Why Science Lost Big At Dover
By Robert Deyes
ARN Correspondent
As we approach the end of a year, it is customary for us to look back at the events that have shaped and changed our lives. Big news items, major sporting occurrences, funniest moments and the achievements of science and medicine are just some of the categories that help us define the success or failure of a year that has passed. For evolutionary science, things are no different. Indeed one notable event this year was the 6th International Bioethics Forum which brought together scientists, ethicists and lawmakers for a two-day 'melding of minds'. The auspicious title of the forum was captivatingly simple: Evolution in the 21st Century. But at its heart was a subject matter that today draws people towards passionate debate- the ongoing conflict between Darwinian evolution and Intelligent Design (I.D for short). Surprisingly then, the speakers list did not include anyone representing those who are openly critical of Darwinian evolution.
For what could be considered as the blue-ribbon talk of the forum, the event organizers had pulled in three of the biggest names in the modern Darwinist movement- NCSE Executive Director Eugenie Scott, Georgetown University theologian John Haught and Michigan State Philosophy Professor Robert Pennock to give a talk about the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial. This historic trial centered on a small Pennsylvania town school board's decision to teach ID as part of the science curriculum. Together with Haught, Pennock was pulled in as an expert witness during the trial to argue that it would have been unconstitutional to teach ID in any high school science class. In Scott's account of the proceedings, the main argument put forward by the ID camp was that even if ID theory had religious overtones, there would still be a valid pedagogical, secular reason for teaching it. And yet in the end, Kitzmiller was able to win the case for the prosecution by claiming not only that there was no scientific evidence against evolution but that there was no credible evidence in support of ID. In Scott's words, "we were able to sink them both".
But who really lost out? In Pennock's estimation, the arguments of ID are nothing more than an extension of what was said by the much-celebrated theologian William Paley in his opus Natural Theology with terms like irreducible complexity and specified complexity being merely 'jazzy names' for saying the same thing that Paley proclaimed centuries ago. And yet Pennock clearly ignored critical differences. Paley after all argued on the basis of analogy, claiming that the design of instruments such as a watch was analogous to the complexity of biological systems (Ref 1, pp. 30-33). Since the watch had been designed, so likewise biological systems had to have been designed. ID theorists on the other hand provide an additional component to their argument inferring that information- that is complex, specified information- in biological systems is inaccessible to natural causes (Ref 1, p.150). Pennock evidently misconstrued the ID case. To make matters worse, he was unable to demonstrate how Darwinian evolution supplied a viable alternative (Ref 2). As philosopher William Dembski had previously commented, biologists to this day lack a clear view of how the Darwinian mechanism could have contributed to the history of life (Ref 1, p.41). Darwinism is silent about the details even though Darwinists stubbornly insist that millions of contingencies must have lead to the differences in form we see throughout nature (Ref 1, p.41).
Pennock proceeded to counter the claims that ID is not 'creationism through the back door' by presenting sketchy evidence showing that an initial draft of the textbook Of Pandas And People had contained creationist language. Of Pandas And People was chosen by the Dover school board as their main resource for presenting ID in their science classrooms. But one may rightly ask why it is that the scientific merits of a textbook should be decided upon by considering unedited drafts and not the finalized product? A quick review of Of Pandas And People reveals the usual but nevertheless valid ID material in the case against evolution. The implausibility of prebiotic synthesis experiments, the questionable evidence used in support of macro-evolution, the genetic data that contradicts structural homology, the fragmented picture of the fossil record and the absence of clearly defined ancestors to modern man are all presented as examples that contradict the basic tenets of Darwinism (Ref 3, pp. 8-148). The scientific case supporting ID is also presented with the rich informational content of genes and the irreducible complexity of biochemical systems appearing as the foundational pillars of the ID movement (Ref 3, pp. 19-20, 63-69, 85, 88-89, 141-149).
None of the science in support of ID was ever discussed at this year's International Bioethics Forum. So it was that world-renowned speakers such as John Haught were able to get away with their dismissal of ID as a discipline that represents neither good science nor good theology. Of course ID proponents have always distanced themselves from any theological claims (Refs 4-6). But that fact alone did not appear to affect the audience's enthusiasm for what Haught had to say. He also addressed some of the faith-based push-backs against evolution. According to Haught, much public concern today centers around the idea that if Darwinian evolution is readily embraced then the notion of a Biblical creator must be repudiated since if evolution is true there was no fall and if there was no fall there could not be a redeemer (eg: Jesus Christ). And yet while such anxieties might be real, they should not detract from the sound scientific arguments against evolution.
Both Darwinists and ID theorists readily agree that science should never have to deal with questions relating to divine purpose. Haught repeatedly emphasized that science and theology should be kept apart as two separate, non-conflicting ways of explaining the reality we experience as human beings. 'Explanatory Pluralism'- the term that Haught coined to define such separation- should of course be maintained. But contrary to Haught's claims, the ID movement emphatically distances itself from any questions of divine purpose or designer intention. While Haught cited ID as an example of 'Explanatory Monism'- an attempt to bring together both theological and scientific explanations of reality into a single framework- a quick review of the ID literature reveals such an assessment to be unfounded (Refs 4-6).
Right at the end of the forum, I managed to catch Eugenie Scott just as she was leaving and asked her whether she thought the aim of the ID movement was to teach ID along Darwinian evolution or to exclude the teaching of evolution altogether. Her answer was that texts such as Of Panda's And People unequivocally reveal that they are only out to teach everything that is wrong with evolution. When I then asked whether the ID camp proposed also teaching the merits of evolutionary theory she replied with an air of irony "there aren't any". Of course, the facts speak for themselves. The introduction of Of Panda's And People for example brings the true intentions of the authors to the fore:
"We have given a favorable case for intelligent design and raised reasonable doubt about natural descent. But used together with your other text, [Of Pandas And People] should help to balance the overall curriculum" (Ref 3, p. ix).
A balanced and not an exclusionary curriculum was all that was being asked for. I only wish I had had my own copy of the text as I spoke with Scott. Maybe then, I would have been able to set the record straight.
References
1. William Dembski (2002), No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, Lanham, Maryland
2. Robert Deyes (2008), AVIDA As A 'Teleo-LOGIC' Model Of Life. See:
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2008/08/09/avida_as_a_teleo_logic_model_of_life
3. Percival Davis, Dean H. Kenyon (1993), Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins, 2nd Edition Published By The Foundation for Thought & Ethics; Richardson, Texas
4. For more information on the distinction between Intelligent Design And Creationism see http://www.intelligentdesign.org/faq.php
5. Stephen Meyer (2006), Intelligent Design is not Creationism The Daily Telegraph (London), January, 29th, See http://www.discovery.org/a/3191
6. John West (2002), Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same, Research News and Opportunities in Science and Theology, December 1, 2002, http://www.discovery.org/a/1329
No comments:
Post a Comment