Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Intelligent Design Is Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo
Physics Today ^ | July 1, 2002 | Adrian L. Melott

Posted on 07/01/2002 7:25:44 AM PDT by aculeus

My deliberately provocative title is borrowed from Leonard Krishtalka, who directs the Natural History Museum at the University of Kansas. Hired-gun "design theorists" in cheap tuxedos have met with some success in getting close to their target: public science education. I hope to convince you that this threat is worth paying attention to. As I write, intelligent design (ID) is a hot issue in the states of Washington and Ohio (see Physics Today, May 2002, page 31*). Evolutionary biology is ID's primary target, but geology and physics are within its blast zone.

Creationism evolves. As in biological evolution, old forms persist alongside new. After the Scopes "Monkey Trial" of 1925, creationists tried to get public schools to teach biblical accounts of the origin and diversity of life. Various courts ruled the strategy unconstitutional. Next came the invention of "creation science," which was intended to bypass constitutional protections. It, too, was recognized by the courts as religion. Despite adverse court rulings, creationists persist in reapplying these old strategies locally. In many places, the pressure keeps public school biology teachers intimidated and evolution quietly minimized.

However, a new strategy, based on so-called ID theory, is now at the cutting edge of creationism. ID is different from its forebears. It does a better job of disguising its sectarian intent. It is well funded and nationally coordinated. To appeal to a wider range of people, biblical literalism, Earth's age, and other awkward issues are swept under the rug. Indeed, ID obfuscates sufficiently well that some educated people with little background in the relevant science have been taken in by it. Among ID's diverse adherents are engineers, doctors--and even physicists.

ID advocates can't accept the inability of science to deal with supernatural hypotheses, and they see this limitation as a sacrilegious denial of God's work and presence. Desperately in need of affirmation, they invent "theistic science" in which the design of the Creator is manifest. Perhaps because their religious faith is rather weak, they need to bolster their beliefs every way they can--including hijacking science to save souls and prove the existence of God.

William Dembski, a mathematician and philosopher at Baylor University and one of ID's chief advocates, asserts that: " . . . any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient."1 Whether or not they agree with Dembski on this point, most Americans hold some form of religious belief. Using what they call the Wedge Strategy,2 ID advocates seek to pry Americans away from "naturalistic science" by forcing them to choose between science and religion. ID advocates know that science will lose. They portray science as we know it as innately antireligious, thereby blurring the distinction between science and how science may be interpreted.

When presenting their views before the public, ID advocates generally disguise their religious intent. In academic venues, they avoid any direct reference to the Designer. They portray ID as merely an exercise in detecting design, citing examples from archaeology, the SETI (search for extraterrestrial intelligence) project, and other enterprises. Cambridge University Press has published one ID book,3 which, the ID advocates repeatedly proclaim, constitutes evidence that their case has real scientific merit. ID creationist publications are nearly absent from refereed journals, and this state of affairs is presented as evidence of censorship.

This censorship, ID advocates argue, justifies the exploitation of public schools and the children in them to circumvent established scientific procedures. In tort law, expert scientific testimony must agree with the consensus of experts in a given field. No such limitation exists with respect to public education. ID advocates can snow the public and school boards with pseudoscientific presentations. As represented by ID advocates, biological evolution is a theory in crisis, fraught with numerous plausible-sounding failures, most of which are recycled from overt creationists. It is "only fair," the ID case continues, to present alternatives so that children can make up their own minds. Yesterday's alternative was "Flood geology." Today's is "design theory."

Fairness, open discussion, and democracy are core American values and often problematic. Unfortunately, journalists routinely present controversies where none exist, or they present political controversies as scientific controversies. Stories on conflicts gain readers, and advertising follows. This bias toward reporting conflicts, along with journalists' inability to evaluate scientific content and their unwillingness to do accuracy checks (with notable exceptions), are among the greatest challenges to the broad public understanding of science.

ID creationism is largely content-free rhetoric. Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University and an ID proponent, argues that many biochemical and biophysical mechanisms are "irreducibly complex."4 He means that, if partially dismembered, they would not work, so they could not have evolved. This line of argument ignores the large number of biological functions that look irreducibly complex, but for which intermediates have been found. One response to Behe's claims consists of the tedious task of demonstrating functions in a possible evolutionary path to the claimed irreducibly complex state. When presented with these paths, Behe typically ignores them and moves on. I admire the people who are willing to spend the time to put together the detailed refutations.5

The position of an ID creationist can be summarized as: "I can't understand how this complex outcome could have arisen, so it must be a miracle." In an inversion of the usual procedure in science, the null hypothesis is taken to be the thing Dembski, Behe, and their cohorts want to prove, albeit with considerable window-dressing. Dembski classifies all phenomena as resulting from necessity, chance, or design. In ruling out necessity, he means approximately that one could not predict the detailed structures and information we see in biological systems from the laws of physics. His reference to chance is essentially equivalent to the creationist use of one of the red herrings introduced by Fred Hoyle:

A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there?6 Having dispensed with necessity and chance, Dembski concludes that design has been detected on the grounds that nothing else can explain the phenomenon--at least according to him.

