propaganda. What has been addressed, and falsified by numerous biologists, is each and every claimed example of IC that has been suggested and published in the popular media so far by the IDers, although I have yet to see the chambers of the heart dealt with. Each time a putative IC feature has been debunked, the IDers come up with a new one.
"Nobody has even tried to explain how, under traditional evolution, a two chamber heart could evolve into a three chamber heart with reverse flow.
I suspect that if brought to the attention of biologists it would be dealt with rather quickly.
"It seems like there's a lot of chest beating going on from people who are ignorant of ID, and not nearly as informed about evolution as they imagine."
Could you give an example of one portion of evolution of which evos seem to be uninformed?
In principle (ie. given unlimited ability to travel vast distances in space) locating a radio signal presents no problem. However, by looking at living systems, how would you go about similarly locating an intelligent designer?
IOW, ID'ers typically have been going about trying to argue that ID is science bass ackwards. An idea doesn't become scientific by showing that there's evidence for it, no matter how much evidence there is for it. In fact, if EVERYTHING supports and idea, then it cannot be scientific. It becomes scientific by showing that there's a way to prove that it's NOT true, that there's some observation that is evidence against the idea, and then showing that in reality this observation does not occur.
My example WRT to SETI is just such a thing. The hypothesis that a signal has an intelligent source can be proved false by locating the source of the signal and finding that there's no intelligent civilization at that location. What potential observation would falsify ID? If there are limitations on what the designer could or would do, then it would be possible to propose falsification criteria. However, the nature and capabilities of the designer are precisely what ID'ers are very careful NOT to tell anyone, mostly because ID is mostly a front for teaching creationism in schools, and not a real scientific research paradigm.
Codswallop. ID not only demands that such a thing exist, but ascribes to it a highly specific series of exquisitely complex actions. (Evolution, by contrast, proceeds by simple and non-specific steps.) Remember: the purpose of ID is to explain life. It would be disingenuous to entertain the notion that the designer exists, but contented himself with designing the galaxies, stars and planets, while life arose and developed quite by accident and without interference.
Moreover, that intelligence must be extremely high compared to human intelligence, in order to manage the complexity. This is what I mean by divine. When you see the big numbers thrown around by creationists--oh, sorry, IDers--to "debunk" evolution, those are the numbers this intelligence must manage. Divine by any standard. It would be disingenuous to claim that any cosmic imbecile or alien lab technician would do.
Is it not possible to lobby for extended mutations? What happens in a static population that contains two groups that absolutely hate each other and want to separate? If there are enough votes for the separation, can they not be submitted to the Intelligent Designertm for consideration of an extension?
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.