The Evolving Nature of Evolution: Counter Example

This is the fourth in a series about the debate between Darwinian evolutionists and advocates of Intelligent Design. In part 1, I used President Bush's statement that the debate should be "properly taught" to point out that no one (at least, no leading figure in the debate) is presently advocating that ID be taught with the same weight as Darwinian evolution. Rather, the case that is being made is that it should be introduced and taught fairly so that students can understand the controversy. In part 2, I pointed out that statements to the contrary notwithstanding, the central hypothesis of Darwinian evolution has not actually been tested. That doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of evaluating of the evidence and placing the evidence into the Darwinian evolutionary framework. The fact that the evidence fits so nicely (much of the time) into that framework provides evidence that the framework is true. But the problem is that the framework itself remains untested and unproven. In the third part, I used two analogies to try to illustrate what I saw scientists as actually doing when they claim to have demonstrated the truth of evolution. In this part, I want to re-examine something that Dr. Higley said in his pro-evolution article.

=======================

As I noted originally in part 2, an article by Dr. Leon Higley originally posted on the University of Nebraska Lincoln website (which has now been partially preserved on the Marine Insects Homepage for the University of Nebraska Kearney) discussed the testing of the evolutionary hypothesis by asking why insects haven't succeeded as well in water as on land. You can read the quote in its entirety in part 2, but I want to edit out some material so I can focus on a couple of points here.

When you do experiments, where you (at least in principle) control every factor except the one you are examining, hypothesis testing usually involves using statistics. Statistics are important, because they provide a mathematical statement based on probability theory of how likely a given outcome is. By convention, scientists tend to say that unless an experimental result could have occur [sic] only 1 time in 20 (5% of the time), it probably is not a real effect.

Unfortunately, given that we don’t have planets and hundreds of million of years to experiment with, we have to take a different tack with the marine insects question. Here, as in much evolutionary argumentation, we try to form plausible hypotheses, and then try to find evidence that supports or disproves these guesses. Once a hypothesis is formed, we look for current examples that would contradict it. For example, the argument that insects can’t survive in the ocean because of water pressure doesn’t seem so good when you realize one insect species survives at a depth of 1,300 meters! This is a form of counter example. Because at least one species can survive a great depth, it implies that other insects could have evolved to do so. Eliminating hypotheses by counter examples is a powerful approach in assessing hypotheses.

Counter examples are a type of comparison (comparing one species’ biology with what might be possible for the group). Often comparison provides a mechanism for supporting a hypothesis. In our marine insects example, we compare insects in the oceans with insects in fresh water. We find that lots of insect species live in fresh water, but almost none do in the oceans. Compare: what is different about the two habitats? If it isn’t something physical (such as salinity or water pressure), maybe it has to do with biology.

Dr. Higley is effectively saying that one way to examine a scientific hypothesis is by examining nature to find whether nature supports the hypothesis -- the "educated guess" of the scientist -- or opposes the hypothesis. He uses, as his example, the problem of why insects are not as prevalent in salt water environments as crustaceans. He pointed out that the lack of insects in the water environment may seem to be contrary to the idea that insects can succeed in any environment, but then he points out how the lack of insects can be seen as consistent using other scientific principles.

He also points out that scientists use statistics to determine the validity of a particular theory. Specifically, he notes that if a certain result is likely to occur less than five times out of a hundred attempts, it is probably the case that the theory is not supported by the evidence.

I'm good with all of that. Clearly, it makes a great deal of sense.

So, that brings us to the problem of Intelligent Design (ID). Consistent with the nature of scientific investigation that Dr. Higley describes in his article, ID presents a counter-example to the idea that all life began with a simple life form and evolved into more and more complex lifeforms solely by natural laws and natural selection. It says (in part) that certain biological structures are so complex and are so completely unlikely to have come together by pure chance that it is necessary that there must have been some type of designer. In making these assertions, ID uses statistics to demonstrate its claims -- a discipline which Dr. Higley approves. Hence, it could point to (for example) the clotting system and its incredible complexity coupled with an apparent purpose to say that all of the pieces of the system need to be in place for the system to function. If any one of the pieces is missing then the system fails and does not succeed in clotting at all. What are the odds that all of the pieces should come together into a functioning clotting system in the simplest organisms? I'm certain that the odds must be very long indeed. (In saying the foregoing, I am aware that there are certainly theories about the evolution of clotting systems, and perhaps some answer all of the questions posed about how the clotting system came to exist in a purely naturalistic context. I am using the clotting system merely as an example of one system that is pretty darn complex which may have pieces in the system that are, as ID scientists describe them, "irreducibly complex" and not capable of being broken down into smaller functioning units, and which pieces are highly unlikely -- i.e., significantly less than 1 in 20 chance pointed to by Dr. Higley -- to have come together by purely naturalistic means.)

