Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Intelligent Design Is Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo
Physics Today ^ | July 1, 2002 | Adrian L. Melott

Posted on 07/01/2002 7:25:44 AM PDT by aculeus

My deliberately provocative title is borrowed from Leonard Krishtalka, who directs the Natural History Museum at the University of Kansas. Hired-gun "design theorists" in cheap tuxedos have met with some success in getting close to their target: public science education. I hope to convince you that this threat is worth paying attention to. As I write, intelligent design (ID) is a hot issue in the states of Washington and Ohio (see Physics Today, May 2002, page 31*). Evolutionary biology is ID's primary target, but geology and physics are within its blast zone.

Creationism evolves. As in biological evolution, old forms persist alongside new. After the Scopes "Monkey Trial" of 1925, creationists tried to get public schools to teach biblical accounts of the origin and diversity of life. Various courts ruled the strategy unconstitutional. Next came the invention of "creation science," which was intended to bypass constitutional protections. It, too, was recognized by the courts as religion. Despite adverse court rulings, creationists persist in reapplying these old strategies locally. In many places, the pressure keeps public school biology teachers intimidated and evolution quietly minimized.

However, a new strategy, based on so-called ID theory, is now at the cutting edge of creationism. ID is different from its forebears. It does a better job of disguising its sectarian intent. It is well funded and nationally coordinated. To appeal to a wider range of people, biblical literalism, Earth's age, and other awkward issues are swept under the rug. Indeed, ID obfuscates sufficiently well that some educated people with little background in the relevant science have been taken in by it. Among ID's diverse adherents are engineers, doctors--and even physicists.

ID advocates can't accept the inability of science to deal with supernatural hypotheses, and they see this limitation as a sacrilegious denial of God's work and presence. Desperately in need of affirmation, they invent "theistic science" in which the design of the Creator is manifest. Perhaps because their religious faith is rather weak, they need to bolster their beliefs every way they can--including hijacking science to save souls and prove the existence of God.

William Dembski, a mathematician and philosopher at Baylor University and one of ID's chief advocates, asserts that: " . . . any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient."1 Whether or not they agree with Dembski on this point, most Americans hold some form of religious belief. Using what they call the Wedge Strategy,2 ID advocates seek to pry Americans away from "naturalistic science" by forcing them to choose between science and religion. ID advocates know that science will lose. They portray science as we know it as innately antireligious, thereby blurring the distinction between science and how science may be interpreted.

When presenting their views before the public, ID advocates generally disguise their religious intent. In academic venues, they avoid any direct reference to the Designer. They portray ID as merely an exercise in detecting design, citing examples from archaeology, the SETI (search for extraterrestrial intelligence) project, and other enterprises. Cambridge University Press has published one ID book,3 which, the ID advocates repeatedly proclaim, constitutes evidence that their case has real scientific merit. ID creationist publications are nearly absent from refereed journals, and this state of affairs is presented as evidence of censorship.

This censorship, ID advocates argue, justifies the exploitation of public schools and the children in them to circumvent established scientific procedures. In tort law, expert scientific testimony must agree with the consensus of experts in a given field. No such limitation exists with respect to public education. ID advocates can snow the public and school boards with pseudoscientific presentations. As represented by ID advocates, biological evolution is a theory in crisis, fraught with numerous plausible-sounding failures, most of which are recycled from overt creationists. It is "only fair," the ID case continues, to present alternatives so that children can make up their own minds. Yesterday's alternative was "Flood geology." Today's is "design theory."

Fairness, open discussion, and democracy are core American values and often problematic. Unfortunately, journalists routinely present controversies where none exist, or they present political controversies as scientific controversies. Stories on conflicts gain readers, and advertising follows. This bias toward reporting conflicts, along with journalists' inability to evaluate scientific content and their unwillingness to do accuracy checks (with notable exceptions), are among the greatest challenges to the broad public understanding of science.

ID creationism is largely content-free rhetoric. Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University and an ID proponent, argues that many biochemical and biophysical mechanisms are "irreducibly complex."4 He means that, if partially dismembered, they would not work, so they could not have evolved. This line of argument ignores the large number of biological functions that look irreducibly complex, but for which intermediates have been found. One response to Behe's claims consists of the tedious task of demonstrating functions in a possible evolutionary path to the claimed irreducibly complex state. When presented with these paths, Behe typically ignores them and moves on. I admire the people who are willing to spend the time to put together the detailed refutations.5

The position of an ID creationist can be summarized as: "I can't understand how this complex outcome could have arisen, so it must be a miracle." In an inversion of the usual procedure in science, the null hypothesis is taken to be the thing Dembski, Behe, and their cohorts want to prove, albeit with considerable window-dressing. Dembski classifies all phenomena as resulting from necessity, chance, or design. In ruling out necessity, he means approximately that one could not predict the detailed structures and information we see in biological systems from the laws of physics. His reference to chance is essentially equivalent to the creationist use of one of the red herrings introduced by Fred Hoyle:

A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there?6 Having dispensed with necessity and chance, Dembski concludes that design has been detected on the grounds that nothing else can explain the phenomenon--at least according to him.

Of course, design has no predictive power. ID is not a scientific theory. If we had previously attributed the unexplainable to design, we would still be using Thor's hammer to explain thunder. Nor does ID have any technological applications. It can be fun to ask ID advocates about the practical applications of their work. Evolution has numerous practical technological applications, including vaccine development. ID has none.

As organisms evolve, they become more complex, but evolution doesn't contravene the second law of thermodynamics. Dembski, like his creationist predecessors, misuses thermodynamics. To support the case for ID, he has presented arguments based on a supposed Law of Conservation of Information, an axiomatic law that applies only to closed systems with very restricted assumptions.7 Organisms, of course, are not closed systems.

ID's reach extends beyond biology to physics and cosmology. One interesting discussion concerns the fundamental constants. There is a well-known point of view that our existence depends on a number of constants lying within a narrow range. As one might expect, the religious community has generally viewed this coincidence as evidence in favor of--or at least as a plausibility argument for--their beliefs. The ID creationist community has adopted the fundamental constants as additional evidence for their Designer of Life--apparently not realizing that many fine-tuning arguments are based on physical constants allowing evolution to proceed. Physical cosmology is largely absent from school science standards. Where present, as in Kansas, it is likely to come under ID attack.

I have only scratched the surface here. Don't assume everything is fine in your school system even if it seems free of conflict. Peace may mean that evolution, the core concept of biology, is minimized. No region of the country is immune. Watch out for the guys in tuxedos--they don't have violins in those cases.

Adrian Melott is a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Kansas in Lawrence. He is also a founding board member of Kansas Citizens for Science.

Letters are encouraged and should be sent to Letters, Physics Today, American Center for Physics, One Physics Ellipse, College Park, MD 20740-3842 or by e-mail to ptletter@aip.org (using your surname as "Subject"). Please include your affiliation, mailing address, and daytime phone number. We reserve the right to edit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References 1. W. Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Ill. (1999), p. 206. 2. See http://rnaworld.bio.ukans.edu/id-intro/sect3.html. Another source is http://www.sunflower.com/~jkrebs/JCCC/05%20Wedge_edited.html 3. W. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities, Cambridge U. Press, New York (1998). For a review by W. Elsberry, see http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/zgists/wre/papers/dembski7.html. 4. M. Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Free Press, New York (1996). 5. See http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/catalano/box/behe.htm. See also http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/behe.html 6. F. Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York (1983), p. 18. 7. W. Dembski, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, Md. (2002).


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: adrianmelott; crevolist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 541-548 next last
To: Map Kernow
Interested FReepers should check them out and let them speak for themselves,

Yes indeed. Behe and Dembski are quite able to defend themselves and do so at length in the following sites:
Behe's Online Articles
Dembski's Site

301 posted on 07/01/2002 6:54:16 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
It reeks? Okay. Fine. It reeks. I really would like to see for myself where Dembski describes or discusses the designer. I really would like for you to define once and for all what "Creationism" is and how ID is "stealth Creationism" based on both the definition of the word and Dembski's work. It shouldn't be difficult assuming you are as familiar with his work as you purport to be.
302 posted on 07/01/2002 6:55:33 PM PDT by That Subliminal Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
It is a truth we are created. How can we as a culture inculcate that truth if our highest court prohibits us from teaching that truth?

