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.

[KMJames]

There is nothing to say they won't continue to drift apart

They, no doubt, retain genes that are in common. These genes will determine just how far they can drift from other populations.

Without interbreeding between the two populations there is nothing holding them together.

OK - so they become seemingly different - but, we know they retain genes that are in common. So they remain related, though diverse and possibly estranged.

[js1138]

Quite the contrary, actually (e.g. DNA code-skipping entire species).

You keep bring this up, but you never produce the data.

[js1138]

When populations stop interbreeding the changes stop.

Change never stops.

[narby]

GM lab animals are intelligently designed.

So are Honda engines, but the term is deliberately misleading in the discussion of how species originated.

Genetic engineering is not propaganda.

But the deliberate mislabeling of Genetic Engineering is.

[b_sharp]

You are mistaking your belief that it is not easily explained for the absolute inability for it to be easily explained.

The fact that nobody on this forum can reasonably exaplain how the 3 chamber heart could evolve through mutation, trait inheritance and natural selection seems to verify that it is not easily explained. If it were easily explainable, there would be no need to consult specialists who may or may not have a good answer to this challenge.

Where the heck did this logic come from? Why does its difficulty level and its popularity make it unlikely to be correct?

"To those of us who cannot explain it (i.e. everyone on this forum so far), the IDers have advanced a challenge to our understanding of evolution for which we have no coherent answers.

"The answer we have so far - "I cannot come up with any logical reason for how this could be possible via evolution" is certainly not compelling.

I had simply not heard of it before. Now that I have and have consulted a biologist, I would like to know where that claim came from. Supply a link to the fact fish have two compartments, amphibians have 3 compartments and the flow is reversed (whatever that means).

It is unreasonable to require that every possible threat to gradualism be known to every proponent of evolution.

"Yea. But the fact is that nobody in this forum can logically explain how it is even possible under evolution for a fish to evolve into an amphibian. Evolution works great to explain how fish could crawl out of the sea, breath air, etc. But it appears to run into a major stumbling block with regards to the 3 chambered heart.

Just because there is a difficulty it needs to be thrown aside?

"Is it possible explain the development of the 3 chambered heart using evolution?

First show that the question is valid.

"Apparently none of us know, but some just take it as a matter of faith that somebody somewhere has a good answer.

Here is a quote from a biologist.

What reversal of flow? To get a 3-chambered heart from a 2-chambered one all you need to do is add a new chamber, either by dividing one of the previous chambers or enlarging a portion of either the aorta or vena cava, whichever you like.

Fish hearts are generally considered to have 4 chambers, by the way, though not the same four that our hearts have. Look up, for example, bulbus arteriosus.

John Harshman

bulbus arteriosus

[KMJames]

Change never stops.

OK - I'm stumped. How do changes occur among populations that are not producing offspring? ...Except perhaps a change to extinction?

[narby]

Correctly labeling facts is by design

Intelligent Design is not the "correct" label for Genetic Engineering.

To argue otherwise is to claim that genetic engineering isn't intelligent design...a Quixotic and doomed quest should you attempt it.

Keep on with the mislabels. Any open minded lurker understands completely what you're doing. And if they miss it, I will continue to bring your mislabeling to their attention to make sure everyone notices.

It may be a "doomed quest", but only because of your stubbornness on the subject, which will also be apparent to lurkers.

An ID theory that requires such transparent misleading statements to support it is obviously very weak, irregardless of any other argument.

Keep it up.

[Chameleon]

Why does its difficulty level and its popularity make it unlikely to be correct?

You are confusing "correct" with "easily explained". I am not asserting anything about what is "correct", only that our inability to explain something is demonstrative that is is not "easily explained." It may be correct and explainable, but that does not make it "easily explained."

Just because there is a difficulty it needs to be thrown aside?

I'm not sure how you pretend that I suggested throwing anything aside?

First show that the question is valid.

Here is Wikipedia:

"The double circulatory system of blood flow refers to the separate systems of pulmonary circulation and the systemic circulation in amphibians, birds and mammals (including humans.) In contrast, fishes have a single circulation system."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_circulatory_system

[js1138]

OK - I'm stumped. How do changes occur among populations that are not producing offspring? ...Except perhaps a change to extinction?

Are you confusing interbreeding with breeding?

[Chameleon]

FWIW, here is another link which graphically shows the different hearts:

http://www.peteducation.com/article.cfm?cls=17&cat=1797&articleid=2951

[Chameleon]

Here's more:

http://www.peteducation.com/article.cfm?cls=17&cat=1797&articleid=2951

[KMJames]

By Jove, I have been using "interbreeding" when referring to breeding across populations. Perhaps I should have just used "breeding across populations"...my apologies for any confusion due to this word choice.

[js1138]

I don't really understand your "correction".

The point of looking at ring species is to see how geographical isolation can produce species. If you have full isolation, the populations will drift arpart to the point where they can no longer interbreed.

