AAAS Board Resolution Urges Opposition to "Intelligent Design" Theory in U.S. Science Classes

AAAS ^ | November 6, 2002 | Ginger Pinholster

[Nebullis]

The AAAS Board recently passed a resolution urging policymakers to oppose teaching "Intelligent Design Theory" within science classrooms, but rather, to keep it separate, in the same way that creationism and other religious teachings are currently handled.

"The United States has promised that no child will be left behind in the classroom," said Alan I. Leshner, CEO and executive publisher for AAAS. "If intelligent design theory is presented within science courses as factually based, it is likely to confuse American schoolchildren and to undermine the integrity of U.S. science education."

American society supports and encourages a broad range of viewpoints, Leshner noted. While this diversity enriches the educational experience for students, he added, science-based information and conceptual belief systems should not be presented together.

Peter H. Raven, chairman of the AAAS Board of Directors, agreed:

"The ID movement argues that random mutation in nature and natural selection can't explain the diversity of life forms or their complexity and that these things may be explained only by an extra-natural intelligent agent," said Raven, Director of the Missouri Botanical Garden. "This is an interesting philosophical or theological concept, and some people have strong feelings about it. Unfortunately, it's being put forth as a scientifically based alternative to the theory of biological evolution. Intelligent design theory has so far not been supported by peer-reviewed, published evidence."

In contrast, the theory of biological evolution is well-supported, and not a "disputed view" within the scientific community, as some ID proponents have suggested, for example, through "disclaimer" stickers affixed to textbooks in Cobb County, Georgia.

"The contemporary theory of biological evolution is one of the most robust products of scientific inquiry," the AAAS Board of Directors wrote in a resolution released today. "AAAS urges citizens across the nation to oppose the establishment of policies that would permit the teaching of `intelligent design theory' as a part of the science curriculum of the public schools."

The AAAS Board resolved to oppose claims that intelligent design theory is scientifically based, in response to a number of recent ID-related threats to public science education.

In Georgia, for example, the Cobb County District School Board decided in March this year to affix stickers to science textbooks, telling students that "evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things." Following a lawsuit filed August 21 by the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, the school board on September 26 modified its policy statement, but again described evolution as a "disputed view" that must be "balanced" in the classroom, taking into account other family teachings. The exact impact of the amended school board policy in Cobb County classrooms remains unclear.

A similar challenge is underway in Ohio, where the state's education board on October 14 passed a unanimous, though preliminary vote to keep ID theory out of the state's science classrooms. But, their ruling left the door open for local school districts to present ID theory together with science, and suggested that scientists should "continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." In fact, even while the state-level debate continued, the Patrick Henry Local School District, based in Columbus, passed a motion this June to support "the idea of intelligent design being included as appropriate in classroom discussions in addition to other scientific theories."

The Ohio State Education Board is inviting further public comment through November. In December, board members will vote to conclusively determine whether alternatives to evolution should be included in new guidelines that spell out what students need to know about science at different grade levels. Meanwhile, ID theorists have reportedly been active in Missouri, Kansas, New Mexico, New Jersey, and other states, as well Ohio and Georgia.

While asking policymakers to oppose the teaching of ID theory within science classes, the AAAS also called on its 272 affiliated societies, its members, and the public to promote fact-based, standards-based science education for American schoolchildren.

[Condorman]

It's clear that he does not abandon evolution -- contrary to the implication of those who so gleefully posted that list of 100 scientists.

He specifically states as much.

I wish we could get him here to explain himself more fully.

I sent a follow-up, but have not yet gotten a response. I don't think I will. However, I will post it if I get it.

Having only these words, I gather that he thinks our current concepts of evolution, natural selection, and random mutation are insufficient.

I agree, but he does not elaborate on specifically where evolution is lacking, or what might make up the difference.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for all the information and for sharing your views!

However, I still view Gödel as a scientist. In 1974 he received the National Medal of Science. His work showed the limitations of any axiomatic theory. The Gödel Prize is awarded for outstanding papers in the area of theoretical computer science.