It is quite interesting that the 9 old fools place themselves above not just the people but also above God. We need big changes in the court and a few impeachments would do a world of good.

303 posted on 07/01/2002 6:59:28 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
Have just discovered fossil evidence in backyard confirming myriad generational mutations clearly demonstrating that cetaceans evolved directly from voles. STOP!! Can you just believe the luck??? I find absolute proof and Gould takes the Big Sleep before I can show it to him.

I wonder what he has evolved into now??

304 posted on 07/01/2002 7:00:51 PM PDT by Doc Savage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Oh, what's there not to admit. Of course I want God's existence recognized and Christian (or Jewish or Judeo -Christian) values taught. I think doing these things will make us a better country. I think if these things were common many of the social pathologies with which I grew up -- friends' suicides, friends' rapes, murders and drug abuse would have been greatly diminished.

Exposing an atheist child to the Bible wouldn't hurt him. It would only make him more knowledgable about our culture and our values.

And prayer, why would an atheist even be bothered by the uttering of meaningless words?

305 posted on 07/01/2002 7:01:52 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: supercat
There are means by which some such changes could occur

Nope there is not, and here's why, if natural selection is the agent of evolution - as evolutionists claim - then through the millions of years that such transformations would require to take place (again as the evolutionists admit) those individuals, those species would be less fit than they were before. In other words, the theory of evolution is based on mutually contradictory assumptions and even on a philosophical level, it is utterly false.

306 posted on 07/01/2002 7:03:54 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: That Subliminal Kid
I really would like to see for myself where Dembski describes or discusses the designer.

Okay. You're seriously claiming, I assume, that there's no designer in Intelligent Design theory. That's your position. Fine. We have no disagreement.

307 posted on 07/01/2002 7:06:44 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
I want to make sure they understand that B. and D. aren't helping them.

They certainly are helping, a lot. Behe revived intelligent design with his irreducible complexity. Dembski has given brilliant demonstration of the mathematical impossibility of evolution.

308 posted on 07/01/2002 7:08:35 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: elephantlips
The study of science in all of its aspects was started by Christians

Huh? I suppose I don't know when Pythagoras, Galen, Hippocrates lived.

309 posted on 07/01/2002 7:11:51 PM PDT by jammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
Exposing an atheist child to the Bible wouldn't hurt him. It would only make him more knowledgable about our culture and our values. And prayer, why would an atheist even be bothered by the uttering of meaningless words?

Virtually everyone is explosed to the Bible. No harm done that I can see. And as for merely "uttering" the words, again there's no harm. We've all been to wedings in churches which weren't our own, and none of us has suffered from the experience. I assume that the opposition comes from being compelled to do so, and being taxed to pay the salaries of those who do the compelling. I think the 1st Amendment had that kind of thing in mind. You might read this: Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (by Thomas Jefferson).

310 posted on 07/01/2002 7:13:50 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
It is quite interesting that the 9 old fools place themselves

I think there was only 7 old fools :-). If my memory is right Engle v Vitale had two dissenters.

above not just the people but also above God. We need big changes in the court and a few impeachments would do a world of good.

I'll note for the atheist libertarians on the thread that the judges who threw prayer out of school greatly increased the power of the central government in many other ways even to the point where courts had no fear in levying taxes.

311 posted on 07/01/2002 7:15:40 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
You're seriously claiming, I assume, that there's no designer in Intelligent Design theory. That's your position. Fine. We have no disagreement.

Patrick, I’m sure you know that when you make an assumption; you make an ass out of you and umption. LOL

If you say evolution claims that ID is not possible than what are you saying?

When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you should do is stop digging.

312 posted on 07/01/2002 7:17:17 PM PDT by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
Science concerns itself with reality and phenomena that can be observed or tested.

So does intelligent design. In fact, let's look at it right now. Evolution would say that you can add a leg or two to an organism at random. This of course is a very stupid statement, because even if you could produce a leg at random it would not work like a leg. You would need blood to keep it working, you would need nerves to tell it to move, you would need muscles to make it move, etc., etc. So evolution is really a very stupid theory. Any doctor who practiced medicine as if the different parts of an organism were not interrelated would soon find himself with a lot of dead patients.