There are many mechanisms for isolation, some of them behavioral. The point of the ring species example is to demonstrate that there does not have to be any sudden emergence of mutated individuals. The changes accumulate in the population as a whole.

The speed of change is obviously not constant for different cases. The dog family shows a remarkable elasticity of form. Dog breeds have difference of form that are greater than the differences between most species, even between species separated by interbreeding sterility.

Obviously you can't infer much about the "information content" of change from fossilized bones. Tiny changes in DNA can produce remarkable changes in form. Single point mutations can alter the number of legs and wings in insects.

[Southack]

"You are assuming that the wing was originally used for flight and that the half wing had no use. Functions change as do features. This is evidenced by the number of fish which have had the function of their pectoral fin changed with a resulting change in morphology." - bsharp

No, I'm stating that there are instances in which matter in a prior state would be useless in a half-wing new state, and that to gain function a full wing and a motor were required in those instances.

This is not to say that there are no other, different instances. But is does point out a visual example of Irreducible Complexity that should be easier for most to grasp than my earlier abiogenesis example.

To get a functional aircraft in some instances, a full wing or two half-wings and a motor had to be added. That's IC in some instances because without all 3 things added in, the aircraft would be non-functional in some (perhaps not all) instances.

---

"It is a mistake to too closely view biology and machines as analogs." - bsharp

Why?

[Southack]

Abiogeneis is a clear example of Irreducible Complexity because we know that the first life had to do at least three simultaneous (in terms of history) things in order to be viable: animate from inanimate matter, eat, and replicate. - southack

"How do we know this? Because the simplest forms of life currently need to do these three? What is is not necessarily what was. I suggest you take a look at the following link: Talk Origins" - bsharp

Your link agrees with me about IC for abiogenesis. Here is what your link said: "The first "living things" could have been a single self replicating molecule, similar to the "self-replicating" peptide from the Ghadiri group [7, 17], or the self replicating hexanucleotide [10], or possibly an RNA polymerase that acts on itself [12]."

Animate from inanimate matter; we call that abiogenesis "first life." Note that your link specifically talks about the "first living thing." Eat. Without it an organism isn't alive. Replicate. Note that your link specifically mentions replication for first life.

That's irreducible complexity. You've got to have all three things appear for the first life to animate, survive, and be replicated.

So congrats. You managed to post a link that agreed with me and refuted your own whines to the contrary. Nice job.

[Southack]

"Stringing together terms from differnet fields doesn't make a point. The only possible similarity I can see between genes and subroutines is that subroutines are "part" of a program, and genes are "part" of a genome. But I can see far more differences. Are genes composed of sequential instructions? no."

Oh brother. Just for the record, since you state above that genes don't have sequential instructions, would you please state for the record in your very next post that you specifically hold that DNA transcription has no direction?!

...sheesh...

[Southack]

"Southack, I asked you twice last night to confirm or deny that you are trying to use the trivial case of human design as evidence for non-human intelligent design as an explanation for the origin of species. Care to respond yet?"

I reject your premise, phrasing, and framing.

Intelligent Design is responsible for creating numerous transgenic laboratory life forms in numerous species.

No other theory explains the origin of those life forms.

You seek to differentiate between human intelligence and non-human intelligence. I dispute that it matters in this debate what human or non-human intelligence is responsible for the origin of a new species.

What is important to this debate is that some form of external bias (e.g. intelligent intervention) is responsible or not for the origin of certain life forms.

[Southack]

Quite the contrary, actually (e.g. DNA code-skipping entire species).

"You keep bring this up, but you never produce the data." - js1138

I generally don't bring it up (it was probably in parenthesis as a **supplimental example** for a completely different point even where you found my above reference this time) because such evidence invariably fails to pierce the tiny intellectual blinders worn by so many age-old Darwinists.

In general Darwinists first deny that DNA code skipping between species exists, and then when shown examples of it existing those some Evolutionists raise the bar and suddenly declare that DNA code-skipping can be explained by convergent evolution, or by viri, or by gene loss in some species but not in others.

Which is to say, there is no satisfying your crowd, evidence or no.

Nonetheless, I'll give you an easy link to a physical example of DNA code skipping species so that you and your peers can engage in senseless red herring tangents and juvenile straw men attacks on this physical evidence (perhaps such antics are more tasteful to your crowd than limiting this debate to the current area for this thread where you are getting crushed so far).

Pay careful attention to what the link says about coral, then worms, then humans.

DNA Code-Skipping Example

[Southack]

GM lab animals are intelligently designed.

"So are Honda engines, but the term is deliberately misleading in the discussion of how species originated."

On the contrary, there is nothing misleading about factually stating that intelligent design is responsible for creating numerous transgenic lab animals over the past 20 years.

In fact, no other explanation will suffice to explain the origins of those life forms.

[Southack]

"Intelligent Design is not the "correct" label for Genetic Engineering."

Please state for the record that you specifically hold that genetic engineering is NOT intelligent design.