_________________
Eugenie Scott and the NCSE: Darwin’s Predictable Defenders
The National School Boards Association enlisted Eugenie Scott and Glenn Branch to criticize intelligent design bullet point fashion. Here I want to respond to these bullet-point assertions. I would repeat the entire article, but copyright restrictions prevent me. The article is available at http://nsba.org/sbn/02-jul/070202-8.htm.
The article begins by asking whether intelligent design (or ID) has a legitimate place in the public school science curriculum. It admits that ID is not identical with creation science, but then remarks that ID involves an intervening deity and is more vague about what happened and when.
Comment: ID is not an interventionist theory. It’s only commitment is that the design in the world be empirically detectable. All the design could therefore have emerged through a cosmic evolutionary process that started with the Big Bang. What’s more, the designer need not be a deity. It could be an extraterrestrial or a telic process inherent in the universe. ID has no doctrine of creation. Scott and Branch at best could argue that many of the ID proponents are religious believers in a deity, but that has no bearing on the content of the theory. As for being “vague” about what happened and when, that is utterly misleading. ID claims that many naturalistic evolutionary scenarios (like the origin of life) are unsupported by evidence and that we simply do not know the answer at this time to what happened. This is not a matter of being vague but rather of not pretending to knowledge that we don’t have.
Next the authors comment that “ID proponents are tactically silent on an alternative to common descent. Teachers exhorted to teach ID, then, are left with little to teach other than ‘evolution didn’t happen’.”
Comment: The most prominent design theorist, Michael Behe, is on record to holding to common descent (the evolutionary interrelatedness of all organisms back to a common ancestor). No design theorist I know wants to teach that evolution didn’t happen. There is a question about the extent of evolution, but that is a question being raised by non-ID scientists. Carl Woese in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences just a few weeks ago published a piece where he explicitly rejects common descent. What ID proponents want is to teach is the evidence for evolution as well as whatever evidence places limits on evolutionary change (like Carl Woese’s idea of lateral gene transfer). Scott and Branch are here merely playing on fears of school boards and educators.
Next Scott and Branch mention my work on the design inference and Behe’s work on irreducible complexity. After the barest summary, they conclude ” Neither Dembski’s design inference nor Behe’s irreducible complexity has fared well in the scholarly world.” To which they add that our work is not mentioned in the peer reviewed literature.
Comment: Note that they did not say that our ideas were refuted. Indeed, they have not been refuted. They have been vigorously opposed, but that’s something different. The history of science is filled with violent altercations. As for our ideas not appearing in the peer-reviewed literature, that’s not the case. Irreducible complexity was, for instance, the focus of an article by Thornhill and Ussery in the Journal of Theoretical Biology. Why did Scott and Branch’s “search of scientific data-bases, such as PubMed or SciSearch” fail to find that article? What else did their search fail to find? As for my work on the design inference, it’s certainly created a stir in the philosophy of science community and is now working its way into the sciences proper (e.g., the bioinformatics community). My newest book was just reviewed in Nature.
Next Scott and Branch bring up the old chestnut about ID amounting to an “argument from ignorance,” relying upon “a lack of knowledge for its conclusion: Lacking a natural explanation, we assume intelligent cause.”
Comment: Lacking a natural explanation of Mount Rushmore, are we making an argument from ignorance by inferring that an intelligent cause is behind it? The design inference is not an argument from ignorance. It’s not just that we eliminate natural explanations (by which biologists mean explanations that involve no intelligent causation), but that in eliminating natural explanations we find features that in our experience are only the result of intelligent causation. Consider, for instance, the bacterial flagellum. This is a little outboard rotary motor on the backs of certain bacteria. It includes a propeller, a hook joint, a drive shaft, O-rings, a stator, and a bidirectional acid powered motor. We are seeing here a machine of the sort that in our experience only intelligence can produce. What’s more, the biological community has come up empty on how systems like this could emerge apart from intelligence. This is not an argument from ignorance. This is an argument from what we know about the causal powers of intelligence and the shortfall of unintelligent causes.
Next Scott and Branch remark, “Most scientists would reply that unexplained is not unexplainable, and that ‘we don’t know yet’ is a more appropriate response than invoking a cause outside of science.”
Comment: This is the standard ploy of turning the subject matter of ID into a completely different subject matter from that of science. Accordingly, there’s ID, with its religious invocation of supernatural sprites and spirits, and then there’s “science” (said with a deep voice and plenty of gravitas), which investigates “natural causes” (said with the same deep voice and gravitas). But in fact, there’s only one subject here, namely complex biological systems, and the question is whether natural causes, understood as unintelligent causes ruled by blind unbroken natural laws, can account for them. There are two possibilities: (1) natural causes are up to this sort of explanatory work or (2) intelligent causes are required as well. To say that if ID is correct, then the phenomena in question are “unexplainable” is to define science an enterprise that can explain only by natural causes (understood in a reductionist, design-excluding way). Scott and Branch are playing a game of definitions. Science is a search for the truth underlying natural phenomena. Whether an intelligent cause is involved is not something that can be excluded on a priori grounds.