Of course, design has no predictive power. ID is not a scientific theory. If we had previously attributed the unexplainable to design, we would still be using Thor's hammer to explain thunder. Nor does ID have any technological applications. It can be fun to ask ID advocates about the practical applications of their work. Evolution has numerous practical technological applications, including vaccine development. ID has none.

As organisms evolve, they become more complex, but evolution doesn't contravene the second law of thermodynamics. Dembski, like his creationist predecessors, misuses thermodynamics. To support the case for ID, he has presented arguments based on a supposed Law of Conservation of Information, an axiomatic law that applies only to closed systems with very restricted assumptions.7 Organisms, of course, are not closed systems.

ID's reach extends beyond biology to physics and cosmology. One interesting discussion concerns the fundamental constants. There is a well-known point of view that our existence depends on a number of constants lying within a narrow range. As one might expect, the religious community has generally viewed this coincidence as evidence in favor of--or at least as a plausibility argument for--their beliefs. The ID creationist community has adopted the fundamental constants as additional evidence for their Designer of Life--apparently not realizing that many fine-tuning arguments are based on physical constants allowing evolution to proceed. Physical cosmology is largely absent from school science standards. Where present, as in Kansas, it is likely to come under ID attack.

I have only scratched the surface here. Don't assume everything is fine in your school system even if it seems free of conflict. Peace may mean that evolution, the core concept of biology, is minimized. No region of the country is immune. Watch out for the guys in tuxedos--they don't have violins in those cases.

Adrian Melott is a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Kansas in Lawrence. He is also a founding board member of Kansas Citizens for Science.

Letters are encouraged and should be sent to Letters, Physics Today, American Center for Physics, One Physics Ellipse, College Park, MD 20740-3842 or by e-mail to ptletter@aip.org (using your surname as "Subject"). Please include your affiliation, mailing address, and daytime phone number. We reserve the right to edit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References 1. W. Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Ill. (1999), p. 206. 2. See http://rnaworld.bio.ukans.edu/id-intro/sect3.html. Another source is http://www.sunflower.com/~jkrebs/JCCC/05%20Wedge_edited.html 3. W. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities, Cambridge U. Press, New York (1998). For a review by W. Elsberry, see http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/zgists/wre/papers/dembski7.html. 4. M. Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Free Press, New York (1996). 5. See http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/catalano/box/behe.htm. See also http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/behe.html 6. F. Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York (1983), p. 18. 7. W. Dembski, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, Md. (2002).


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: adrianmelott; crevolist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 541-548 next last

1 posted on 07/01/2002 7:25:44 AM PDT by aculeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: aculeus
Changing meaning-reality(creation)...

via your 'logic-reason' to your fantasy-bias world-bs(evolution)---

is called psychosis/evolution!

2 posted on 07/01/2002 7:31:51 AM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: aculeus
" . . . any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient."

To illustrate how small this belief is, in sheer numbers, I would wager that the percentage of the world population who believes this is a mere fraction of the people who number themselves as homosexual.

4 posted on 07/01/2002 7:44:26 AM PDT by TightSqueeze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeperJr.
I couldn't agree more! The study of science in all of its aspects was started by Christians and had no problem with God. Now, atheists want to hijack science as their own and make it say whatever they want.
5 posted on 07/01/2002 7:44:44 AM PDT by elephantlips
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: *crevo_list
Bump
6 posted on 07/01/2002 7:46:49 AM PDT by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
Bla bla bla...

The Blind Atheist

7 posted on 07/01/2002 7:52:33 AM PDT by Raymond Hendrix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
Of course, design has no predictive power. ID is not a scientific theory. If we had previously attributed the unexplainable to design, we would still be using Thor's hammer to explain thunder. Nor does ID have any technological applications. It can be fun to ask ID advocates about the practical applications of their work. Evolution has numerous practical technological applications, including vaccine development. ID has none.

