Posted on 03/02/2002 5:10:54 PM PST by Karl_Lembke
Some members of the Ohio State Board of Education are maneuvering to have "intelligent design" (ID) taught to Ohio students as an alternative to teaching them about biological evolution.1 These board members were pursuing the inclusion of ID in the biology curriculum despite unambiguous opposition from the relevant science advisory committee. One board member apparently regards this development as a chance for Ohio "to be on the cutting edge." Unfortunately, this cutting edge will only serve to whittle away a bit more of the collective intellect of the citizenry of Ohio, and the implications reach much farther than the state's boundaries.
According to the enthusiasts for ID, metabolic systems, such as the clotting cascade, are too complex ("irreducibly complex" in their preferred wording) to have arisen through evolution.2 Problems with this view are readily apparent. First, complexity is problematic to define, and irreducible complexity more so.
At present, it is doubtful whether it is possible to measure, prospectively and precisely, the complexity of biological systems so as to distinguish systems that are irreducibly complex from those that are reducibly complex. The concept of irreducible complexity is simply asserted; it is not based on either evidence or compelling logic. Consequently, proponents of ID must decide, essentially arbitrarily, what is too complex to have evolved. They can claim that all of life is too complex to have evolved. Or, are we to believe that bacteria evolved but that humans (or mammals, or whatever groups of organisms) were designed? Would it make any more sense the other way around?
A truly fundamental problem with the notion of ID, as a scientific idea, is that, ultimately, it has effectively no explanatory or predictive power. Suggesting that an unknown Intelligent Designer of unspecified attributes designed the eye, the clotting cascade, or the immune system offers no scientific insights into these biologic marvels and suggests no incisive experiments. There is also the nagging issue of how the Intelligent Designer implements designs without being noticed. How do ID proponents explain the existence of defective genes, no longer capable of expression, in one species that are strikingly similar to still functional genes in a related species? What insights does ID provide in accounting for the origin and spread of bacterial resistance to antibiotics? These phenomena are consistent with the principles of evolution, which find application from the molecular level to the level of ecosystems.
Were the genes associated with conditions such as sickle cell disease or cystic fibrosis designed by The Intelligent Designer, or by her sister, The Not-So-Intelligent Designer? If the response is that we do not understand the motives or goals of the Designer, then of what use is it to posit this inscrutable being in explaining such realities as the relatively high frequencies of these genes in the human population.
On the other hand, evolutionary principles provide a compelling rationale for the high prevalence of the b-globin allele associated with sickle cell disease: in a single copy it provides protection from the deadliest effects of one type of malaria parasite. Consistent with this hypothesis, sickle cell disease is prevalent almost exclusively in populations that live in, or are descended from those who lived in, malaria-endemic regions of the globe. Whereas some ID advocates suggest that mutations are uniformly harmful, there are thoroughly documented human mutations, such as the mutation associated with sickle cell disease, that are alternately harmful or beneficial depending on the exact genotype and the environmental circumstances.
Enthusiasts for ID ignore the growing laboratory evidence for the selection of biological function from random collections of proteins and nucleic acids.3,4 Molecular biologists and biotechnologists have shown that selection acting on randomly generated libraries of billions or trillions of biological polymers, such as peptides or RNA molecules, can produce molecules with useful biological functions, such as specificities for small ligands or catalytic activities. Computer scientists, complexity theorists, and even physical chemists have also documented striking examples of order that develops spontaneously.5,6 It is simply no longer tenable to equate order, complex structure, or sophisticated function uniquely with conscious design.
The Design advocates also ignore the accumulating examples of the reducibility of biological systems. As Russell Doolittle has noted in commenting on the writings of one ID advocate, mice genetically altered so that they lack either thrombin or fibrinogen have the expected abnormal hemostatic phenotypes.7 However, when the separate knockout mice are bred, the double knockouts apparently have normal hemostasis (reducible complexity after all), at least in the laboratory.8 These results cast doubt on the claim by proponents of ID that they know which systems exhibit irreducible complexity and which do not.
