Intelligent design not science: experts [70,000 Aussie Scientists liken I.D. to 'spoon bending']

Sydney Morning Herald ^ | 21 Oct. 05 | Deborah Smith

[gobucks]

Intelligent design is as unscientific as the flat Earth theory and should not be taught in school science classes, a coalition representing 70,000 scientists and science teachers has warned.

Yesterday they expressed "grave concern" that the subject was being presented in some Australian schools as a valid alternative to evolution. Proponents of intelligent design claim that some living structures are so complex they are explicable only by the action of an unspecified "intelligent designer".

But the scientists and teachers say this notion of "supernatural intervention" is a belief and not a scientific theory, because it makes no predictions and cannot be tested.

"We therefore urge all Australian governments and educators not to permit the teaching or promulgation of intelligent design as science," they say in an open letter to newspapers.

"To do so would make a mockery of Australian science teaching and throw open the door of science classes to similarly unscientific world views - be they astrology, spoon bending, flat Earth cosmology or alien abductions."

Advertisement AdvertisementThe signatories to the letter include the Australian Academy of Science, the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies and the Australian Science Teachers Association. The coalition was brought together by the executive of the faculty of science at the University of NSW, led by its dean, Professor Mike Archer.

The president-elect of the Australian Science Teachers Association, Paul Carnemolla, said concern had been sparked by the strength of the intelligent design movement in the US, which has the backing of US President, George Bush, and the availability of slick American DVDs presenting the concept as science.

Australian science teachers were not opposed to it being taught in religion or philosophy classes. "But we felt it was important that, as scientists and science educators, we made it very clear to students and parents where we stood on this issue."

At Pacific Hills Christian School in Dural intelligent design is taught in science classes. The school's principal, Ted Boyce, said he was not persuaded by the Australian scientists' and teachers' stance and it was appropriate to teach it as an alternative explanation for the origin of humanity.

"We believe it is as valid to do that as to teach evolution. It would be unacademic and unscientific not to do so," Dr Boyce said.

The chief executive of Christian Schools Australia, Stephen O'Doherty, said intelligent design was likely to be discussed in science classes in many Christian schools and this was beneficial for learning.

It was a complex issue, he said. "The idea that there is an unexplained scientific hole in evolutionary theory … is a debate some scientists are having. To have that discussion in class is good and leads to questions like: how does scientific method work and what is science?"

The Federal Minister for Education, Science and Training, Dr Brendan Nelson, alarmed scientists earlier this year when he said schools should be able to teach intelligent design, but he later clarified his position, saying it should be restricted to religion or philosophy classes.

Australian Nobel laureate Peter Doherty told the Herald recently that intelligent design had no place in science classes.

[js1138]

In the absence of transitional forms, isn't common descent going beyond the available evidence?

Why do you think Behe and Denton would accept common descent if they didn't think the evidence is overwhelming?

[GOPPachyderm]

But the involvement of the intelligent designers is necessary for interbreeding of tigers and lions, or the development of chihuahuas and great danes.

What about the extensive testing done on fruit flies? Doesn't that refute speciation?

Wouldn't you expect to find new species developing naturally? But what transitional forms can you point to show that this happens today? What caused the sudden appearance of new species in the Cambrian explosion?

In discussion of science and teaching our kids, shouldn't we stay within the available evidence and make it clear we are speculating concerning evolution, or ID for that matter?

[GOPPachyderm]

"Why do you think Behe and Denton would accept common descent if they didn't think the evidence is overwhelming?"


Well, I'm not from Missouri but I would have to see the evidence for common descent that couldn't be explained by having the same designer. The similarities between the Buick Regal I just sold and the new LaCrosse I just purchased aren't due to natural selection!

[js1138]

Anything can be expllained by ghaving a designer -- even disease and parasites.

The question I have for you is why the ID advocate chosen by the Dover school board to represent them in court, a tenured professor of biochemistry, would accept common descent as a given.

He is not stupid. Why do you suppose he doesn't argue against it?

[GOPPachyderm]

It's a great question. I'm reading through the account very slowly trying to understand it better.

But would you agree we should stick to the available evidence and point to theories as theories rather than established fact? I watched a beautifully produced program on dinosaurs last night and I'm sure children would be fascinated. My contention with the producers would be the constant assertions that are actually conjecture and speculation. Would it kill them to say "Scientists believe or think or theorize...."?

[bobdsmith]

But the involvement of the intelligent designers is necessary for interbreeding of tigers and lions, or the development of chihuahuas and great danes.

Some hybrids happen naturally in the wild. Wolphins for example (cross between killer whale and dolphin).

What about the extensive testing done on fruit flies? Doesn't that refute speciation?

I don't see how. There is ample evidence that speciation has occured just from looking at biogeography. For example similar speices tend to be clumped in the same region. Species on islands are similar to species on nearby mainlands. This is best explained as the island species originating from founders from the mainland species.

Besides evolution critics tend to strongly accept speciation. ID strongly accepts speciation (it accepts common descent too), and so does creationism. In fact young earth creationism requires a much faster rate of speciation than even evolutionists think is possible, because they have to explain the divergance of each kind that was on the ark in just a few thousand years. For example there are over 1000 species of bats. Young Earth Creationists would say that they all came from a few original bat species that were on the ark. That means those few original bat species had to speciate into 1000 new species starting in 4500 BC.