So, given that intelligent design presents counter-examples to the theory -- exactly what Dr. Higley says is an appropriate means of doing science -- why is this effort so quickly denounced by those invested in evolution? At least two strong contenders for the reason present themselves. First, ID leads to the possibility that God, a god or gods is/are involved. Keep in mind that ID says absolutely nothing about the identity of the designer which is evidenced in nature. It merely points out that the appearance of design coupled with the mathematical remoteness that some system arose purely by natural causes (making it pretty much impossible that it could happen naturally) means that something outside of nature had a hand in creating some of these systems. That offends today's scientists who are wedded to the idea of naturalism as the only legitimate foundation stone for proper scientific inquiry.

Second, and more importantly, unlike the type of counter-example addressed by Dr. Higley, the Intelligent Design counter-example strikes at the very core of the theory of evolution -- the central pole, so to speak. It is not something that merely questions the details of the theory like the frog that was found in Madagascar that needs to be reconciled with the fact that its nearest biological relative lived in South America. Rather, ID goes to the very heart of Darwinian evolutionary theory because, if correct, there is no way that evolution can be the sole basis for the incredible complexity in life we see on Earth (and may even be responsible for that life occurring at all). One cannot imagine a land bridge or a previously unknown benefit to explain away the gaping hole in evolutionary theory that intelligent design reveals.

Intelligent Design is a scientific hypothesis that has not been proven wrong any more than evolution has been proven wrong. The former is simply a counter-example to the reigning scientific belief in step-by-step evolution. If it weren't for the fact that it challenges the sacred cow itself, ID would be readily accepted as proper science since it uses counter-example and statistics to challenge a part of the evolutionary scheme. The only problem is that the part that it challenges is the very heart of the theory.

The Evolving Nature of Evolution: Blind Men, Elephants and Evolving Cars

This is the third in a series about the debate between Darwinian evolutionists and advocates of Intelligent Design. In part 1, I used President Bush's statement that the debate should be "properly taught" to point out that no one (at least, no leading figure in the debate) is presently advocating that ID be taught with the same weight as Darwinian evolution. Rather, the case that is being made is that it should be introduced and taught fairly so that students can understand the controversy. In part 2, I pointed out that statements to the contrary notwithstanding, the central hypothesis of Darwinian evolution has not actually been tested. That doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of evaluating of the evidence and placing the evidence into the Darwinian evolutionary framework. The fact that the evidence fits so nicely (much of the time) into that framework provides evidence that the framework is true. But the problem is that the framework itself remains untested and unproven. In this part, I want to elaborate on the second part by using two analogies. First, however, I want to use a comment from part 2 to try to clarify what I was saying.

Testing, Conclusions and Reasonableness

I found it interesting that in response to my last entry, one reader named "a hermit" commented with respect to evolution that "there is no way to do one single test that confirms the theory as a whole, but the accumulation of many smaller tests which each confirm different aspects of the theory make for an even stronger case for confidence in the theory as a whole." I mostly agree. I don't know that there is no way to do one single test that confirms the theory as a whole, but I certainly believe that to be true. And I agree that smaller tests would build confidence that the theory as a whole is true.

Nevertheless, I have a problem with the implications of the comment: there are not that many smaller tests that can and have been run. In reality, the vast majority of Darwinian evolutionary "testing" consists of looking at the evidence that is uncovered and shoe-horning it into the evolutionary framework. Sometimes (most of the time, in fact) the new evidence slides in quite nicely. But on occasion the framework has to be adapted because the facts don't meet what is expected. The fact that the evidence can fit into the framework does lend credence to the idea that Darwinian evolution is true --- in fact, as I pointed out, I am not in these posts asserting that Darwinian evolution isn't true. A person can reasonably conclude from the evidence that Darwinian evolution is true. But merely because someone can rationally arrive at a conclusion that something is true doesn't make it true in actual fact.

After all, at one point in time a person examining the evidence could reasonably conclude that the universe had alwasys existed (the steady state theory) while others were concluding that the universe began with a big bang. It wasn't possible that both could be true, but the evidence was such that scientists, based on the evidence available, could reasonably conclude that either could be correct. However, more recently new discoveries have made it much more difficult to believe that the steady-state theory of the universe has merit. I would argue that the Darwinian evolution is very much like the steady state theory -- it is an framework for understanding the evidence that is consistent with what can be observed and which it is rational for people to accept. However, it may turn out that Darwinian evolution is as wrong as the steady state theory when tests are developed that can actually test the central hypothesis of Darwinian evolution.