It's funny when people say things like this. ID does not demand that we sit on our butts and accept what we see - humans obviously have minds and the desire to "know". We were created with that desire and there is nothing in what we know of God to indicate he wants to keep us in the dark. In fact, it's just the opposite - a proper understanding of the nature of God leads one to the conclusion that He does speak, He does reveal himself and it is a perfectly logical conclusion to realize that we can hear His voice. There is nothing hidden from us - we just have to go out and find it.

Evolution has numerous practical technological applications, including vaccine development.

I'm no scientist so I'd be curious to know - what are the practical applications of evolution?

8 posted on 07/01/2002 7:57:15 AM PDT by Frapster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frapster
I'm no scientist so I'd be curious to know - what are the practical applications of evolution?

To explain where liberals came from.

9 posted on 07/01/2002 8:06:08 AM PDT by Still Thinking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Frapster
I'm no scientist so I'd be curious to know - what are the practical applications of evolution?

Yes I can envision the next generation, home schooled, or schooled in ID junk science, directing America technology.
The net result of such thinking leads to hiding in caves and praying to god for deliverance from your enemies’ smart bombs, as we have seen in Afghanistan.

10 posted on 07/01/2002 8:19:41 AM PDT by TightSqueeze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TightSqueeze
Yes I can envision the next generation, home schooled, or schooled in ID junk science, directing America technology. The net result of such thinking leads to hiding in caves and praying to god for deliverance from your enemies’ smart bombs, as we have seen in Afghanistan.

lol - funny - such enlightened observation ignores the role that Christian scientists have played throughout history. Typical of modern day revisionist thinking.

11 posted on 07/01/2002 8:23:02 AM PDT by Frapster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TightSqueeze
Yes I can envision the next generation, home schooled, or schooled in ID junk science, directing America technology.

So can I. Isn't it refreshing to have a reason for confidence! Thanks for your encouraging post.

12 posted on 07/01/2002 8:32:15 AM PDT by kinsman redeemer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University and an ID proponent, argues that many biochemical and biophysical mechanisms are "irreducibly complex."4 He means that, if partially dismembered, they would not work, so they could not have evolved. This line of argument ignores the large number of biological functions that look irreducibly complex, but for which intermediates have been found.

In other words, there are some cases where it appears that evolution could not have occurred, but there are other cases where scientists feel there is some evidence that evolution could have occurred. Therefore, evolution occurred in all cases.

Not the best syllogism I've ever seen.

13 posted on 07/01/2002 8:32:20 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kinsman redeemer
…such enlightened observation ignores the role that Christian scientists have played throughout history.

Show me the list of Bible-Thumpers who advanced science. I agree there were many scientists who were Christian, very few that placed their religion before science though. Who could forget the great theologian that probed the scriptures and pondered the equation of the age, E=mc. Yeah, and I am the one here accused of being a revisionist, right.

14 posted on 07/01/2002 8:38:53 AM PDT by TightSqueeze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Junior; jennyp; PatrickHenry; general_re; donh
A nice little article.
15 posted on 07/01/2002 8:40:21 AM PDT by balrog666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TightSqueeze
>>..very few that placed their religion before science though.<<

Are you suggesting that science and religion are at odds? Interesting statement. I heartily disagree, if that's what you are saying.

16 posted on 07/01/2002 8:46:04 AM PDT by SerpentDove
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
"Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University and an ID proponent, argues that many biochemical and biophysical mechanisms are "irreducibly complex."4 He means that, if partially dismembered, they would not work, so they could not have evolved. This line of argument ignores the large number of biological functions that look irreducibly complex, but for which intermediates have been found."
Hey, this guy is quoting a Catholic Christian scientist. Too bad he did so in the misdst of an incoherent arguement. Behe is absolutely correct and, obviously, he doesn't consider biological functions "irreducibly complex" if there exists evidence they are not.

Too bad the author hadn't evolved some logic along with the attitude. Panic has set in for the Cult of Darwin. Get the Kool Aid ready....
17 posted on 07/01/2002 8:47:45 AM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TightSqueeze; Frapster
I could do that, but your ramblings are misdirected. I think it's Frapster you want.

And it's : "E = mc2" by the way.

18 posted on 07/01/2002 8:49:37 AM PDT by kinsman redeemer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
**YAWN**
19 posted on 07/01/2002 8:51:29 AM PDT by That Subliminal Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeperJr.
Fairness, open discussion, and democracy are core American values and often problematic.

Can't find a much more leftist, control freakish, totalitarian statement than that.

Hardly - it's a simple truth, and one that should be obvious given a moment's reflection.

20 posted on 07/01/2002 8:54:18 AM PDT by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 541-548 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson