Not-So-Intelligent Design

The Scientist ^ | Mar. 4, 2002 | Neil S. Greenspan and Anthony Canamucio

[Karl_Lembke]

The Scientist 16[5]:12, Mar. 4, 2002

OPINION

Not-So-Intelligent Design

By Neil S. Greenspan
Anthony Canamucio

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

[Sabertooth]

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.

First, I'm not suggesting the ongoing manipulation of the material world (or Universe) by an outside entity or some influence by an outside reality.

What I think you're suggesting here, when you think about it, is that everything is knowable, even given our constraints as four-dimensional beings. The corollary to that would be that if something isn't knowable, then it doesn't exist.

That's a huge expansion of the realm of science, IMO, and neither necessary nor indicated.

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.

"Of no importance?" Again, isn't this just an assertion?

And to say that there's "nothing we can know" is really an overstatement of the limitations of scientific knowledge.

I'd like to suggest that your remarks here are not agnostic.

[BMCDA]

I've seen that too. It's indeed a nice picture.

Here is an other road cut but without warps (in Wisconsin I think). This one's nice too.
Oh, and this is a really extreme one from Zuid Afrika ;-)

Regards

[VadeRetro]

Cool! What are all those skinny little layers? </sarcasm>

[BMCDA]

What I think you're suggesting here, when you think about it, is that everything is knowable, even given our constraints as four-dimensional beings. The corollary to that would be that if something isn't knowable, then it doesn't exist.

No, that's not what I meant. I only said that if the existence of something is per definition not knowable then it is tantamount to not existing at all. It could very well exist but there is no way we could provide evidence in favor of its existence. If we assume that there is no way we can leave our space-time then under this premise we cannot detect whether there is something "out" there or not. We have to wait until this something from outside our space-time influences in some way our reality. Only then we are at least in principle able to know of its existance (if we didn't find a satisfactory naturalistic answer). I don't claim that in this case we understand this... well whatsoever, I only mean with knowable that we at least know of its existence.

Take as an example the inhabitants of a two dimensional flat-world. If we didn't interfere with their world (e.g. poke our fingers through their plane) there is no way for them to know of our existence and whether we exist or not would have the same consequences for their world. Now if we interfered in their world they could at least infer the existence of someting outside their particular space-time (if you poke your finger through their plane they'd see slices of it in their world) even if they cannot imagine higher dimensional objects.

Well, I think this is as agnostic as it can get.

Of course theologians and philosophers can theorize as much as they want about this extra space-time reality but there is no way how to test their inferences on this matter. One can only determine if one "hypothesis" (in lack of a better word) is more appealing to oneself than an other. That's how I see it but of course you are entitled to your own oppinion concerning this issue ;-)

[BMCDA]

That's evidence of the Flood, you nincompoop. </cre_mode>

[Sabertooth]

Well, I think this is as agnostic as it can get.

Yep, pretty much.

Of course theologians and philosophers can theorize as much as they want about this extra space-time reality but there is no way how to test their inferences on this matter. One can only determine if one "hypothesis" (in lack of a better word) is more appealing to oneself than an other. That's how I see it but of course you are entitled to your own opinion concerning this issue ;-)

I totally agree.

Here's my deal, at the risk of redundancy...

I think that scientists and the science minded are often incautious with certain terms, like nature, random, nothing, reality, etc., that are theologically loaded. Sometimes inadvertently, and sometimes deliberately so. This only adds, IMO, to the uneccessary hostility between science and other systems of knowledge. It lends credence to the claim of some that certain aspects of science have become like religious dogma, more tenets of faith than anything. To what end?

Mutual incompatibility is not preordained.

Acknowledging "we don't know," or even "working assumptions" costs real science not a cent, and in fact the inherent and readily apparent intellectual honesty of such on approach only adds to its credibility.

[Gumlegs]

Advanced in WHAT? It is possible to be technically wealthy and morally bankrupt.

Absolutely! Just ask Osama bin Laden!

[BMCDA]

I think that scientists and the science minded are often incautious with certain terms, like nature, random, nothing, reality, etc., that are theologically loaded. Sometimes inadvertently, and sometimes deliberately so. This only adds, IMO, to the uneccessary hostility between science and other systems of knowledge. It lends credence to the claim of some that certain aspects of science have become like religious dogma, more tenets of faith than anything.

That's only too true but on the other hand that's a shortcoming of our languages where many words are loaded with different connotations. The word 'theory' is a fine example: in science jargon it has a different meaning than in the vernacular and that's the case with many words. So if scientists and laypersons use a particular word they may have different concepts in mind. Of course one could circumvent this problem by creating new words but I don't think that such a new-speak will be practicable and it would be only a matter of time until these words are also loaded with different meanings. However, in spite of these flaws we are still able to do science. Niels Bohr had a good analogy to this fact: "Our washing up is just like our language. We have dirty water and dirty dishcloths, and yet we manage to get the plates and glasses clean. In language, too, we have to work with unclear concepts and a form of logic whose scope is restricted in an unknown way, and yet we use it to bring some clarity into our understanding of nature."