And with regard to mathematics and science, my attitude is akin to this: Geometry and Empirical Science

The most distinctive characteristic which differentiates mathematics from the various branches of empirical science, and which accounts for its fame as the queen of the sciences, is no doubt the peculiar certainty and necessity of its results. No proposition in even the most advanced parts of empirical science can ever attain this status; a hypothesis concerning "matters of empirical fact" can at best acquire what is loosely called a high probability or a high degree of confirmation on the basis of the relevant evidence available; but however well it may have been confirmed by careful tests, the possibility can never be precluded that it will have to be discarded later in the light of new and disconfirming evidence. Thus, all the theories and hypotheses of empirical science share this provisional character of being established and accepted "until further notice," whereas a mathematical theorem, once proved, is established once and for all; it holds with that particular certainty which no subsequent empirical discoveries, however unexpected and extraordinary, can ever affect to the slightest extent...

The geometrical theory which is used to describe the structure of the physical universe is of a type that may be characterized as a generalization of elliptic geometry. It was originally constructed by Riemann as a purely mathematical theory, without any concrete possibility of practical application at hand. When Einstein, in developing his general theory of relativity, looked for an appropriate mathematical theory to deal with the structure of physical space, he found in Riemann's abstract system the conceptual tool he needed. This fact throws an interesting sidelight on the importance for scientific progress of that type of investigation which the "practical-minded" man in the street tends to dismiss as useless, abstract mathematical speculation.

Of course, a geometrical theory in physical interpretation can never be validated with mathematical certainty, no matter how extensive the experimental tests to which it is subjected; like any other theory of empirical science, it can acquire only a more or less high degree of confirmation. Indeed, the considerations presented in this article show that the demand for mathematical certainty in empirical matters is misguided and unreasonable; for, as we saw, mathematical certainty of knowledge can be attained only at the price of analyticity and thus of complete lack of factual content. Let me summarize this insight in Einstein's words:

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

[<1/1,000,000th%]

I realize that this moderate view is somewhat of a shock to the die-hards on both sides of the debate, and I expect flack on all sides.

Actually this is pretty much the state of affairs. Among biologists, there is no agreement on what constitutes a species or whether the important mechanisms for mutations have even been identified. There are mechanisms that have been identified and used in production of "rare reagents", but no one will tell you that know how all this comes together.

Still waiting for the 3 billion-year-old human skull.

[Condorman]

the argument against Darwininianism is the message.

I am more hesitant to draw anyone's conclusions for them. RWP called it "evolution-plus" and I think that's as good a term as any.

Do you differentiate between Darwin's evolution vs. the conceptualization of evolution in use today?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post and the links!

It so happens that the University of Waterloo is the home of one of my most favorite physicists, P.S. Wesson! I'm glad to see you are interested in the work being done in that university.

Again though, you keep throwing our discussion back into the Dembski corner. He is not the only one looking for the algorithmic nature of being. Compared to some of the others, he may be a minor player. He is most likely biased, but then again so are a few of his critics.

The point I've tried to raise once before is that the algorithmic nature of being will be investigated whether or not the Intelligent Design movement is successfully quashed. In the end, if there are any algorithms to be found, the evolutionists will need to accept it.

If we could only have less prejudice on both sides, the ontological consequence could be redirected to the philosophers and theologians who are best suited to deal with it. Just my two cents...

[AndrewC]

Do you differentiate between Darwin's evolution vs. the conceptualization of evolution in use today?

By your phrasing of the question you limit the answer. You note "the conceptualization". It is singular. It "implies" a monolithic view. Since I do not accept Darwin's evolution I must then differentiate it from this hypothetical monolithic view. But that is unimportant to anyone other than me.

The question is what did the Professor intend? He put some words together to answer you in some fashion. I can see no other interpretation but a rejection, "no-brainer", of this --Do the current concepts of evolution, natural selection, and random mutation explain or account for the diversity of life on this planet? . Something that Darwin "These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the conditions of life and from use and disuse: a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows." claims to do.

Additionally, the Doctor states in these words "have a lot more blind faith than I do." an observation many people have of Darwinists.

[Dimensio]

Er, my comment did come out more insulting than I'd intended, in that I didn't actually intend to insult you at all. I have a knack for doing things like that, though.

Still, I take comfort in knowing that I'm not completely an idiot :)

[js1138]

I wouldn't look to Stephen Wolfram for support for ID. What I get from reading him is the notion that very simple algorithms can generate complex, unpredictable patterns. This is consistent with the recent discovery that genomes are much smaller than expected, have fewer instructions than anyone imagined. It is also a surprise to many that one cannot predict the outcome of changes in the genome, except for those that have been tracked backwards from their consequenses.