Allow me to give two analogies that may help explain what I mean when I am talking about the testing the central hypothesis. But before I do, let me explain something about how analogies should be evaluated. (A fuller discussion of analogies, their use and limits, from which the following has been taken can be found here.) First, look at the context in which the analogy occurs. In other words, what is the purpose of the analogy. What is the main point that the analogy is intended to make or illustrate? Once that purpose or point is identified, then the second step is to see whether the analogy differs in any substantive respect from the analog that would make the intended analogy inapplicable. Simply pointing out differences between the analog and the analogy that don't go to the point of the analogy is nothing more then pointing out that an analogy isn't an identity.

The Blind Men and the Elephant Analogy

To give an analogy (keeping in mind that no analogy is an identity and no analogy will be an exact parallel the original), consider the old Indian fable of the blind men and the elephant. In the story, the blind men are all feeling a different part of the elephant and concluding different things about the elephant based on what they happen to be feeling. Thus, one blind man feels the trunk and says, "the elephant is like a snake." A second man feels the tusk and concludes that the elephant "is like a spear." Ultimately, none of them knows what the elephant is really like.

Now, take that same story and assume that the blind men have a theory about what the elephant is like -- they believe that the elephant is similar to a road-tractor with an attached semi-trailer. Now, the person grabs the trunk and feels that it is snake-like and assumes that he has grabbed some type of hydraulic hose. Another grabs the tusk and feels that it is spear-like and assumes that he has grabbed some bull's horns that someone has mounted as decorations on the front end of the truck. Someone else touches the side which feels wall-like and assumes that they are touching the flat, hard side of the semi-trailer. And on and on. Admittedly, they don't have all of the evidence, but the blind men are finding that by touching the elephant the evidence supports their hypothesis that it is like a road-tractor with attached semi-trailer.

What happens if someone shows that the trunk isn't quite the same as what would be expected if the elephant were a tractor-trailor? Does that disprove the theory? Not necessarily. The blind men, after all, only said that the elephant is like a tractor-trailer and admitted that they didn't have all of the details. So, when this is pointed out, the blind men simply note that the elephant is like the tractor-trailer, but that the hydraulic hoses are not as they originally hypothesized. The idea of what the elephant is actually like is adjusted and the belief that the elephant is a tractor-trailer is maintained despite the new evidence.

In effect, all the blind men have done is to demonstrate that the evidence can be manipulated in such a way that it fits into their belief framework. They haven't shown that their theory that the elephant is similar to a tractor-trailer is, in fact, true -- only that what they are touching is consistent with that central hypothesis. They have done little to prove that the elephant is actually a tractor-trailer in the first place, and new evidence that is inconsistent with the cental hypothesis changes but never disproves the central hypothesis.

The Evolving Cars Analogy

Allow me to give a second analogy (again, keeping in mind that no analogy is an identity and no analogy will be an exact parallel the original). Suppose that we are 10,000,000 years in the future, and we have somehow lost all records of what life was like in the 20th and 21st Centuries. Archaeologists dig up the remains of various automobiles. After a time, they put together a pretty good time-line for determining exactly how each car followed from the other. They are able to examine, for example, how the fuel-injection engines seem to build on the simpler carburator-based engines. Someone suggests that the remains of cars found are the remains of some metal-life creatures that evolved as the result of natural selection. This theory is widely accepted because these future scientists are able to track the evolution of the automobile over time.

Does the fact that it appears that some cars followed from other cars mean that the underlying idea that all cars evolved by natural selection has been proven? Of course, I recognize that some will argue that the analogy fails because cars, being inorganic, wouldn't evolve. I agree that cars, being inorganic, wouldn't evolve (although some seem to suggest that evolution of inorganic molecules is part of the whole evolutionary story), but the point of the analogy is not that scientists would make such a mistake, but rather to show that the fossil record only maps out what lived -- not why or how the changes occurred. Those are both speculations based on the assumption that the central pole is correct, and the speculations are applauded if they correspond with the overall framework created by the central hypothesis. However, the central hypothesis itself remains unproven.

My point is this: the majority of the evidence for Darwinian evolution is the fossil record. Darwinian evolution is the framework or central hypothesis that is used to explain the evidence discovered. I certainly accept that the evidence shows fossils starting with simple organisms at the earliest time which are followed in the record by more complex animals (although there are people who make a pretty good case that the dating of the fossils is also the result of the Darwinian evolutionary framework). Usually, these fossils fit into the framework quite easily. But occasionally, they don't.

