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 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 541-548 next last
To: medved
Either update the damned thing to account for all the stuff you've learned since 1995 (assuming anything has made its way into your brain) or quit spamming each and every thread with this outdated crap, bat boy.
61 posted on 07/01/2002 9:52:17 AM PDT by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Quix
But Cosmology has had a few changes along the way. It will likely have some more.

Such is the nature of science, changing when new data contradicts old theories. That's markedly different from another concept that I won't mention...
62 posted on 07/01/2002 9:53:08 AM PDT by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Quix
But atheists don't have a good answer for where the original atoms came from either

And you do?

63 posted on 07/01/2002 9:53:45 AM PDT by laredo44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: medved
Get yourself a copy of "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich"...

No, Ted, that would be an impractical misapplication of the theory of evolution. The request was for a practical application.
64 posted on 07/01/2002 9:54:46 AM PDT by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: TightSqueeze
Show me the list of Bible-Thumpers who advanced science. I agree there were many scientists who were Christian, very few that placed their religion before science though.

Johannes Keppler probably put his religion first (he was looking for evidence of God in the workings of the cosmos). Gregor Mendel was a monk, which probably qualifies, too. I'm sure people can find other examples. The religious scientist seeks to find God in the works of nature while the atheist seeks to find any explanation other than God. Neither is necessarily taking a more "scientific" approach since both assume what they seek to find (the presence or absence of God).

65 posted on 07/01/2002 9:55:11 AM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Love is an action not a feeling or chemical reaction in the brain.
66 posted on 07/01/2002 9:55:32 AM PDT by kinsman redeemer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: TightSqueeze
...and oh, by the way:

Christian first ===>> Kinsman Redeemer <<==== scientist second

67 posted on 07/01/2002 9:57:55 AM PDT by kinsman redeemer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: medved
Given the multiple links you provide to creationist sites, you obviously believe that the universe was created in 6 days, that woman was created from man's rib, that the earth is only about 6,000 years old, that dinosaurs existed in biblical times and that all human life descended from Adam & Eve.

I eagerly await the proof for these "scientific" theories. In the meantime, thanks for the Jack Chick link - always a hoot!

68 posted on 07/01/2002 9:58:02 AM PDT by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: That Subliminal Kid
Theists would say that God didn't "come from" anywhere.

Then why should atoms have come from anywhere?

69 posted on 07/01/2002 9:58:36 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Quix
Aspiring to write for ER?
70 posted on 07/01/2002 9:59:10 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: kinsman redeemer
Love is an action not a feeling or chemical reaction in the brain.

Love is an "action" when used in such a context. English words can and often do have multiple meanings.

In any case, if it is an action then it can be tangibly demonstrated through some method. Either show someone in the "action" of love or, if it is akin to "thinking", show the brain activity that occurs during that action.

Since my comments were directed at someone trying to create an analogy with "God", are you suggesting that "God" is actually an action? People can go about "Godding" in some manner?
71 posted on 07/01/2002 9:59:23 AM PDT by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Atheism is the abscence of belief in gods.

That really isn't right. Atheism is the belief that there are no gods.

72 posted on 07/01/2002 9:59:34 AM PDT by medved
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: gdani
Heh...I thought that Ted was a catastrophist. Did he change his mind for some reason?
73 posted on 07/01/2002 10:00:09 AM PDT by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: TightSqueeze
Show me the list of Bible-Thumpers who advanced science. I agree there were many scientists who were Christian, very few that placed their religion before science though.

Sir Isaac Newton springs to mind.....

74 posted on 07/01/2002 10:02:13 AM PDT by jtw99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: medved
As the first to gratuitously inject Nazism, you automatically lose (Godwin's Law.)
75 posted on 07/01/2002 10:04:14 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: That Subliminal Kid
Theists would say that God didn't "come from" anywhere.

What does that mean?

76 posted on 07/01/2002 10:06:32 AM PDT by laredo44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: TightSqueeze
History has shown, a scientist’s success at adding knowledge to his particular field of endeavor, is inversely proportional to his religious fanaticism.

Issac Newton, by all accounts, was a full-blown religious fanatic. As was arguably Pascal.

Copernicus and Mendel were Catholic clerics -- both putting religion ahead of science.

77 posted on 07/01/2002 10:07:00 AM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: kinsman redeemer
Christian first ===>> Kinsman Redeemer <<==== scientist second

WTF, Is this a complex theory of ID, or are you attempting to display that for you, Christianity is a greater factor than being a scientist? If my second guess is true, believe me I understand,

78 posted on 07/01/2002 10:08:10 AM PDT by TightSqueeze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: jtw99
Newton was a heretic who denied the divinity of Christ, and felt that the trinity was a deliberate attempt to pervert Christian doctrine. FYI ;)
79 posted on 07/01/2002 10:09:48 AM PDT by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

Comment #80 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 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