This lends itself easily to the concept of evolution -- tiny changes have major, but unpredictable consequenses, which survive or fail through selection.

Usually the concept of design implies a "top view" -- an understanding of how individual parts work and how they work together. Wolfram's work implies that such a top view is impossible, because even simple processes generate unpredictable results.

[Nebullis]

The point I've tried to raise once before is that the algorithmic nature of being will be investigated whether or not the Intelligent Design movement is successfully quashed.

Squashed! But, you're right. Progress will come from science. The ID movement is irrelevant. However, if ID successfully terrorizes (!) the world of science, there's a good chance all of science will grind to a halt.

[Nebullis]

"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

This is a statement of little if any content and certainly of no consequence. Translation: Science doesn't know all the answers, we should continue to search.

[AndrewC]

The ID movement is irrelevant. However, if ID successfully terrorizes (!) the world of science, there's a good chance all of science will grind to a halt.

Hyperbole! You sound like Jesse Jackson.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Dembski writes more like a flim-flam artist than a mathematician. For example he misuses terms like "complexity" or more particularly "Kolmogorov complexity" rather regularly. One result of Kolmogorov's complexity theory is that randomly generated objects are more complex than non-randomly generated ones. For example, a wrecked car (with parts strewn from bar ditch to median to bar ditch) is far more complex than a non wrecked car. There exists a design for a car (probably burried in a safe in Dearborn). The description of a wrecked car would need a much bigger description to tell where the pieces ended up. (Of course, we are less interested in the description of a wrecked car, but that doesn't shrink its size.) This is either dishonest or ignorant on Dembski's part.

Wolfram wrote several papers on using his cellular automata as pseudo-random number generators. Apparently he didn't see that they were just examples of shift registers (I think his new book does point this out.) His new book doesn't connect things up very well. Other than pointing out that simple rules can generate rather complex outputs (known since the glider gun from the game of life), the book is mostly a bunch of rambling and some nice pictures.

[Nebullis]

Hyperbole! You sound like Jesse Jackson.

Yes, quite obviously and deliberately so in response to Alamo-Girl's use of the same. Clever of you to pick up on that! (There's hope for you, yet.)

[Nebullis]

Are you making the same allegation [unrigorous mathematicians] of Stephen Wolfram? Roger Penrose? Max Tegmark? Jürgen Schmidhuber? Nicolo Dallaporta?

No. But you knew that already.

[scripter]

From the entire context of the letter it reads like he rejects "your side," if I may. He does say:

I am not aware of any statement that I signed or supported that states I have "abandoned the theory of evolution...".

All he says here is he isn't aware of signing such a statement. I thought you could ask him if he would sign such a statement, but then thought, maybe he always rejected the theory of evolution. If so, then he would never abandon something he never first agreed with. If he did once agree with the theory of evolution, then he could abandon it. If so, would he then sign such a statement?

I see his complete rejection here:

Do the current concepts of evolution, natural selection, and random mutation explain or account for the diversity of life on this planet? Wow! For an objective scientist that's a no-brainer. Anyone who believes these theories explain all biological diversity, information content in genomes, and a finely-tuned universe have a lot more blind faith than I do.

The "no-brainer", the "objective scientist" and the "blind faith" comments seem to reject evolution outright. Asking him for clarification (I think you said you did) would help.

[js1138]

simple rules can generate rather complex outputs

Simple rules were for decades the heart of generating the pseudo-random keys for the best cryptographic equipment. Wolfram alludes to this, saying that much of the research on cellular automata is classified.

[Nebullis]

The "no-brainer", the "objective scientist" and the "blind faith" comments seem to reject evolution outright.

LOL! Are those creationist code words?

[scripter]

LOL! Are those creationist code words?

Since I've sworn to protect the code I cannot answer.

[Junior]

Anyone who has played a board game, such as chess, could fathom the concept that complexity can arise out of simple rules.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post!

I am not looking to Stephen Wolfram to support ID. I never said that nor do I wish to imply it. To the contrary, I believe researchers like Wolfram will continue to look for algorithms no matter what happens to ID; but if they find what they are looking for, it will have an impact on evolution theory, cosmology, etc.

Wolfram's work implies that such a top view is impossible, because even simple processes generate unpredictable results.

I imagine an algorithm at the inception of the Big Bang would be quite simple leading to vast complexity but its very existence would have ontological implications.