The lastest example of not fitting so nicely is the ancient 20 pound frog named Beelzebufo or 'the frog from Hell' the fossils of which have been found in Madagascar. The article notes:

"The finding presents a real puzzle biogeographically, particularly because of the poor fossil record of frogs on southern continents," said Stony Brook University paleontologist David Krause, who led the research. "We're asking ourselves, 'What's a 'South American' frog doing half-way around the world, in Madagascar?'"

The answer? Well, it certainly isn't possible that Darwinian evolution is wrong, so the speculation is that there was a land bridge between Madagascar, Antartica and South America that allowed the biologically similar frogs to live so far away from each other. As a result, once a reasonable adjustment is made to the overall creation myth of Darwinian evolution by adding a land bridge to the continental drift theory, Beelzebufo is now going to be catalogued as further evidence of Darwinian evolution.

But that's the problem -- there is never any proof that evolution is wrong because the theory is infinitely malleable on the edges and the central core is never tested.

Next time: Counter-Example

The Evolving Nature of Evolution: Pinning Jell-O to the Wall

As noted in Part I of this brief series, The Evolving Nature of Evolution: "Properly Taught", the American Geophysical Union made the following statement in response to President Bush's comments of three years ago that both sides of the Darwinian Evolution v. Intelligent Design debate ought to be properly taught" so that "people can understand what the debate is about":

"Scientific theories, like evolution, relativity and plate tectonics, are based on hypotheses that have survived extensive testing and repeated verification," Spilhaus says. "The President has unfortunately confused the difference between science and belief. It is essential that students understand that a scientific theory is not a belief, hunch, or untested hypothesis."

With respect to the statement that "Scientific theories, like evolution, relativity and plate tectonics, are based on hypotheses that have survived extensive testing and repeated verification," I would really like someone to explain exactly what "testing and repeated verifications" Darwinian evolution has undergone.

Let me be clear here: I am not saying that there is no evidence that evolution occurs. Certainly, one can look at the fossils that led to the drawings which appear to demonstrate that the horse evolved and reasonably conclude that the horse did, in fact, evolve. We can look at finches beaks (as Darwin did) and reasonably conclude that there have been adaptations. We can look at micro-organisms and their propensity to change from generation to generation in response to the conditions of their environments as further evidence of evolution. But what about the central claim of Darwinian evolution: that all life evolved from single-celled organisms into the vast diversity of life that exists today? Where exactly has that been tested?

In researching testing of evolutionary hypotheses, I came across an article by Dr. Leon Higley that was originally posted on the University of Nebraska Lincoln website (which has now been partially preserved on the Marine Insects Homepage for the University of Nebraska Kearney) discussing the testing of the evolutionary hypothesis by asking why insects haven't succeeded as well in water as on land. While being a strongly pro-evolution paper, it made several points that I found very interesting. Here's what Dr. Higley said (emphasis added):

A scientific hypothesis is an explanation that’s a guess. The value of any hypothesis is how well it accounts for what we know to be true. There’s nothing wrong with wild hypotheses, but their longevity depends on how well they stand up to facts. If they don’t fit the facts, they die (as they should).

Testing hypotheses is big business for scientists. When you do experiments, where you (at least in principle) control every factor except the one you are examining, hypothesis testing usually involves using statistics. Statistics are important, because they provide a mathematical statement based on probability theory of how likely a given outcome is. By convention, scientists tend to say that unless an experimental result could have occur [sic] only 1 time in 20 (5% of the time), it probably is not a real effect.

Unfortunately, given that we don’t have planets and hundreds of million of years to experiment with, we have to take a different tack with the marine insects question. Here, as in much evolutionary argumentation, we try to form plausible hypotheses, and then try to find evidence that supports or disproves these guesses. Once a hypothesis is formed, we look for current examples that would contradict it. For example, the argument that insects can’t survive in the ocean because of water pressure doesn’t seem so good when you realize one insect species survives at a depth of 1,300 meters! This is a form of counter example. Because at least one species can survive a great depth, it implies that other insects could have evolved to do so. Eliminating hypotheses by counter examples is a powerful approach in assessing hypotheses.