That scientists too can be dogmatic is true but within our human nature (Alfred Wegener comes to mind as a victim of this behaviour). Often enough it turns out to be true what Max Planck once said: "An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning."

Acknowledging "we don't know," or even "working assumptions" costs real science not a cent, and in fact the inherent and readily apparent intellectual honesty of such on approach only adds to its credibility.

Couldn't agree more.

[RightOnline]

"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."

First, understand something, Vade. I do NOT post to these threads all that often.........and when I do, it certainly isn't to try to "impress" you or anyone else. In fact, that's one of the things I find so sad about the typical "evolution vs. creation" threads (and no, I didn't think that this one would be another one of those tired threads strictly from the title): too many hell-bent on impressing others with the apparent depth of their "knowledge"..........while failing to acknowledge the "other" point of view repeatedly, sarcastically, and derisively.

I must add that you conveniently ignore my point in the reply to which you replied.........namely, why in the hell don't such idiots who write this stuff just have the stones to lay it out on the table: "We're ATHEISTS, we think that those of you who believe in God or the Bible are a bunch of superstitious, drooling rubes, and we're going to say whatever the hell we want to say and know that WE'RE on the "fashionable" side these days........and there's not a go**amned thing you can do about it!"

I wouldn't like 'em any more, but I'd sure as hell respect that level of honesty far more.

[RightOnline]

"Mr. Hatfield, meet Mr. McCoy."

LOL..............no no, Saber; that implies a "feud". I have no feud with Vade on this topic. I sure as all hell disagree with him, but he hasn't tended to be one of the nasty-tempered, sarcastic, blasphemous types to which I have referred on these threads. He lays out his arguments and his "evidence" as he sees it; that's his right. We just agree to disagree.

[gcruse]

 How then do you explain the existence of life on earth
in all its many forms?

Not by throwing out what we know
because of what we don't know.  And
certainly not by replacing it with the
creation myths of  long dead Middle
Eastern desert dwellers.

[defenderSD]

"Not by throwing out what we know because of what we don't know.

I'm not suggesting that we throw out what we know. It's just that we really don't know much about the origins of life on earth. The most crucial aspects of the theory of evolution are pure assumption, and beyond that these assumptions are in opposition to some key scientific principles. The more you know about science, the less you can believe in the theory of evolution.

[gcruse]

The most crucial aspects of the theory of evolution are pure assumption,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but one of the foundational
principles of mathematics cannot be logically derived.  This should
bring down the entire house of cards, but for some reason, hasn't.
So we should adopt something made up out of whole cloth instead?

[defenderSD]

Please read my posts #100 and #102. I haven't read any of these links that you post, but I can already tell from the titles that they are filled with semi-scientific ramblings written by people without advanced scientific knowledge. In a nutshell, here's the basic weakness of the theory of evolution and why it is a big half-truth: Natural selection ("survival of the fittest"), as defined by Darwin, is a perfectly reasonable theory and has probably occurred to a large extent on earth. But what Darwin and nobody else can explain is how "fitter" creatures arise in the first place. Evolutionists employ pure assumption to theorize that random genetic mutations lead to "fitter" creatures, e.g., stronger, faster, smarter, with better sight and hearing. This part of their theory is scientifically absurd and has absolutely no empirical scientific evidence to back it up. In fact, ALL reputable research in this field supports the oppposite view that random genetic mutations do not produce "fitter" creatures but instead produce weaker, less-surivable mutant life forms. When I listen to half-educated evolutionists talk, I can't believe how easily they make massive assumptions with no scientific evidence to support their assumptions. It's truly amazing. God Bless you and have a great day. I like your handle too...Patrick Henry was a great man and I'm sure you are too.

[defenderSD]

I didn't say we should adopt something made out of whole cloth. Instead just look for alternatives to the theory of evolution and use your knowledge and intelligence to find answers that make sense to you. The origins of life on earth are a great mystery and one that we are not likely to solve completely in our lifetimes.

[gcruse]

. The origins of life on earth are a great mystery and
one that we are not likely to solve completely in our lifetimes.

Are you saying ID is more logical?

[RadioAstronomer]

I haven't read any of these links that you post, but I can already tell from the titles that they are filled with semi-scientific ramblings written by people without advanced scientific knowledge.

You have not read them, yet you are making a judgment call on them?

[RadioAstronomer]

The third seems incautious and not agnostic.

Fair enough. I should have been more precise. Since time itself started with the big bang, time had no meaning prior to the Big Bang. Thus the term "before" has no meaning either.

[RadioAstronomer]

I try this by imagining a two dimensional universe wrapped around an expanding torus for example. The whole torus has once been in the "center" at the beginning of the expansion but there is no way for an inhabitant of this universe to point at this "center".

Nicely put! :)

[jwalsh07]

BTW, since time also started with the Big Bang, there was no before.

Sheesh, thats incredible, you've observed this?