Wouldn't you expect to find new species developing naturally? But what transitional forms can you point to show that this happens today?

Speciation doesn't requre transitional forms. A red squirrel and a grey squirrel look pretty identical except their color, yet they are seperate species.

What caused the sudden appearance of new species in the Cambrian explosion?

Speciation

In discussion of science and teaching our kids, shouldn't we stay within the available evidence and make it clear we are speculating concerning evolution, or ID for that matter?

I don't see speciation as speculation.

[GOPPachyderm]

I really appreciate your response. Perhaps the problem is the definition of the word species? Using the examples you provided I agree that speciation is established fact. Gray, red and black squirrels would seem to be an excellent example of differentiation within species. But they're still squirrels.

Can speciation be defined as what I have heard referred to as "micro-evolution"?

Now I'm going to look up wolphin to see if you're pulling my leg!

[js1138]

The existence of dinosaurs is not a theory, but of course their coloration and behavior are in the realm of speculation.

[GOPPachyderm]

The program was fantastic; we just got a new high definition tv and the quality was phenomenal! But my concerns rise from the assertions that "X millions of years ago this happened" and "this animal evolved to become..." So many of these programs make assertions as established fact when they are in fact theoretical.

[GOPPachyderm]

Some interesting reading on wolphins:

"Although the word 'wolphin' is a portmanteau of whale and dolphin, since false killer whales are members of the family Delphinidae, that is, dolphins and not true whales, the wolphin is a kind of dolphin."

Apparently reproduction is uncertain and they certainly aren't thriving as it is only speculated that they exist in the wild.

[PatrickHenry]

Seen this yet?

[BMCDA]

Gray, red and black squirrels would seem to be an excellent example of differentiation within species. But they're still squirrels.

Of course they are. And they will still be squirrels in the same way that they will still be mammals or vertebrates.
This, however, doesn't mean that they do not change over time until the different populations become distinct species. If this happens the category "squirrel" no longer denotes one single species but several new ones.
You can compare this process to those Russian Matryoshka nesting dolls only in this case one "doll" can contain more than one smaller "doll".

[GovernmentShrinker]

Like how to go about becoming an intelligent designer.

[WriteOn]

I reject the notion that science's definition of theory is unique. While pedestrian usage may warp not always correspond the definition is what it is. One of the redoubts of elitists is the cooption of terms. There is no distinction between a "scientific theory" and "theory."

Well it seems that Behe and Scott have squared off in PA(?) and have both agreed that ID is testable, or perhaps evo is testable, with the proposed test being a 2 year, 10000 generation study of bacteria without a flagellum to see if they can be coerced into developing one. Any takers?

Of course both our heroes pointed out the fallback positions of their opponents should the bacteria grow tails or not. :)

[WriteOn]

I support the idea that there are possible alternatives to evolution and that room should be made to debate those.

[GOPPachyderm]

"This, however, doesn't mean that they do not change over time until the different populations become distinct species ...compare this process to those Russian Matryoshka nesting dolls only in this case one "doll" can contain more than one smaller "doll"."

---

I found this analogy very interesting. I purchased several of these when I was in the Ukraine but never considered the analogy. As a creationist, I believe God created the potential for species variation where evolutionists apparently believe time and chance created the variation. And variation is just part of the problem for evolution - they also have to explain how life began.

And wouldn't you expect to see transitional forms between the squirrel 'matryoska' descendents? I believe Darwin predicted that fossil evidence would be found to prove the transition.

[BMCDA]

And variation is just part of the problem for evolution - they also have to explain how life began.

No, how life began is not part of the theory of evolution. It's true that scientists (especially biochemists) are trying to find possible pathways of how life could have started but this research is not crucial for the ToE.
Evolution only requires the existence of imperfect self-replicators but how they originated doesn't really matter because they are still imperfect self-replicators. In other words, the theory of evolution is a theory that is concerned with the dynamics of a system and not its initial conditions.

And wouldn't you expect to see transitional forms between the squirrel 'matryoska' descendents? I believe Darwin predicted that fossil evidence would be found to prove the transition.

Uhmm, not between the descendants but between the common ancestral population and its descendants. You have to remember that this is a branching process and once two populations become reproductively isolated there is no "link" between them anymore. Of course fossilization is a rare process, so you may not find a complete series of fossils.

Another way to visualize the speciation process is to take an image of the visible spectrum (e.g. from an old physics book for instance) cut it into two pieces of equal size and place them side by side:

At the left side the two populations are still pretty similar and able to interbreed. If you proceed further to the right they may still be able to interbreed but their offspring is infertile. Even further to the right they may not even be able to interbreed. Nevertheless, you have to keep in mind that this is a continuous process and there is no point where one species "gives birth" to a new species.

[GOPPachyderm]

I appreciate your responses and thanks for your patience in explaining your viewpoint to me. However, bottomline, there is no incontrovertible proof for either side is there?

[BMCDA]

However, bottomline, there is no incontrovertible proof for either side is there?

Proof in the strict sense is only available in mathematics or other formal systems. When it come to science we deal with evidence.

The theory of evolution is pretty solid and backed up by several independent lines of evidence. If you want to read more about this I really recommend the posts of Freeper Ichneumon on this topic. He goes into great detail to explain the different lines of evidence and how they back up common descent.

[GOPPachyderm]

I will read that material, but I suspect that a common designer can also explain the evidence offered for common descent.