Counter examples are a type of comparison (comparing one species’ biology with what might be possible for the group). Often comparison provides a mechanism for supporting a hypothesis. In our marine insects example, we compare insects in the oceans with insects in fresh water. We find that lots of insect species live in fresh water, but almost none do in the oceans. Compare: what is different about the two habitats? If it isn’t something physical (such as salinity or water pressure), maybe it has to do with biology. There are lots of small crustaceans in the ocean, but not so many in fresh water. OK, maybe the crustaceans beat out the insects. Is there any other evidence? Well, the fossil record shows that the crustaceans appeared many millions of years before insects. Like shopping for Tickle-Me Elmo (or whatever is the current faddish toy), those who get there first, win. And, if the crustaceans are out-competing insects, this fits with another theory (a type of strong hypothesis), the competitive exclusion principal. [sic] (Competitive exclusion is an ecological theory that two species can’t both have identical ways of making a living [occupy identical niches], because one will inevitably displace the other.) Competitive exclusion really isn’t evidence for or against our competition hypothesis with marine insects, but it does show our hypothesis doesn’t contradict a widely held principal, which is good. Does any of this prove competition with crustaceans is the reason for the lack of marine insects? Not really, but (to us) it is the best explanation to fit all the available facts.

This last point is very important. Theories are really hypotheses that have stood the test of close examination and time. It is possible to disprove theories, but in most instances it is not logically possible to prove a scientific theory. We can get close, but that is not the same as certainty. Consequently, the (ignorant) argument that something (like evolution) is "only a theory," ignores how the entire business of science works.[sic]

One other way we can test hypotheses is by making predictions. This is harder with evolutionary questions, because typically we can’t look at evolutionary processes over the long term. However, we might design small experiments where we look at competition among fresh water crustaceans and aquatic insects, and in these experiments we can predict how competition should produce different results. Again, such experiments wouldn’t prove or disprove our hypothesis, but they might support aspects of it or cause us to modify our ideas. In a nutshell, that’s science.

I personally find Dr. Higley's article to be informative in several respects, but more interesting in what it shows about the nature of research into evolutionary science. First, it notes that evolution has not been directly scientifically confirmed by testing -- and we shouldn't expect that it ever can be. Rather, when dealing with evolution, scientists try to find "evidence that supports or disproves" the "plausible hypothesis." Keep in mind that the plausible hypothesis is itself simply a reasonable "guess" (Dr. Higley's word) about what happened in the distant past that led to the state of nature that we find. In other words, evolution is simply a framework or model which scientists posit to explain what is observed.

Does the fact that Darwinian evolution is not directly testable mean that the evolutionary theory is necessarily wrong? Of course not. As Dr. Higley points out, science has observed many things that correspond with what one would expect if evolution were, in fact, true. These consistencies do bolster the case that evolution is more than the means adopted by atheists to make them intellectually fulfilled (using the words of the bombastic Richard Dawkins).

But what about when the evidence doesn't fit the theory? In many cases, the evidence we find is inconsistent with what we would expect if the evolutionary framework were true, like finding that although insects evolved and have been highly successful on land, they have been entirely less successful in water for no apparent reason. In fact, the reason most commonly given (that they don't survive in high water pressure) has been demonstrably shown to be false -- as noted by Dr. Higley. So, when something doesn't fit as predicted by evolutionary theory, does it disprove evolution? No. Rather, it simply means that scientists need to adapt the framework to fit the new data. In Dr. Higley's case, it means adopting a different idea of "first arriving wins" to the competition between crustaceans and insects. Never mind that "first arriving wins" doesn't seem to actually be the rule in nature as demonstrated, using one example, by the fact that Africanized honeybees are apparently displacing the earlier arrived domestic honeybees as they move northward from South America.

Let me say once again that this in no way shows that Dr. Higley is ultimately wrong. He may be absolutely right that evolution occurred and the fact that crustaceans arrived first is the reason that they have been more successful in salt water environments than the later arriving insects. But Dr. Higley's example also shows that Darwinian evolution is like Jell-O -- infinitely malleable. The theory itself is evolving much more quickly than the animals it contends evolved, and trying to demonstrate that the underlying theory is wrong is like nailing Jell-O to the wall because it will simply change shape to move away from the nail.

In Darwinian evolution, if the evidence doesn't support the theory, the theory simply changes to adapt to the new information. Scientists, wedded to the pre-conceived but unproven notion that evolution is true, conclude that such inconsistencies merely mean that some of the details of the theory were not necessarily accurate while the underlying theory remains untarnished. But this evolving nature makes it impossible to actually test the theory using the examples and counter-examples cited by Dr. Higley. After all, these examples and counter-examples only affect parts or details of the overriding theory which has not and cannot ever be tested.

Next time: Two analogies

The Evolving Nature of Evolution: "Properly Taught"

About three years ago, President George W. Bush had the apparent audacity to suggest that students should be exposed to differing ideas, and it stirred up a firestorm in the editorial pages and on the Internet. Of course, the idea that we should expose children to new ideas would normally not receive a second thought from most people (especially those who are forever crying "censorship" upon the slightest suggestion that some books or other reading material may be inappropriate for children), but Bush had the gall to make such an open-minded suggestion about teaching "intelligent design" in the public schools.

Based on the reaction, I suspect that some people would prefer to have grade school children handed back-issues of Penthouse Magazine than allow a hint of dissent from the reigning Darwinian paradigm. I can almost hear it now, "What? Infringe on the Darwinian monopoly in the schools? Allow people to think for even a moment that there is a possibility that we didn't evolve from the first single-celled organism? Why, that would be 'anti-scientific!'"

One site that can be depended on to scream "fire" in the crowded theatre at the merest suggestion that children be exposed to Intelligent Design is the website of the National Center for Science Education. True to form, they published an attack on the suggestion entitled "President Bush Endorses Intelligent Design" which stated:

Scientists quickly reacted to the news. The American Geophysical Union, a scientific society of 43,000 members in the earth and space sciences, released a statement making it clear that "intelligent design" is not a legitimate scientific alternative to evolutionary biology.

In comments to journalists on August 1, the President said that "both sides ought to be properly taught." "If he meant that intelligent design should be given equal standing with the theory of evolution in the nation's science classrooms, then he is undermining efforts to increase the understanding of science," Spilhaus said in a statement. "'Intelligent design' is not a scientific theory. Advocates of intelligent design believe that life on Earth is too complex to have evolved on its own and must therefore be the work of a designer. That is an untestable belief and, therefore, cannot qualify as a scientific theory."

Of course, as is apparent from the fact that not every member of the union agrees when the leaders of the AFL-CIO make a pronouncement on some political issue, the mere fact that the nominal leaders of a group of scientists make a statement on behalf of the community doesn't mean that the community is of one mind on the issue. But the wording of the statement raises a question: Why are these people so opposed to exposing children to the idea that Darwinian evolution may not be the end-all, be-all of thought in this area? Do the reasons given by the spokesperson for the American Geophysical Union really pan out?

The underlying statement from the American Geophysical Union which is quoted by the NCSE article (entitled, revealingly, "President Confuses Science and Belief, Puts Schoolchildren at Risk") is only quoted in part. The statement continues:

"Scientific theories, like evolution, relativity and plate tectonics, are based on hypotheses that have survived extensive testing and repeated verification," Spilhaus says. "The President has unfortunately confused the difference between science and belief. It is essential that students understand that a scientific theory is not a belief, hunch, or untested hypothesis."

"Ideas that are based on faith, including 'intelligent design,' operate in a different sphere and should not be confused with science. Outside the sphere of their laboratories and science classrooms, scientists and students alike may believe what they choose about the origins of life, but inside that sphere, they are bound by the scientific method," Spilhaus said.

With all due respect to Mr. Spilhaus, he has made a few errors in his analysis. I would like to spend a couple of posts explaining where I think he has fallen into error.

First, implicit in Mr. Spilhaus' objection is the belief that President Bush meant that ID should be given equal standing with evolution in the schools. Does one really think that he would object if Bush proposed that Intelligent Design be ridiculed or shown to be a hoax in the schools? I certainly don't think so. In fact, I would suspect that he would advocate that if a teacher is asked about Intelligent Design, he should explain that Intelligent Design isn't science because it is based on faith (it's not, but we'll get to that later).

However, the idea that Intelligent Design should be given equal standing in the schools is not what President Bush proposed. What President Bush said was that "both sides ought to be properly taught" so that "people can understand what the debate is about." At the moment, evolution is the reigning paradigm for understanding how life came to exist with the diversity that we observe in nature, and I don't think that President Bush (or any other ID advocate that I have ever read) is suggesting that we don't teach it. I don't think that President Bush was even remotely suggesting that it be given equal standing with Darwinian Evolution. While some people may suggest that Intelligent Design be given equal time with Darwinian evolution as the basis for studying the diversity of life, I don't believe many make that argument. Jonathan Wells was on the Michael Medved program yesterday and said as much. Contending simply that Intelligent Design be "properly taught" is not somehow suggesting a complete revamping of the science classrooms across America. It seems to me that this language merely notes that teachers should identify that there are some who disagree with the reigning paradigm and do so respectfully.