Next, Jonathan Wells’s Icons of Evolution is called in for the appropriate abuse. Scott and Branch write, “Although the reviews of Wells’ book by scientists have unanimously regarded it as dishonest and devoid of scientific or educational value, it is being widely circulated among creationists and cited at school board meetings around the country.”
Comment: Interestingly, the textbooks are changing in response to Wells’s book, correcting or at least modifying the icons to which Wells refers. But before siding with Scott and Branch against Wells, do have a look at Wells’s response to critics (link). The charge of dishonesty and lack of educational scientific and educational value seems more appropriately leveled at his critics. At the very least Wells has pointed to pervasive errors in biology textbooks regarding evolution. If evolutionary biology were not so politically charged, that ev-bio community should be thanking Wells for helping them clean up their act. Instead, he’s treated as a black sheep who’s uncovered a dysfunctional family’s dirty laundry. Fix the problem and quit complaining about the messenger who’s uncovered the problem.
Next, Scott and Branch focus on the “cultural renewal” component of ID, which “focuses on ideological and religious rather than scholarly goals.” They conclude: “The sectarian orientation of the ID movement cannot be ignored in decisions about whether to include ID in the curriculum.”
Comment: When Stephen Jay Gould testified at the Arkansas Creation Trial in 1981, should his Marxism, and thus sectarianism, have played a role in undermining his testimony. The goals, aspirations, and vision for society of Seattle’s Discovery Institute is irrelevant to any court or school board decision to include ID in a public school science curriculum. The issue is whether ID is true and the grounds for thinking that it is true or false. The issue therefore comes down to the evidence in its support and the counterevidence to the reigning Darwinian paradigm and how that evidence is to be evaluated.
Next, Scott and Branch try to identify the designer of ID with the God of Christian theism. They do this by conflating the cultural renewal interest of some ID proponents with the theory of intelligent design. This conflation would, of course, be insupportable in a court of law, so they change gears and stress ID’s need to prove itself in the scientific mainstream: “If the scholarly aspect of ID becomes established — if ID truly becomes incorporated into the scientific mainstream — then, and only then, should school boards consider whether to add it to the curriculum.” They continue: “Until that day, proposals to introduce ID into curricula should be met with polite but firm explanations that there is as yet no scientific evidence in favor of ID….”
Comment: Scott and Branch have defined science as relying entirely on natural explanations and that to invoke an intelligent design explanation would constitute a nonexplanation — to attribute design, as they pointed out earlier in their piece, is the equivalent of saying that something is “unexplainable.” As a consequence, there’s no way that ID could according to them ever enter the scientific mainstream. Indeed, they’ve defined science precisely so as to preclude intelligent design. As for there being no evidence for ID, what counts as evidence is always assessed against a backdrop of assumptions about how inquiry (the process of revising our beliefs) ought to proceed. The bacterial flagellum, its irreducible and specified complexity, from the vantage of ID provides overwhelming evidence for its design. But from a naturalistic perspective, this sort of evidence is merely evidence that scientists haven’t worked hard enough and haven’t figured out how blind natural causes might have produced the biological system in question.
Scott and Branch add, “… the sectarian orientation of ID renders it unsuitable for constitutional reasons.”
Comment: They are herewith throwing down the gauntlet. I’ll wager a bottle of single-malt scotch, should it ever go to trial whether ID may legitimately be taught in public school science curricula, that ID will pass all constitutional hurdles. To see why, check out the fine Utah Law Review article by David DeWolf et al. at http://www.arn.org/docs/dewolf/utah.pdf.
Scott and Branch conclude: “School board members should be aware that introducing ID into the curriculum is likely to lead to strong opposition — up to and including lawsuits — from those, including parents, teachers, scientists, and clergy, who do not want science education to be compromised.”
Comment: In other words, if you don’t want to face social and legal intimidation from the ACLU, NCSE, and other groups and individuals in that small ten percent of the population that are hostile to ID (Gallup poll after Gallup poll confirms that about 90 percent of the U.S. population are behind some form of intelligent design), stay clear of intelligent design. All it will take is a few school boards and individuals to stand up against this pressure, and in short order we’ll see a Taliban-style collapse of the Darwinian stranglehold over public education.