Evolution is best regarded as a fact. What is more, it is a fact that is inescapable. The resistance of bacteria to overused antibiotics, viruses to inhibitors of viral replication, and insects to pesticides, are all examples of the evolutionary process in operation. If you do research with cells or microorganisms, genetic variation and selection are continuously in evidence, even when you would prefer them not to be. Thus, that evolution occurs, and has occurred, is not in doubt. It has been directly observed in operation not only in the laboratory but also in the field.9 Where there is still room for argument and discussion is in the precise contributions of different mechanisms to evolutionary change. In this vibrant debate, intelligent design offers no meaningful contribution.
The effort to insert nonscientific ideas into Ohio's science curriculum is being carried out under the banner of promoting critical thinking.10 Perhaps other scientists will be as surprised as I was to learn that the education bill, "No Child Left Behind," signed into law by President George W. Bush on Jan. 8, originally contained an amendment from US Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.). This amendment, ultimately removed from the bill, comprises the following two statements: "It is the sense of the Senate that: (1) good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; and (2) where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why the subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject."
It would appear that a new and clever strategy has been found to get religious ideas into biology class. Those in other states concerned that the science curriculum remains focused on science should be vigilant against similar campaigns in their own states. Otherwise, they could find that the officials crafting the science curriculum for their schools are engaged in a process that comes closer to deserving the label "subversive design" rather than "intelligent design."
Neil S. Greenspan, MD-PhD, is professor of pathology at the Institute of Pathology, Case Western Reserve University, Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44106-4943.
References
1. J. Mangels, S. Stephens, "Evolution targeted in curriculum study," The Plain Dealer, Jan. 15, 2002, pp. A1, A9.
2. M.J. Behe, Darwin's black box: The biochemical challenge to evolution, New York: Free Press, 1997.
3. J.R. Lorsch, J.W. Szostak, "Chance and necessity in the selection of nucleic acid catalysts," Accounts of Chemical Research, 29[2]:103-10, 1996.
4. J.K. Scott, G.P. Smith, "Searching for peptide ligands with an epitope library," Science, 249:386-90, 1990.
5. S.A. Kauffman, The origins of order: Self-organization and selection in evolution," New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
6. D. Kestenbaum, "Gentle force of entropy bridges disciplines," Science, 279,1849, 1998.
7. R. F. Doolittle, R.F. "A delicate balance," Boston Review, February/March 1997, or online at bostonreview.mit.edu/br22.1/doolittle.html.
8. T.H. Bugge, "Loss of fibrinogen rescues mice from the pleiotropic effects of plasminogen deficiency," Cell, 87:709-19, 1996.
9. J. Weiner, The beak of the finch: A story of evolution in our time, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1994.
10. R. Lattimer, J. Calvert, "Intelligent design is a matter of academic freedom," The Plain Dealer, Jan. 18, 2002, p. B9.
The Scientist 16[5]:12, Mar. 4, 2002
I'll try to find some references for you, but I've been out of the biochemical world for a few years. I remember some good scientific arguments against evolution from some biochemistry papers I read in college. The basic argument is that the number of beneficial genetic mutations that would have to occur for extensive evolution to occur is impossible. This large number of beneficial mutations is impossible because over 99% of naturally occurring mutations are destructive and lead to weaker, less-survivable mutant life forms. And for example, it would take a huge number of positive mutations for the brain of an ape-like creature to evolve into the brain of a human being. I'll try to dig up some of my old papers. But once you truly understand what has to happen at a genetic level for extensive beneficial evolution to occur, it's clear that evolution is impossible. You also have to be willing to accept this truth. Many scientists are unwilling to accept this truth because it runs counter to their own belief system.
01: Site that debunks virtually all of creationism's fallacies. Excellent resource.
02: Creation "Science" Debunked.