I personally have some experience which I think illustrates what President Bush is suggesting. When I was in first year Biology in college, I went to a lab class that was taught by a graduate student whose name I don't recall. In discussing evolution, he felt obliged to teach "creation science" as an alternative to evolution, but he didn't really try to teach "creation science" but ridiculed it. I think that Bush is suggesting that we at least introduce the idea of Intelligent Design to students (which is not "quackery" as suggested by the Washington Post's Editorial Page) in a respectful manner which teaches, fairly and accurately, its claims -- not some frivolous "let's make fun of ID" approach such as I experienced with my grad student/lab instructor's exposure of our class to "creation science."

So, initially, I reject the idea that President Bush was suggesting that Intelligent Design be taught equally with Darwinian Evolution. He only said that it should be presented in a way so that students understand the controversy. And teaching the controversy doesn't mean that Intelligent Design has be treated as if no one disagrees with its arguments -- it seems to mean that Mr. Spilhaus' argument that Intelligent Design is based on faith would be part of the teaching of the controversy.

Wouldn't that be great? It would allow students to understand the difference between science and non-science using a modern day, relevant example that students can follow in the paper and be able to see clearly how it is that Intelligent Design is non-science.

But then again, maybe the students would see that Intelligent Design has merit and the idea that it is not science is the real smokescreen.

Next time: I will examine the statement that "Scientific theories, like evolution, relativity and plate tectonics, are based on hypotheses that have survived extensive testing and repeated verification."

Intelligent Design & Multiverse -- Equal Time?

I have been listening to a series of podcasts that are from a U.C. Berkley astronomy class. In the latest, the professor discussed the "fine tuning" (his words, not mine) of the universe. He was candid about how slim the chances are that the "arbitrary" values of so many variables in the universe tilt towards life. He then said that one "reasonable" answer is intelligent design. He was "fine" with that conclusion, but insisted that it was not science and so he would not talk about it anymore than he had. It belonged in a religious class, but that did not mean that it was an unreasonable answer, just an answer that was beyond the bounds of science to answer.

This is not an uncommon position among scientists I have heard discuss the subject, though I found his very genuine sounding position that it was a reasonable answer to the issue interesting.

What was more interesting, however, was the professor's discussion of the multiverse theory. He saw this as the flip side of the coin (my words, not his), explaining the fine tuning of our universe by imagining that there are an almost endless number of alternative universes out there, each with its own laws of physics (or values of those physical laws). This would explain why one (or a few more) universes appear fine tuned. After all, if you are playing poker you should not be surprised if you get a few straight flushs in a row if you have been playing for billions of years.

This was all very interesting and the professor took about 10 to 15 minutes of his lecture exploring the topic. I was somewhat surprised when he finished that segment with the admission that the multiverse was so speculative that it was no more scientific than intelligent design. But he had just spent about 10X the amount of time exploring the multiverse theory than he had the intelligent design theory. If both are equally unscientific in his mind, then why was he so much more comfortable talking about the multiverse than intelligent design?

One answer might be that there are greater career risks in being seen as an advocate of intelligent design. But I think it more likely that the professor was simply more comfortable speculating about "nonscientific" theories that exclude God than "nonscientific" theories that include God. Another answer might be that the multiverse theory has the potential to be scientific whereas the intelligent design theory does not. But this means that in this area science is not following the evidence, but certain a priori philosophical positions that exclude certain conclusions before weighing the evidence.

In any event, it is far from clear that the multiverse theory is an escape hatch from intelligent design. Philosopher Robin Collins, for example, believes hat "an inflationary many-universes scenario might be able to offer a viable explanation of the fine-tuning" but then goes on "to explain why there still remains a powerful case for design from physics and cosmology." Collins, "Design and the Many-Worlds Hypothesis," in Philosophy of Religion, at 132.

God (of the Gaps) is Dead

Robert Larmer of the University of New Brunswick has written an outstanding article for International Journal for Philosophy of Religion entitled Is there anything wrong with “God of the gaps” reasoning? This article, copyrighted 2002, has popped up on several of the websites to which we link (The Thinking Christian and Dangerous Idea to name two), and I thought that I would add my own comment.