Related posts:
“Schaeffer Sunday” Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on the “Absurdity of Life without God!!” Part 11(Conversation between Evolutionist Michael Ruse and William Lane Craig)
The Fruits of Atheism (Part 1) Uploaded on Apr 10, 2009 Examining the Creation/Evolution Controversy in Light of Reason and Revelation The Bible and Science (Part 03) There Is A Difference Between Absolute and Objective Moral Values Published on Dec 6, 2012 For more resources visit:http://www.reasonablefaith.org The Bethinking National Apologetics Day Conference: “Countering the New […]
“Schaeffer Sunday” Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on the “Absurdity of Life without God!!” Part 10 (Evolution’s time and chance impersonal universe is purposeless, but the alternative is God)
_________________ The Existence of God (Part 5) The Bible and Science (Part 02) How Can We Demonstrate that Objective Moral Values Exist to a Nihilist Who Holds Published on Dec 17, 2012 For more resources visit: http://www.reasonablefaith.org The Bethinking National Apologetics Day Conference: “Countering the New Atheism” took place during the UK Reasonable Faith Tour in October […]
INTERESTING QUOTES on evolution, science and God
__________________ INTERESTING QUOTES: Note: Although we believe these quotes are authentic, we have not specifically verified the authenticity of each and every one. If you find that any quote is in error, please let us know and we will correct it. CATEGORIES: A) EVOLUTION AND ATHEISM B) INTELLIGENT DESIGN C) PROBLEMS ABOUT FOSSIL EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION D) DISTORTIONS USED BY DOGMATIC […]
Scientific evidence against evolution (short and concise) July 5, 2009
________________ Scientific evidence against evolution (short and concise) July 5, 2009verloreseun Definition The word ‘evolution’ is used in the following contexts: Stellar / Planetary Evolution – An explosion (the ‘Big Bang’) supplied non-living material and over billions of years, supposedly this material became organized into planets and stars Cellular Evolution – At some point, non-living […]
My correspondence with the famous evolutionist Ernst Mayr!!!
________ Ernst Mayr 1904-2005 Bill Gates, John Grisham, James Michener, E. O. Wilson, Ernst Mayr, George Lucas… Published on May 19, 2012 Bill Gates, John Grisham, James Michener, E. O. Wilson, Ernst Mayr, George Lucas, James Cameron, Larry King, Ian Wilmut, Jane Goodall, Stephen Jay Gould, Tim D. White, Leon Lederman, Timothy Berners-Lee and Bill […]
How do Evolutionists answer the question: If there is no free-will, then what of morality?
______________ How do Evolutionists answer the question: If there is no free-will, then what of morality? June 24, 2009 Worldview and Evangelism Posted by jasondulle under Apologetics, Worldview [6] Comments Nancy Pearcey described a worldview as a mental map that helps us effectively navigate our world. The better our worldview, the more effectively we ought […]
Former Atheist Antony Flew noted that Evolutionists failed to show “Where did a living, self-reproducing organism come from in the first place?”
____ Does God Exist? Thomas Warren vs. Antony Flew Published on Jan 2, 2014 Date: September 20-23, 1976 Location: North Texas State University Christian debater: Thomas B. Warren Atheist debater: Antony G.N. Flew For Thomas Warren: http://www.warrenapologeticscenter.org/ ______________________ Antony Flew and his conversion to theism Uploaded on Aug 12, 2011 Antony Flew, a well known […]
Evolutionary dogma with the biblical message are doomed to undermine faith
The Scientific Age Published on Jul 24, 2012 Dr. Schaeffer’s sweeping epic on the rise and decline of Western thought and Culture Francis Schaeffer rightly noted, “These two world views stand as totals in complete antithesis in content and also in their natural results….It is not just that they happen to bring forth different results, […]
_____________
The Daily Hatch 
COMMENTS:
First of all, when I read the description of today’s commentary, and listened to the first few paragraphs, I thought you were going in a different direction. Accordingly, I was thinking how I would answer your question, anticipating how I thought you were going to answer it: “Well, it depends on what you mean by ‘good’. If you mean well-behaved by man’s standards, …” At this point, you acknowledged the existence of well-behaved atheists, so I thought we were on the same page. I continued, “… that is, people who don’t commit violent crimes like murder, rape, mugging, etc., and perhaps even do some good deeds like donating to charities that assist the needy, and helping little old ladies cross the street. But by God’s standard, none of us is good. There are neither good atheists nor good Christians, for we are all sinners.” But, of course, that’s not what you were leading up to. Okay.
Now that that is out of the way, let me give the response I would have given (I think) when I was an atheist, before I was born again: “If we atheists are right, we are as we are because we evolved that way. And we evolved that way because it is conducive to survival. Our concept of good comes from the way our brains are wired, and that’s the way they evolved. So there is no mystery to why we think altruism is good, and violent crime is bad, therefore no need to explain those preferences by inventing an imaginary god who created us and gave us those preferences. Only ignorant people who don’t understand how evolution works feel the need to do that.”
Your turn.
P.S. Why I spelled ‘god’ with a small g: The word ‘God’ with a capital G is used only to refer to the one true God. That God is not imaginary, so I would be blaspheming Him if I put that word after the word ‘imaginary’.