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

[ksen]

In other words, were do you think the BB[Big Bang] was located?

Why it took place in that little room right off the Oval Office.
.
.
.
Wait a minute, this is a CR-EVO thread?.......Oops, never mind, carry on.

-ksen

[Sabertooth]

Of course, you're right in some sense: one cannot disprove intelligent design because one can always speculate that something has been designed.
Take a rock for example: it could have formed naturally over millions of years or in a volcanic eruption and have been exposed to erosion or an intelligent designer who is able to manipulate matter on the atomic level created it. One can't even rule out the fact that our universe has been created last Tuesday by an omnipotent deity.
Such hypothesis can be neither confirmed nor completely ruled out and therefore they're not scientific.

Agreed, see my post at #46. We see eye to eye here.

But even if we discover Laws of Biology, as we have Laws of Physics and Chemistry, we will forever beg the question (scientifically, anyway) of how and why those laws came to be...

And the same was true for lightning up until some two hundred years ago. People begged the question of how and why lightnings happend. They invented deities like Thor or Zeus and numerous others who were thought to cause this phenomenon. Were they right? I don't know but today we have a naturalistic explanation for this phenomenon so we don't need these deities anymore.

Today it isn't lightning we're preoccupied with but more complex issues like the ones you named above. Of course we can ascribe them to some god but this "explanation" may be too discarded if a naturalistic explanation is available. Therefore I tend to say that I don't know rather than to assert that it must be the work of a deity. So there's absolutely no problem with saying that "science hasn't found out yet" but we can't state with absolute certainty that science will never answer a certain issue.

I think we can state with a fair amount of certainty that science will never be able to tell us what caused the Big Bang, or why the Laws governing the Universe are as they are, and not something else... For the precise reason that those questions require answers that go beyond space and time in their scope.

These are questions that science wasn't meant to answer, although each of us has the prerogative to utilize science to try and glean our best understanding of such matters.

The problem I see with supernaturalistic explanations is that one cannot determine whether there is no naturalistic explanation left so there is only the option to evoke the supernatural or whether there exists a naturalistic explanation but we haven't looked hard enough.

When it come to first causes, that is, "What causes nature?" the supernatural is a deus ex machina and "natural causes" is a tautology.

Neither has an advantage ofer the other, from the standpoint of science.

Please note, I'm not saying "Evolution is a tautology."

[Sabertooth]

But truth is, many of the great Western scientists of the last five centuries were religious Christians (therefore creationists), some extremely devout.

True, but they were scientists at a time when there wasn't an awareness of scientific evidence that might come into conflict with their devotion, or at least their interpretation of it.

I was speaking more in terms of contemporary Creationists, as defined in my post at #46:

"But I think a better definition of Creationist would be anyone who believes in Special Creation of species, regardless of time frame. That's neither provable nor disprovable, scientifically. "

[Askel5]

First, complexity is problematic to define, and irreducible complexity more so.

Gee whiz ... trust no one whittles away anymore of this dude's paper-thin "collective intelligence".

[ksen]

There are no examples of something designed vs something not designed for comparison. If everything is designed, the theory is vacuous.

There are no examples of something evolved vs something not evolved for comparison. If everything is evolved, the theory is vacuous.

-ksen

[Doctor Stochastic]

One can test if something happens "randomly." One cannot test design. One can look for things like critical exponents to see if one is in a random regime. This is done regularly by experimenters. There is no criteria (under the Design Hypothesis) to say something isn't designed.

[Windshark]

Dang...I thought this thread was about Democrats...

Musta been the title.

[BMCDA]

I think we can state with a fair amount of certainty that science will never be able to tell us what caused the Big Bang, or why the Laws governing the Universe are as they are, and not something else... For the precise reason that those questions require answers that go beyond space and time in their scope.

I admit that's very unlikely (at least from our present point of view) and that's why I withhold any speculation concerning this issue. If there is no way to obtain any empirical evidence that backs up such speculations I don't see their merit. Therefore one speculation is as good as any other to avoid admitting that one simply does not know. (Of course there are people who admit that those are only speculations but there are others who claim they are the Truth because they "just know" it to be so)

[Sabertooth]

One can test if something happens "randomly." One cannot test design. One can look for things like critical exponents to see if one is in a random regime. This is done regularly by experimenters. There is no criteria (under the Design Hypothesis) to say something isn't designed.

Think about it... something is either random or designed... if you can't test for one, you really can't test for the other.

If you could prove "not random," then you could prove design by elimination.

[gcruse]

Another intellectual nugget from a secular extremist.

  Glad you enjoyed it.

Why don't you try learning a little bit about the real contributions made by
religion to mankind.

  The cargo cult may have contributed something
   to the Polynesians, too, for all I know.  But I wouldn't
   bet it brought them modernity, and clinging  to it in
   the face of reality is a waste of humanity.

[Doctor Stochastic]

I think that scientists just keep trying to solve harder and harder problems, until they get to the one that's too hard. In Einstein's case, he spent lots of time trying to find a good unified field theory. He didn't get one, but other people haven't yet either. (Maybe soon.)

Of course, Einstein's problems with QM were primarily philosophical. He didn't like philosophical consequences. Of course, he never disagreed that QM gave the right answers, he just thought it incomplete. From today's perspective, it seems that QM will always be incomplete, using Einstein's version of completeness.

[Doctor Stochastic]

No one states the everything is evolved.

[ksen]

There is no criteria (under the Design Hypothesis) to say something isn't designed.

Really? So what exactly is the criteria in Evolutionary Theory that would say that something is not evolved?

-ksen

[Doctor Stochastic]

False dichotomy. There are other things than random or design, chaos for example.

[Sabertooth]

If there is no way to obtain any empirical evidence that backs up such speculations I don't see their merit.

There's more to life than science. How would you prove "love," scientifically?

Yet, there's something to be said for it.

Therefore one speculation is as good as any other to avoid admitting that one simply does not know.

Is all knowledge scientific?

Should a truth be ignored, simply because it might elude the grasp of science?

[Doctor Stochastic]

So what exactly is the criteria in Evolutionary Theory that would say that something is not evolved?

Lack of a cladistic structure at either the genotypic or phenotypic level. One only needs a synchronic snapshot so current creatures are sufficient.

[ksen]

No one states the everything is evolved.

They don't? Can you give me an example of something that hasn't evolved? If it/they are not evolved and weren't designed, then how did it/they get here?

-ksen

[Sabertooth]

There are other things than random or design, chaos for example.

Which "chaos" are we talking about?

[Aric2000]

Which Chaos are we talking about.

The Chaos on this thread for one? I feel like a fricking ping pong bal and you're the net!! LOL

[ksen]

Lack of a cladistic structure at either the genotypic or phenotypic level. One only needs a synchronic snapshot so current creatures are sufficient.

Aaww, you're just saying that because you knew that I wouldn't know what in the world you were talking about. ;^)

-ksen