Christian Colligation of Apologetics Debate Research & Evangelism |
Which Numbers are Really Relevant? Intelligent Design, Evolution and Project Steve By William Kesatie, J.D. On February 16, 2003, the National Center For Science Education (“NCSE”), an organization located in Oakland, California, formed to promote the teaching of evolution in the public schools, released “Project Steve,” a strongly-worded, anti-creationism statement signed by 220 scientists named Steve. According to the NCSE website, the statement represents a “tongue in cheek” effort on behalf of the organization to respond to the “long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of ‘scientists who doubt evolution’ or ‘scientists who dissent from Darwinism.’" The Project Steve Statement, as set forth on the NCSE website, reads as follows: Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools. (Emphasis added.)Surely, such a strong statement signed by 220 scientists named Steve closes the door on the issue, doesn’t it? After all, if 220 scientists and named Steve all feel so strongly about the issue, their conjecture that there must be 220,000 scientists not named Steve who would also sign such a document, correct? Well, as the NCSE website makes clear, the validity of a scientific theory is not a numbers game. In a section of the NCSE website entitled “FAQ”, i.e., frequently asked questions, the NCSE notes: “We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!” How true. If that were the case, the debate would be over because those who have been pulling together lists of scientists who question or doubt Darwinism have not done so in an effort to demonstrate that the larger number of scientists doubt the prevailing Darwinian paradigm. Any advocate of intelligent design will readily admit that those doubting Darwinism in the scientific community are in the minority. So, even if the NCSE were to have 2 million scientists sign a statement similar to Project Steve’s statement, as the NSCE acknowledges such a list would not constitute a final resolution of the issue. But if both sides agree that science is not decided by the number of scientists supporting the theory but by the evidence, why such lists being compiled? The NCSE claims to state their reason on their website: “[T]o respond to the long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of ‘scientists who doubt evolution’ or ‘scientists who dissent from Darwinism.’" Thus, it must be the people that the NCSE categorizes as “creationists” who are the initiators of such lists, right? In fact, the Darwinists themselves bear the responsibility for those questioning Darwinism to develop such lists. Any thoughtful perusal of pro-evolution websites demonstrates that it is the Darwinists who regularly use the lack of scientific support for ID to prove it is wrong. Among their primary arguments, Darwinists regularly make the following objections to the teaching of ID: 1) the scientific community overwhelmingly support Darwinism; and 2) there are no “peer reviewed journals” with ID Published research; and 3) the scientific organizations support the evolutionary theory. See, e.g., "The lynching of Bill Dembski", Author: Heeren, Fred, Source: The American Spectator v. 33 no. 9 (Nov. 2000) p. 44-51. All three of these objections appeal to the "number" of scientists who support evolution (numbers, of course, being irrelevant to the truth of the scientific theory as admitted by the NCSE). For example, among the NCSE’s on-line resources is a page entitled “Twelve Tips for Testifying at School Board Meetings.” Tip number eight reads as follows: “Highlight the scientific consensus. Cite the statements in support of evolution from scientific organizations reprinted in NCSE's Voices for Evolution. Also cite the National Academy of Science's Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences. Find scientists in your area to testify that creationism (or intelligent design theory, abrupt appearance theory, and so forth) is bad science.” (Emphasis added.)John S. Dickey, Jr., Director Outreach and Research Support, American Geophysical Union, authored a paper entitled “Senate Passes Elementary And Secondary Education Act Including Amendment With Intelligent Design Origins”, wherein he states: “The fact that ID creationism is not part of any scientific debate about life's origins and is not offered as a viable scientific explanation at scientific meetings or in peer-reviewed journals is never mentioned by ID proponents.”David E. Thomas, a member of the Coalition for Excellence in Science Education, writes in his on-line article “Should We Really Teach All Theories of Origins in Science Class?”: “[T]he vast majority of scientists and professional scientific organizations have affirmed that evolution is the only scientific, evidence-supported theory for the diversity of life.”Obviously, the Darwinists are using the alleged lack of scientific support for the theory of Intelligent Design as a sword to claim that it is not science, and are now ridiculing the fact that the ID advocates are using scientific support as a shield to such attacks. “Intelligent Design" Is Not Accepted by Most Scientists, But Why? One of the principal objections to “Intelligent Design” is that it is not a theory accepted by most scientists. Abandoning principals normally applied to scientific inquiry, the common polemic asserts that scientists accept, based upon its explanatory power, the “fact” of evolution. [“[T]he statements of science should never be accepted as ‘final truth.’ Instead, over time they generally form a sequence of increasingly more accurate statements. Nevertheless, in the case of heliocentricism as in evolution, the data are so convincing that the accuracy of the theory is no longer questioned in science.” National Association of Sciences, “Evolution and the Nature of Science”(1998). For example, the National Science Teachers Association Position Statement on Evolution states: There is no longer a debate among scientists over whether evolution has taken place.In a booklet entitled "Science and creationism, the View from the National Academy of Sciences, appendix Frequently Asked Questions” the NAS echoes the statement of the National Science Teachers Association: Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong.The National Academy of Sciences booklet later resorts to the number of scientists supporting evolution by continuing: The scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming.But is this in fact true? Is the scientific consensus so overwhelming? Or is it more likely that the perceived lack of scientific support for the theory of intelligent design is based upon other, less scientific things? Could it be that the perceived lack of support is not due to any weakness in intelligent design, but simply due to the positioning of its claims as a another form of the discredited view of creationism coupled with a strong threat of reprimand against those who question evolutionism? The question confronting us is whether intelligent design is being given a fair hearing by the scientific community. It is the author’s contention that the failure of the scientific community to support intelligent design is based not so much on the merits of intelligent design, but rather upon a campaign (intended or not) to discredit intelligent design as a non-scientific discipline. As a preliminary matter, it is worth noting that in addition to being highly subjective as to what constitutes an "overwhelming" number, I was unable to find any studies which support statements such as those made by the NAS that the “scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming.” While I do not intend to dwell on this fact sense I strongly suspect that the statement is true even if overstated (“overwhelming” may be too strong of a word), I point it out simply to note that the pro-evolutionism community is positing a statement that it has not supported. Instead, these advocates continually insist that it is the intelligent design theorists who must produce lists of scientists who support intelligent design’s basic premise, i.e., that biology contains the fingerprints of a creator. Yet, the evolutionism advocates cannot present proof of their own claims. Defining Intelligent Design First, it is necessary to define “intelligent design”. This is important because, as will be shown later, the opponents of “intelligent design” regularly identify it as merely another form of “creationism”. While it is almost certainly true that many Bible-believing Christians probably welcome intelligent design because it tends to add scientific credence to their beliefs, to view intelligent design is simply another form of creationism is inaccurate. Probably the best definition of intelligent design is found on the web page of the Discovery Institute, a Seattle based public policy center and a leading advocate of the intelligent design position. Since they are the main body of supporters for intelligent design, to avoid using a strawman, it is best to accept that Institute's definition. According to the Discovery Institute: "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."One of the first things to note about this definition is the lack of any mention of “god” or "a god" or "gods" as the intelligent designer(s). Intelligent design theorists do not attempt to identify the “intelligent cause” of the design found in nature. The refusal on the part of intelligent design advocates to identify the “intelligent cause” is actually consistent with the definition of sciences found in the NAS's booklet "Science and Creationism, the View from the National Academy of Sciences". There, in responding to a criticism that evolution is only an inference, the authors of the booklet state: Much scientific discovery is done through indirect experimentation and observation in which inferences are made, and hypotheses generated from those inferences are tested. For instance, particle physicists cannot directly observe subatomic particles because the particles are too small. They make inferences about the weight, speed, and other properties of the particles based on other observations. A logical hypothesis might be something like this: If the weight of this particle is Y, when I bombard it, X will happen. If X does not happen, then the hypothesis is disproved. Thus, we can learn about the natural world even if we cannot directly observe a phenomenon--and that is true about the past, too.Further, "intelligent design" is not intended to serve as the answer to every scientific question. The definition states that “certain features” of nature are “best explained” by this unidentified intelligent cause. I am not aware of any advocate of intelligent design rejecting natural explanations which can satisfactorily explain a phenomenon. Thus, only people with no understanding of the issues believe that intelligent design theorists would argue that thunder must come from the gods despite perfectly good, rational, natural explanations for the event. But, of course, the proponents of evolution make that argument. (See, e.g., "A Total Eclipse of Reason", by John Rennie, from Scientific American, where the author says: Why stop at evolution and cosmology, though? Let's make sure that the schoolkids of Kansas get a really first- rate education by loosening up the teaching standards for other so-called scientific ideas that are, after all, just theories. The atomic theory, for example. The theory of relativity. Heck, the Copernican theory--do we really know that the universe doesn't revolve around the earth? It sure looked that way during the eclipse.Now, I acknowledge and accept the prestige and authority of Scientific American, the self-proclaimed "place to turn for understandable, authoritative reporting on the spectacular developments that have taken place in every field of science," in the scientific community. So, when such a lofty magazine issues drivel such as Mr. Rennie's article which completely misrepresents the view of those advocating intelligent design, is it really that difficult to understand why scientists, as a whole, reject the theory? Intelligent Design is a Relatively Recent Discipline One must remember that intelligent design is in its infancy. Intelligent design has only been part of the scientific landscape for less than ten years. Prior to that time, we did not have the expertise takes him in the inner workings of the cell. Information technology which serves as is the basis for the Intelligent design movement was unknown prior to the late nineteen seventies. Thus, is not unsurprising that not many scientists have, as yet, become proponents of the Intelligent design theories. However, the mere fact that the majority of scientists have not yet bought into the intelligent design model does not mean that it should not be taught in the public schools; and it certainly does not make it untrue. Most scientific theories are not immediately accepted by the scientific community at large. Evolution itself was not immediately accepted. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity was not immediately accepted. Thus, it hardly seems sensible to contend that the failure of scientists, in the short term, to accept intelligent design as the working model shows the model to be false. Is Intelligent Design Simply Creationism Revisited? Moreover, of the scientists that have heard of intelligent design, many have been misinformed about its nature due to mischaracterizations about the movement in the pro-evolution camp. Supporters of intelligent design have been compared to those who believe in a flat earth. (“Survival of the fittest--or the best organized” Author: Weis, Judith S. Source: BioScience v. 51 no1 (Jan. 2001) p. 3 ISSN: 0006-3568 Number: BBAI01013826.) For example, the National Center for Science Education Research webpage hosts an article entitled “Creationism Evolves: Review of Robert Pennock's Tower of Babel” noting that Mr. Pennock, a writer who regularly equates Intelligent Design with creationism (see, e.g., “Lions, Tigers and APES, Oh My! Creationism vs. Evolution in Kansas”), advances the idea that because many of the advocates of intelligent design are also Christians the intelligent design movement must also be a mere form of the earlier creationist movement. In Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism, philosopher Robert T. Pennock neatly exposes the creationist roots of intelligent-design theory; from the beginning he refers to "intelligent-design creationism," and shows us how it has descended with modification from its creation science predecessor. In “Meeting Darwin’s Wager” (Author: Woodward, Tom. Source: Christianity Today v. 41 (Apr. 28 1997) p. 14-21 ISSN: 0009-5753 Number: BRDG97027170), Tom Woodward notes: Inevitably, many scientists charge Behe with "thinly disguised creationism." This strategy is employed by University of Chicago biologist Jerry Coyne, whose review of Behe was published in September in the prestigious British journal Nature. While Coyne admits, "There is no doubt that the pathways described by Behe are dauntingly complex and their evolution will be hard to unravel," he claims that Behe has offered no solution: "Behe's 'scientific alternative to evolution (is) a confusing and untestable farrago of contradictory ideas." Twice in the review Coyne's rhetoric links Behe to the San Diego "scientific creationists" whom professional evolutionists tend to dismiss. Coyne describes Behe's work as a "new and more sophisticated" version of literal-Genesis creationism.Is the identification of intelligent design with creationism legitimate? In fact, intelligent design is quite different from "creationism," as even some of its critics have acknowledged. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to identify ID with creationism? According to Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of those who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case. (Emphasis added.)(“Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same”, John G. West, Jr., Research News and Opportunities in Science and Theology, December 1, 2002".) Certainly the Discovery Institute has filed its own response to objections that it is merely a new form of creationism. While these diatribes against the intelligent design movement based upon the examination of the history of a movement (accurate or not) appears to be highly irrelevant to the discussion of the facts at hand, as noted by Nicholas Miller, a practicing attorney in Maryland and author of various articles appearing in journals relating to church/state relations, the origin of the movement is not relevant to a determination of the veracity of the movement. [I]ntelligent design is no more a religion because it is consistent with traditional theism, than evolution is a religion because it is inconsistent with the same. Or inversely, if intelligent design unconstitutionally advances religion because it is consistent with theism, then evolution unconstitutionally hinders religion because it is consistent with atheism.”("Life, the universe and everything constitutional: origins in the public schools", Author: Miller, Nicholas P., Source: Journal of Church and State v. 43 no3 (Summer 2001) p. 483-510.) Thus, intelligent design is not a new form of creationism despite the fact that it can be compatible with the belief in God. The mischaracterization of intelligent design is an effort by the evolution only advocates to quash the theory with rhetoric to keep the public and scientists from giving it a fair hearing. The Inquisitorial Backlash Ironically, many of the advocates of the evolution only position use the quasi-religious foundation of the intelligent design movement to raise the specter of the inquisition. Raising the alleged scientific martyrdom of Galileo (the Crime of Galileo by Giorgio de Santillana is one of the standard academic works which demolishes most of the myths and explains that it was politics and academic spite rather than religion that led to the scientist's downfall), those in the evolution of only camp argue that the intelligent design movement arises from the same backwater thought which strapped the church to eight Geocentric view of the universe. According to the evolution-only camp, permitting intelligent design into the schools would result in the persecution of true scientific thought. In fact, just the opposite is occurring. The people in our age who truly bear the closest resemblance to Galileo's opponents are those who defend Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian evolution in spite of the growing accumulation of evidence that suggests that evolution is, biochemically speaking, impossible. Those who most resemble Galileo in this current controversy have names such as Behe, Denton and Ross. Expect the resemblance to grow more obvious over time.(Source: unknown.) A rather striking illustration of this point is told by Dr. Philip Johnson: A Chinese paleontologist lectures around the world saying that recent fossil finds in his country are inconsistent with the Darwinian theory of evolution. His reason: The major animal groups appear abruptly in the rocks over a relatively short time, rather than evolving gradually from a common ancestor as Darwin's theory predicts. When this conclusion upsets American scientists, he wryly comments: "In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin."(“The Church of Darwin,” by Phillip E. Johnson, The Wall Street Journal © 1999 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. as quoted in The Church of Darwin.) Consider the case of William Dembski, a scientist with Ph.D’s in both philosophy and mathematics who is an outspoken advocate of Intelligent Design. Professor Dembski was in 2,000 the director of the poly any center at Baylor university. The Michael Pauley Yankee institute research institution set up at Baylor. As reported by the American spectator, the fact that Professor Dembski was an intelligent design advocate proved to serve as the basis for his undoing. Mathematician William Dembski stands accused of bringing shame upon a major university. Not only that, say his colleagues, he has managed to disgrace the entire scientific enterprise. Scientists from distant universities wrote letters to the editors of his university newspaper, and biologists spoke up through the surrounding city papers, telling the public why this man must be stopped. When Dembski organized an academic conference, one incensed professor from another state sent long e-mails to the scheduled speakers, seeking to discredit Dembski and convincing one famed philosopher to cancel. The faculty senate of his own Baylor University voted 26 to 2 to recommend that his research center be dismantled. Eight members of Baylor's science departments wrote Congress about the dangers of Dembski's project, and several briefings on the issues were made before a bipartisan group of congressional members and staff. * * * "It's rather ironic that people in the scientific community, whose rights had to be protected in the face of ideological pressure from creationists , now appear to be suppressing others," says President Sloan. "People have always asked questions about the relationship of religious views and the natural phenomena we see in the world. I think it just borders on McCarthyism to call that 'creation science. "("The Lynching of Bill Dembski", infra.) But even with the inquisitorial attitude of the evolution only camp, those who have braved the barbs to advocate for intelligent design are legitimate, credentialed of scientists. As noted by the American Spectator: Also novel is the respect many ‘intelligent design’ proponents have earned in the academic community. They're real academics, not cranks,’ admits Skeptic magazine publisher Michael Shermer, whose editorial board is overwhelmingly composed of intelligent design critics such as Stephen Jay Gould and Eugenie Scott herself. ‘They have real degrees and tenure,’ adds Shermer. Not only does William Dembski have doctorates in mathematics and philosophy, he has done postdoctoral work in mathematics at MIT, physics at the University of Chicago, and computer science at Princeton University. Even Lewis Barker says: ‘He seems to be a very bright guy.’(Id.) Conclusion The Discovery Institute compiled a list in September, 2001 of scientists who were willing to sign a statement questioning the scientific communities slavish devotion to Darwinism. The statement entitled a scientific dissent on Darwinism stated: "I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."This simple statement calling for a careful examination of Darwinism was signed by more than 100 scientists many of whom had Ph.D.s. In light of the misrepresentations of the pro-evolution community about the nature of the claims of intelligent design, and given the repercussions that could befall these scientists, the fact that 100 scientists were willing to sign their names to this document forcefully establishes the depth of thir concerns. While the numbers of scientists questioning Darwinism does not establish that Darwinian Evolution is wrong, clearly, the most relevant number is not the large number of scientists who accept the status quo, but the number of scientists willing to stand up to potential ridicule to question one of the central dogmas of 21st Century science. The idea that the scientific community is of a single voice--that of Darwinism--is untenable. The scientific community should stop hiding from the debate through rhetorical subterfuge and answer the challenges raised, if they can. ©2003 William J. Kesatie |