03: Creationi sm and Pseudo Science. Familiar cartoon then lots of links.
04: The SKEPTIC annotated bibliography. Amazingly great meta-site!
05: The Evidence for Human Evolution. For the "no evidence" crowd.
06: Massi ve mega-site with thousands of links on evolution, creationism, young earth, etc..
07: Another amazing site full of links debunking creationism.
08: Creationism and Pseudo Science. Great cartoon!
09: Glenn R. Morton's site about creationism's fallacies. Another jennyp contribution.
11: Is Evolution Science?. Successful PREDICTIONS of evolution (Moonman62).
12: Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution. On point and well-written.
13: Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions. A creationist nightmare!
14: DARWIN, FULL TEXT OF HIS WRITINGS. The original ee-voe-lou-shunist.
The foregoing was just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated "Creationism vs. Evolution" threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review: The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 15].
longshadow: That's very interesting. Could you provide us with the coordinates for the "reference point of the Big Bang"? In other words, were do you think the BB was located?
How about everywhere is the center of the universe. All of spacetime was the "center" when the Big Bang happened. BTW, since time also started with the Big Bang, there was no before.
Nature (or reality for that matter) is as it is and not how we want it to be. You can compare reality with the graph of a weird function which we try to approximate with simpler, already known functions and as we zoom in even more details may become visible with which we have to deal then.
I was prepared to read an intelligent treatise of this issue that may present cogent arguments.........but was stopped cold when I got to this disgustingly smug, drippingly sarcastic, outright blasphemous sentence.
Once again, we have blatant atheists attacking the very concept of God as Creator........but are too damned cowardly to admit their "bias".
This..........THIS............is what I find so despicable in these "discussions". It's akin to a closet Communist debating the republican form of government.
I'd be more impressed if statements of the above sort weren't all you ever do on these threads. I can't believe you still don't know what kind of party is it when you come.
Sideling Hill
just west of Hancock, MD. I drive through that road cut fairly often.
Every road cut in the Appalachians is a less-spectacular version of the same picture. How anyone can look at that and think "One great big flood. Yeah!" is beyond me.
No problem with the first two sentences. The third seems incautious and not agnostic.
Beyond the Big Bang, concepts like "before" are inadequate. We're four-dimensional entities in a four-dimensional universe, and our comprenension beyond that is as limited as would be the comprehension of of our reality would be to three-dimensional entities in some planar universe.
If we say without qualification "there was no before," prior to the Big Bang, we're also saying "there was nothing and no one."
This might sound like semantic niggling, but if science isn't attentive to the theological ramifications of certain statements (especially at the boundaries of space-time), we're never going to escape the tar baby of the false science vs. religion dilemma.
Mr. Hatfield, meet Mr. McCoy.
Nature (or reality for that matter) is as it is and not how we want it to be.
I basically agree with the rest of your post, but I want to quibble with you here.
I don't want to define "reality" as space-time, or use the terms "reality" and Nature interchangably. I don't see any problems with using the terms space-time and Nature synonymously.
But if we limit our definition of realitiy to the material world at the outset, we're preempting the very legitimate discussions of whether or not there is a reality that encompasses or is seperate from space-time.
Those discussions shouldn't impinge on science much, since they're better left to theology or philosophy.
I really don't see a problem here. If there is a reality that encompasses or is separate from our space-time and something in this reality can manipulate our material world then it is at least in principle measurable and thus knowable. Whereas if this particular something from outside our space-time cannot (or does not) influence our material world then there is nothing we can know about this entity or this reality. It may exist or not but in each case it is of no importance to our reality.
Some people argue that our brain is a kind of interface to such a reality but if that is the case then something from this reality which is outside of our space-time manipulates our material brain and so it must (at least in principle) be measurable. But since we don't know that much of our brains (the most complex structure we know of so far) we cannot and should not rule out the possibility that these sensations are products of our brain.
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.