313 posted on 07/01/2002 7:18:09 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
Evolution would say that you can add a leg or two to an organism at random. This of course is a very stupid statement, because even if you could produce a leg at random it would not work like a leg.

From Science News (just FYI):

http://www.cosmiverse.com/science042601.html

Modifying Two Genes Grows Extra Legs On Beetles April 26, 2000 08:15 CST

Researchers at Brigham Young University have experimented with the tweaking of two genes known as ubx & abd-A, both encoded for specialization of certain body parts--in this case a beetle's thorax region.

The abdomen (thorax) is the hind end of the insect, and a number of new legs grew in the region when the team suppressed the presence of these two genes. Randy Bennett, lead author of the study, details the findings in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal.

Each insect has a finite number of legs on their thorax, six if you are a flea, a bee, a beetle, or a fly. The defining difference in the insect kingdom occurred when some insects developed wings along the evolutionary highway.

The results from this experiment prove the mutability of ubx & abd-A, samplings of the "hox genes" known for encoding master body plans, and the intention is to further investigate not only the evolutionary past for these insects who developed wings, and the obvious advantages that that presented, but also how these genes augment and modify accordingly for all animals.

Also affected by this line of research are the geneticists presently at work in an attempt to devise gene therapy methods. Changing the mode of one gene can have drastic results in the genetic styling of an animal, with their vast and complex network of operations, but Bennett is careful to cautions, "They do help to make different regions of the body different from other regions, [but] they don't do exactly the same thing, "(in animals as in humans).

314 posted on 07/01/2002 7:29:26 PM PDT by forsnax5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Virtually everyone is explosed to the Bible.

I think you're older than I am. That's not really true for my generation. Even less to those younger than me.

I have no problem with the Virginia Statute or the ideas reflected in it. But the imposition of worship and the teaching of morality are different.

Prayer can be a form of coerced worship and I would object to a child -- or anybody -- being made to say one. I would even suggest that a child not be encouraged to repeat one. On the other hand, there should be no problem with a short prayer being read by a publicly paid official -- school or otherwise -- over the public address system, and the children being required to listen to it.

Public prayer is an American tradition going back to the Constitutional Convention -- even in public schools.

Here's Jefferson on the teaching of Christian values:

The practice of morality being necessary for the well-being of society, He has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral precepts of Jesus, and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in his discourses. — TJ to James Fishback, Sept 27, 1809, Bergh 12:315. (1809.)

315 posted on 07/01/2002 7:30:24 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
Evolution IS a Religion!
316 posted on 07/01/2002 7:31:52 PM PDT by Abogado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Hum, but wouldn't that depend on whether we had fossil evidence of very primitive computers

But we do not have any evidence of such transformations - neither of computers nor of species. The fossil record is full of 'missing links". Very important ones too, in fact in all the important places - fish to frog, frog to lizard, lizard to mouse, ape to man. After 150 years of digging the fossils still do not show any evolution having taken place.

317 posted on 07/01/2002 7:38:26 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: That Subliminal Kid
It doesn't make sense to talk about creating anything if there's no such thing as time; the whole notion of creating something is that there is some time before which the thing doesn't exist and after which it does.
318 posted on 07/01/2002 7:38:40 PM PDT by jejones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
That's not true. The huge odds are against a particular (specifically the 'strawman') model of abiogenesis being true. So that particular model is kaput? How does that rule out any other theory?

Here's how, if abiogenesis is impossible, as you seem to be admitting, then God created life. If God is our Creator, why would we even bother with such a convoluted, tied together with chewing gum theory as the theory of evolution? More importantly, if God created life, why would we believe Darwin instead of His own words as to who created man?

319 posted on 07/01/2002 7:43:32 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: jejones
It doesn't make sense to talk about creating anything if there's no such thing as time; the whole notion of creating something is that there is some time before which the thing doesn't exist and after which it does.

Er, if I may interject, you might wish to check out the links I posted at #195.

320 posted on 07/01/2002 7:45:22 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 541-548 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson