One side can be wrong: 'Intelligent design' in classrooms would have disastrous consequences

It sounds so reasonable, doesn't it? Such a modest proposal. Why not teach "both sides" and let the children decide for themselves? As President Bush said, "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes." At first hearing, everything about the phrase "both sides" warms the hearts of educators like ourselves.

One of us spent years as an Oxford tutor and it was his habit to choose controversial topics for the students' weekly essays. They were required to go to the library, read about both sides of an argument, give a fair account of both, and then come to a balanced judgment in their essay. The call for balance, by the way, was always tempered by the maxim, "When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly half way between. It is possible for one side simply to be wrong."

As teachers, both of us have found that asking our students to analyse controversies is of enormous value to their education. What is wrong, then, with teaching both sides of the alleged controversy between evolution and creationism or "intelligent design" (ID)? And, by the way, don't be fooled by the disingenuous euphemism. There is nothing new about ID. It is simply creationism camouflaged with a new name to slip (with some success, thanks to loads of tax-free money and slick public-relations professionals) under the radar of the US Constitution's mandate for separation between church and state.

Why, then, would two lifelong educators and passionate advocates of the "both sides" style of teaching join with essentially all biologists in making an exception of the alleged controversy between creation and evolution? What is wrong with the apparently sweet reasonableness of "it is only fair to teach both sides"? The answer is simple. This is not a scientific controversy at all. And it is a time-wasting distraction because evolutionary science, perhaps more than any other major science, is bountifully endowed with genuine controversy.

Among the controversies that students of evolution commonly face, these are genuinely challenging and of great educational value: neutralism versus selectionism in molecular evolution; adaptationism; group selection; punctuated equilibrium; cladism; "evo-devo"; the "Cambrian Explosion"; mass extinctions; interspecies competition; sympatric speciation; sexual selection; the evolution of sex itself; evolutionary psychology; Darwinian medicine and so on. The point is that all these controversies, and many more, provide fodder for fascinating and lively argument, not just in essays but for student discussions late at night.

Intelligent design is not an argument of the same character as these controversies. It is not a scientific argument at all, but a religious one. It might be worth discussing in a class on the history of ideas, in a philosophy class on popular logical fallacies, or in a comparative religion class on origin myths from around the world. But it no more belongs in a biology class than alchemy belongs in a chemistry class, phlogiston in a physics class or the stork theory in a sex education class. In those cases, the demand for equal time for "both theories" would be ludicrous. Similarly, in a class on 20th-century European history, who would demand equal time for the theory that the Holocaust never happened?

So, why are we so sure that intelligent design is not a real scientific theory, worthy of "both sides" treatment? Isn't that just our personal opinion? It is an opinion shared by the vast majority of professional biologists, but of course science does not proceed by majority vote among scientists. Why isn't creationism (or its incarnation as intelligent design) just another scientific controversy, as worthy of scientific debate as the dozen essay topics we listed above? Here's why.

If ID really were a scientific theory, positive evidence for it, gathered through research, would fill peer-reviewed scientific journals. This doesn't happen. It isn't that editors refuse to publish ID research. There simply isn't any ID research to publish. Its advocates bypass normal scientific due process by appealing directly to the non-scientific public and - with great shrewdness - to the government officials they elect.

The argument the ID advocates put, such as it is, is always of the same character. Never do they offer positive evidence in favour of intelligent design. All we ever get is a list of alleged deficiencies in evolution. We are told of "gaps" in the fossil record. Or organs are stated, by fiat and without supporting evidence, to be "irreducibly complex": too complex to have evolved by natural selection.

In all cases there is a hidden (actually they scarcely even bother to hide it) "default" assumption that if Theory A has some difficulty in explaining Phenomenon X, we must automatically prefer Theory B without even asking whether Theory B (creationism in this case) is any better at explaining it. Note how unbalanced this is, and how it gives the lie to the apparent reasonableness of "let's teach both sides". One side is required to produce evidence, every step of the way. The other side is never required to produce one iota of evidence, but is deemed to have won automatically, the moment the first side encounters a difficulty - the sort of difficulty that all sciences encounter every day, and go to work to solve, with relish.

What, after all, is a gap in the fossil record? It is simply the absence of a fossil which would otherwise have documented a particular evolutionary transition. The gap means that we lack a complete cinematic record of every step in the evolutionary process. But how incredibly presumptuous to demand a complete record, given that only a minuscule proportion of deaths result in a fossil anyway.

The equivalent evidential demand of creationism would be a complete cinematic record of God's behaviour on the day that he went to work on, say, the mammalian ear bones or the bacterial flagellum - the small, hair-like organ that propels mobile bacteria. Not even the most ardent advocate of intelligent design claims that any such divine videotape will ever become available.

Biologists, on the other hand, can confidently claim the equivalent "cinematic" sequence of fossils for a very large number of evolutionary transitions. Not all, but very many, including our own descent from the bipedal ape Australopithecus. And - far more telling - not a single authentic fossil has ever been found in the "wrong" place in the evolutionary sequence. Such an anachronistic fossil, if one were ever unearthed, would blow evolution out of the water.

As the great biologist J B S Haldane growled, when asked what might disprove evolution: "Fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian." Evolution, like all good theories, makes itself vulnerable to disproof. Needless to say, it has always come through with flying colours.

Similarly, the claim that something - say the bacterial flagellum - is too complex to have evolved by natural selection is alleged, by a lamentably common but false syllogism, to support the "rival" intelligent design theory by default. This kind of default reasoning leaves completely open the possibility that, if the bacterial flagellum is too complex to have evolved, it might also be too complex to have been created. And indeed, a moment's thought shows that any God capable of creating a bacterial flagellum (to say nothing of a universe) would have to be a far more complex, and therefore statistically improbable, entity than the bacterial flagellum (or universe) itself - even more in need of an explanation than the object he is alleged to have created.

If complex organisms demand an explanation, so does a complex designer. And it's no solution to raise the theologian's plea that God (or the Intelligent Designer) is simply immune to the normal demands of scientific explanation. To do so would be to shoot yourself in the foot. You cannot have it both ways. Either ID belongs in the science classroom, in which case it must submit to the discipline required of a scientific hypothesis. Or it does not, in which case get it out of the science classroom and send it back into the church, where it belongs.

In fact, the bacterial flagellum is certainly not too complex to have evolved, nor is any other living structure that has ever been carefully studied. Biologists have located plausible series of intermediates, using ingredients to be found elsewhere in living systems. But even if some particular case were found for which biologists could offer no ready explanation, the important point is that the "default" logic of the creationists remains thoroughly rotten.

There is no evidence in favour of intelligent design: only alleged gaps in the completeness of the evolutionary account, coupled with the "default" fallacy we have identified. And, while it is inevitably true that there are incompletenesses in evolutionary science, the positive evidence for the fact of evolution is truly massive, made up of hundreds of thousands of mutually corroborating observations. These come from areas such as geology, paleontology, comparative anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, ethology, biogeography, embryology and - increasingly nowadays - molecular genetics.

The weight of the evidence has become so heavy that opposition to the fact of evolution is laughable to all who are acquainted with even a fraction of the published data. Evolution is a fact: as much a fact as plate tectonics or the heliocentric solar system.

Why, finally, does it matter whether these issues are discussed in science classes? There is a case for saying that it doesn't - that biologists shouldn't get so hot under the collar. Perhaps we should just accept the popular demand that we teach ID as well as evolution in science classes. It would, after all, take only about 10 minutes to exhaust the case for ID, then we could get back to teaching real science and genuine controversy.

Tempting as this is, a serious worry remains. The seductive "let's teach the controversy" language still conveys the false, and highly pernicious, idea that there really are two sides. This would distract students from the genuinely important and interesting controversies that enliven evolutionary discourse. Worse, it would hand creationism the only victory it realistically aspires to. Without needing to make a single good point in any argument, it would have won the right for a form of supernaturalism to be recognised as an authentic part of science. And that would be the end of science education in America.

Although the fossil record shows that the first multicellular animals lived about 640m years ago, the diversity of species was low until about 530m years ago. At that time there was a sudden explosion of many diverse marine species, including the first appearance of molluscs, arthropods, echinoderms and vertebrates. "Sudden" here is used in the geological sense; the "explosion" occurred over a period of 10m to 30m years, which is, after all, comparable to the time taken to evolve most of the great radiations of mammals. This rapid diversification raises fascinating questions; explanations include the evolution of organisms with hard parts (which aid fossilisation), the evolutionary "discovery" of eyes, and the development of new genes that allowed parts of organisms to evolve independently.

The field of evolutionary psychology (once called "sociobiology") maintains that many universal traits of human behaviour (especially sexual behaviour), as well as differences between individuals and between ethnic groups, have a genetic basis. These traits and differences are said to have evolved in our ancestors via natural selection. There is much controversy about these claims, largely because it is hard to reconstruct the evolutionary forces that acted on our ancestors, and it is unethical to do genetic experiments on modern humans.

Although evolutionists agree that adaptations invariably result from natural selection, there are many traits, such as the elaborate plumage of male birds and size differences between the sexes in many species, that are better explained by "sexual selection": selection based on members of one sex (usually females) preferring to mate with members of the other sex that show certain desirable traits. Evolutionists debate how many features of animals have resulted from sexual as opposed to natural selection; some, like Darwin himself, feel that many physical features differentiating human "races" resulted from sexual selection.

Evolutionists agree that natural selection usually acts on genes in organisms - individuals carrying genes that give them a reproductive or survival advantage over others will leave more descendants, gradually changing the genetic composition of a species. This is called "individual selection". But some evolutionists have proposed that selection can act at higher levels as well: on populations (group selection), or even on species themselves (species selection). The relative importance of individual versus these higher order forms of selection is a topic of lively debate.

Natural selection is a process that leads to the replacement of one gene by another in a predictable way. But there is also a "random" evolutionary process called genetic drift, which is the genetic equivalent of coin-tossing. Genetic drift leads to unpredictable changes in the frequencies of genes that don't make much difference to the adaptation of their carriers, and can cause evolution by changing the genetic composition of populations. Many features of DNA are said to have evolved by genetic drift. Evolutionary geneticists disagree about the importance of selection versus drift in explaining features of organisms and their DNA. All evolutionists agree that genetic drift can't explain adaptive evolution. But not all evolution is adaptive.

"I don't know anything about Bennetta's religious beliefs, and I've actually met the man. How do know that he has "no tolerance" for religious ideas, or that the mere contemplation of a Creator is "like blasphemy" to him, or to me? Are you psychic, or are you just the knee jerk bigot I was too delicate to peg you as previously? "

Delicate? I think the word prejudice can be interrupted as bigot? The evolutionists mind does easily resort to name calling.

I could just as easily claim evolution is a racist belief.

"Bennetta was a vociferous opponent of creationism in California and elsewhere."

These words came from the very post you made, I guess you should have removed them as it is obvious from your reaction that I was not to take note of them.

"BTW, although I can't speak for Bennetta, or the rest of "[us] people," the fact is that I frequently engage in contemplation of the idea of creation. Although technically an agnostic, I'm situated well toward the theistic end of that spectrum and consider the relation of God to the world -- i.e. His standing as Creator -- to be a, if not the, central question of theology."

I am continually reminded of the bjclinton supporters claiming he compartmentalized his private life from his public life. That is saying his private mind never met his public mind. What exactly is the process required to separate one beliefs into different compartments of the brain.

What do you mean some write the textbook maybe? If they are not writing the textbook then who is?

Well, not all biology textbooks are written by evolutionary biologists. Some are written by biologists whose specialty is in another field of biology.

Of course, some evolutionary biologists have written primary and high school texts, or at least contributed to them. I don't think that these textbooks are bad. They're at least not as bad as a lot of the books public schools are using for Math and the humanities. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it.

It's also true that evolution is the fundamental organizing principle of biology. Therefore all biologists, even those who do not specialize in evoluton, do research that involves evolution in some manner.

Evolution is not limited to just biology textbooks, every "science" book presented in public school has some portion of the TOE as foundation.

Really? TOE in a physics textbook a chemistry textbook? I somehow doubt it. It must be something new. When I was in high school in the early 1990's, only biology textbooks mentioned the TOE. If you have a referece to a physics textbook that has "some portion of the TOE as foundation," love to see it.

Exactly how does one practice evolutionary biology? Do they have a business name?

Perhaps "practice" was the wrong word. I mean evolutionary biologists who are actively doing research in the field.

What evolution contains no math, no history, and void of English?

I was talking about subject areas. Math, English, and history are subjects taught in classes seperate from biology. Leftist ideology has resulted in terrible textbooks that are used in Math, history, and English classes. The textbooks used in biology are, for the most part, pretty decent as far as I can tell.

The mindset of the evolutionists permeates every discipline and appears a blindness afflicts that mindset.

Really? How exactly does this midset "permeate" mathematics? Or history? Or economics?

None of the listed above as destroyers are against evolution.

Yes. So? I never said the destroyers of education are against evolution. Most probably don't care about it much one way or the other.

They're not evolutionary biologists, however, contrary to what you originally claimed. I am presuming that by "evolutionist" you meant evolutionary biologist, but perhaps you mean something else by that term. If so, would you care to clarify?

