Theory of 'intelligent design' isn't ready for natural selection

To Seattle area residents the struggle over how evolution is taught in public high schools may seem a topic from the distant past or a distant place.

Don't bet on it. One nearby episode in the controversy has ended, but a far-reaching, Seattle-based agenda to overthrow Darwin is gaining momentum.

Roger DeHart, a high-school science teacher who was the center of an intense curriculum dispute a few years ago in Skagit County, is leaving the state. He plans to teach next year in a private Christian school in California.

The fuss over DeHart's use of "intelligent design" theory in his classes at Burlington-Edison High School was merely a tiny blip in a grand scheme by promoters of the theory.

The theory is essentially this: Life is so complex that it can only be the result of design by an intelligent being.

As unlikely as it may seem, Seattle is ground zero for the intelligent-design agenda, thanks to the Seattle-based Discovery Institute and its Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC).

Headed by one-time Seattle City councilman and former Reagan administration official Bruce Chapman, the Discovery Institute is best known locally for its savvy insights on topics ranging from regionalism, transportation, defense policy and the economy.

In the late '90s, the institute jumped into the nation's culture wars with the CRSC. It may be little known to local folks, but it has caught the attention of conservative religious organizations around the country.

It's bound to get more attention in the future. Just last month, a documentary, Icons of Evolution, premiered at Seattle Pacific University. The video is based on a book of the same name by CRSC fellow Jonathan Wells. It tells the story of DeHart, along with the standard critique of Darwinian evolution that fuels the argument for intelligent design.

The video is part of the anti-Darwin agenda. Cruise the Internet on this topic and you'll find something called the Wedge Strategy, which credits the CRSC with a five-year plan for methodically promoting intelligent design and a 20-year goal of seeing "design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life."

Last week, Chapman tried to put a little distance between his institute and the "wedge" document. He said it was a fund-raising tool used four years ago. "I don't disagree with it," he told me, "but it's not our program." (I'll let the folks who gave money based on the proposed strategy ponder what that means.)

Program or not, it is clear that the CRSC is intent on bringing down what one Center fellow calls "scientific imperialism." Surely Stephen Jay Gould already is spinning in his grave. Gould, one of America's most widely respected scientists and a prolific essayist, died just two weeks ago. Among his many fine books is one I kept by my bedside for many weeks after it was published in 1999, "Rock of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life."

In "Rock of Ages," Gould presents an elegant case for the necessary co-existence of science and religion. Rather than conflicting, as secular humanists insist, or blending, as intelligent-design proponents would have it, science and religion exist in distinct domains, what Gould called magisteria (domains of teaching authority).

The domain of science is the empirical universe; the domain of religion is the moral, ethical and spiritual meaning of life.

Gould was called America's most prominent evolutionist, yet he too, was a critic of Darwin's theory, and the object of some controversy within the scientific community. There's a lesson in that: In the domain of science there is plenty of room for disagreement and alternative theories without bringing God into the debate.

I have no quarrel with those who believe in intelligent design. It has appeal as a way to grasp the unknowable why of our existence. But it is only a belief. When advocates push intelligent design as a legitimate scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations of evolution, it is time to push back.

That's what they continue to do in Skagit County. Last week, the Burlington-Edison School Board rejected on a 4-1 vote a proposal to "encourage" the teaching of intelligent design. Bravo.

Despite proponents' claims of scientific validity, intelligent design is little more than religion-based creationism wrapped in critiques of Darwin and all dressed up in politically correct language. All for the ultimate goal — placing a Christian God in science classrooms of America's public high schools.

The Answer to "God Hates Idiots Too."

Excellent and most appropriate link, thanks.

I've been around such people as these my entire life, but it still astounds me that they can claim to be rational, reasoning human beings. They use the same nonsensical arguments time and again and continually argue from ignorance, envy, and hate.

It's as if they are fighting the incoming tide by waving their bible at it, then claiming victory as the tide eventually goes out, singing "La Marseillaise" as they slink back into their pits, forgetting that it will be back again tomorrow. I suspect the Egyptian priests made the same kind of noises every year when the Nile started to flood. Frankly, I can't see the difference.

Upon further reflection, I should correct myself for making a connection in my original post that really should not have been made: I made the case that "intelligent design" and "irreducible complexity" were one and the same, when in fact they are not directly related. "Intelligent design" (ID) is different in that it is based more on philosophical and rational argument than on scientific evaluation, which is probably why it is easier to make a logical case for it.

I will use a parallel to make an argument in favor of ID over evolution, based on what is known in philosophy as the Allegory of Paley's Watch.

Suppose you live in a small village on an island somewhere in the South Pacific. You live in conditions that would be described as "primitive" by our standards, and you have no exposure to the outside world. While walking along the beach one day, you come across a large pile of driftwood and other assorted things that have been washed up by the tides, seemingly at random. In the midst of the various things on the beach you come across a gold watch, though your primitive circumstances and lack of exposure to the outside world make you thoroughly ignorant of what exactly this thing is.

The point that is made in Paley's allegory is that a rational person in such a situation would be able to deduce that the item was different than all the other things washed up on the shore. It would be clear to you that this watch was not the result of a natural or random process but of a creative process, and even though you do not know the purpose that this thing serves (and even if the watch is not working when it lands on the beach) you would base this presumption on nothing more than the complexity of the object in your hand.

You can take this allegory one step further. Imagine that while walking along the beach you come upon a pile of driftwood in all shapes and sizes, all of the pieces worn down in a random fashion by the wind and the waves. Now suppose that in the midst of this pile you find one piece of wood that is not worn like the rest but is carved in some intricate manner into a figurine or even some other form that you don't recognize. Once again, any rational person would recognize that this carved piece of wood had an origin that was "higher" than the random pounding of the waves, and once again you would make this case based on nothing more than the complexity of the object in your hand.

It is important to note that no process of scientific evaluation would ever be able to validate your theory in either case (assuming, of course, that you were never able to leave the island and look for the source of these items). What is also worth noting is that it is not entirely impossible for these objects to have washed up on the beach as a result of a random process. It is theoretically possible for the wind and the waves to erode a piece of driftwood in such a way that it assumes a complex, intricate form. It is far less likely, but also theoretically possible, that the various minerals and elements required to form the watch (gold, nickel, glass, etc.) could be brought together in a random process to produce the objest in your hand.

And yet despite the lack of "scientific proof" to support the theory of an outside creative cause, and the theoretical possibility that these objects were the result of a natural process, the person who believes that these things were created at random is the one who is actually making an irrational leap of faith!

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.