What resources are being wasted??

Political capital, for one. Also, there are the millions of dollars spent by the Discovery Institute and other ID or creationist lobbying groups.

That's money that could otherwise be going to funding ballot initiatives to end teacher tenure, institute merit pay, or increase graduation standards, for example.

How much is it costing you?? You want the fight to end put up the white flag.

No, I want to fight the real leftist enemies of education, not windmills.

TOE entered the system of education first, you tell a child they are descendants of animals they are going to act like animals. Might surprise you the good brothers donating to the public school system.

The TOE entered the school system in the 1920's. The school system did not start going downhill until the late 1960's, early 1970's. The two have nothing to do with one another.

Evolution is not a sterile walled discipline, the theory/ideology is that which all other disciplines flow.

Yeah, right. Please tell me exactly how the theory of evolution affects the teaching of Freshman geometry.

"Bennetta was a vociferous opponent of creationism in California and elsewhere."

These words came from the very post you made, I guess you should have removed them as it is obvious from your reaction that I was not to take note of them.

No, you certainly were intended to notice them. In fact, whether due to prickliness or your part, or poor writing on mine, you seem to have missed the entire point of my message.

I was responding your #186. There you claimed that while evolutionists "may" seek to separate themselves from "liberal swill" (in the public school curricula) you have found that "no such effort exists."

I was giving Bennetta as an example of, not just an "evolutionist" but an evolution activist, who has not merely separated himself from "liberal swill" -- e.g. wacko environmentalism, anti-capitalism, multiculturalism, identity/ethnic group patronizing history, etc -- but has attacked and debunked it with as much energy, eloquence and documentation as he has devoted to opposing antievolutionary pseudoscience.

IOW the fact that he is an evolution/anti-creationism activist was crucial to the point I was making. (And to demonstrating the falsity of your facile assertion.)

There are two bodies, the soul created in the beginning, which was placed in the flesh body at conception

So what? Even given your distinction, the Bible informs us clearly and repeatedly that God is the immediate Creator of the "flesh body" as well! Or at the very least that He is personally, actively and intimately involved in its formation. This is every bit as clear, and multiply affirmed, as is God's creation of "souls" (i.e. his investment of the "breath" of life):

Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers? (Job 31:15).
For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be (Psalm 139:13-16).
This is what the LORD says--he who made you, who formed you in the womb, and who will help you … (Isaiah 44:2).
And now the LORD says--he who formed me in the womb to be his servant to bring Jacob back to him and gather Israel to himself, for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD and my God has been my strength (Isaiah 49:5).
The word of the LORD came to me, saying, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations" (Jeremiah 1:4-5).

So, again, why the elaborate paranoia over (supposed) denial, via evolutionary science, of God's creative acts in the distant past; but not a hint of distress about denial, via the sciences of embryology and developmental physiology, of acts of divine creation which the Bible assures us are occurring in this very day?!

Or is it possible -- just possible -- that divine creation can be consistent, even seamlessly coincident, with natural cause? Gee, is it possible that even fundamentalist Christians fully accept this coincidence in some cases, but then decry that same coincidence as atheism in others? Ya think?

"So, again, why the elaborate paranoia over (supposed) denial, via evolutionary science, of God's creative acts in the distant past; but not a hint of distress about denial, via the sciences of embryology and developmental physiology, of acts of divine creation which the Bible assures us are occurring in this very day?!"

Elaborate paranoia? Are you a shrink?

What evolutionists ignore and unfortunately most Christians is that from the beginning all things point to Christ, that one that gives life, and that life is not limited to the flesh body. We are not given a time of the beginning, nor the rebellion. Genesis is an outline of who, what, when, and where, and for some the why. Now consider it is not until Peter that a definition of time of a day is given, yet most creationists refuse to accept that is what is being given.

So paranoia set aside, evolution, what is now called common descent removes the "flesh" perfection that Christ was to come through. Recorded from Genesis to the birth of Christ is the lineage through which it was established Christ was to come. Nothing common about His descent.

Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil:

Now before you or any other evolutionists fear that I demand Christ taught in biology classes, that is not what I advocate. When and if the Heavenly Father wants the attention of His children He knows where they are and He and only He knows what they are thinking.

Acceptance of Christ is not a thing of force, it must come from the individual and none of us are going to be able to fake it.

So what ever it is that you claim to be inconsistent is escaping me. To say that flesh beings the vessel that was formed to house the soul is separate from nature is beyond my comprehension.

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.