The point of Dr. Larmer's lengthy article is that the leap to the conclusion that any appeal to God where science fails to provide an answer is often immediately, but wrongly, dismissed as an appeal to "God of the Gaps". The only problem is that the underlying logical fallacy, argumentum ad ignorantiam, is being misused in most cases. Dr. Larmer says:

The artificiality that plagues the short discussions of argumentum ad ignorantiam found in so many textbooks on informal logic results from the fact that in real life it is difficult to find arguments based simply on ignorance. It is clearly fallacious to argue that a statement must be false solely on the basis that it has not been proven true, or that a statement must be true solely on the basis that it has not been proven false. Typically, however, people do not argue in such a manner. Usually, we find them utilizing a premise, whether it be implicit or explicit, that if a proposition P were true (or not true) then we should reasonably expect to find evidence for it being true (or not true). When we do not find such evidence we can take this as a kind of evidence that P is false (or true). If my son tells me that there is a Great Dane in our bathroom and I go look and find no evidence of a Great Dane, I conclude that it is false there is a Great Dane in our bathroom. My lack of evidence for it being the case that there is a Great Dane in our bathroom is good evidence that there is not a great Dane in our bathroom because I have knowledge that if a Great Dane were there, there should be positive evidence to confirm its presence. Walton is, therefore, correct to note that presumed examples of the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam can often be redescribed in a positive way that makes them seem not to be arguments from ignorance at all.

This redescription or transformation turns an argument from ignorance into a more positive-appearing kind of argumentation using modus tollens, and an implicit conditional assumption .. . The transformation is based on the conditional that if you have looked for something, and clearly it is not there, then this observation can count as a kind of positive evidence that it is not there. 10

It seems that examples of the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam are rare.11 In most instances, arguments which might at first glance appear to commit the fallacy of simply appealing to ignorance, reveal themselves on further inspection not to be arguing that a particular proposition P has been proved false simply on the basis that it has not been proved true, but rather on the basis that there is good reason to believe that if P were true then we should have been able to find evidence for its truth. The fact such evidence is lacking provides good reason, via modus tollens, for concluding that P is false. In such instances, it is a mistake to insist that the argument for concluding -P is based simply on ignorance and thus commits the fallacy of ad ignorantiam.

This is an excellent point. While I suspect that people making true ad ignorantiam arguments exist, most people who challenge the scientific paradigm of a totally naturalistic universe (Carl Sagan's "the universe is all there is, all there was and all there ever will be") by pointing out failures of science to provide explanations do not do so because they are ignorant about the workings of science or because they are saying "you haven't proved it so it doesn't exist." These are straw man characterizations of what the opponents to the purely naturalistic view of the universe are saying.

I have previously made my own arguments along these same lines. In an old blog entry entitled The Loch Ness Monster, the Appeal to Ignorance and Intelligent Design, I noted that people who claim that the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist because there is no positive evidence for its existence are not committing the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam. Rather, there have been detailed sonar searches of the entire Loch to try to locate Nessie, but those efforts have failed to turn up any creature anywhere near the size or description of Nessie. Is it possible that Nessie exists despite these searches? Of course, but the point is not to disprove Nessie's existence but rather to make the case that based upon the evidence available there is insufficient reason to believe that Nessie really exists. This conclusion is not a logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam; it is an application of the logical principle of modus tollens.

Likewise, in the case of the search for a naturalistic cause for the universe, the person pointing out problems with the scientific evidence is not committing the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam, either. As I stated earlier:

[The misrepresentative claim that Intelligent Design is merely a "God of the Gaps" argument] is that ID argues, "There is no evidence for a naturalistic rise in complexity in the most basic of all living cells, therefore the complexity in cells did not arise naturalistically." But that is not what the ID proponents are saying. They are making a valid inductive argument:

Premise 1: If there were a purely naturalistic explanation for the complexity that we see in even the simplest of living cells, then, given the extensive and protracted research by generations of scientists, it would have been found by now.

Premise 2: No purely naturalistic explanation has been found for the complexity that we see in even the simplest of living cells.

Conclusion: 3. There is no purely naturalistic explanation has been found for the complexity that we see in even the simplest of living cells.

Moreover, as noted by [a blog entry on Bill's List], the ID proponents go beyond this inductive argument alone. They also make the positive claims, to wit:

(1) the work of intelligent agents has certain earmarks, which (2) we are capable of recognizing, and (3) those earmarks are on display in some scientifically-investigated phenomena.

In no way are the advocates of ID committing the ad ignorantiam fallacy. They are not arguing for a God of the Gaps. Rather, like the BBC researchers at Loch Ness they are saying that a thorough search of the field has not turned up any evidence for a naturalistic explanation for the rise of even the simplest of living cells due to the immense complexity study of these cells has revealed. On that evidence, it is reasonable to infer that such a naturalistic explanation did not occur and we need to investigate more thoroughly the possibility that design played a larger role than the Darwinists would care to acknowledge. In that area, ID proponents are seeking to identify the earmarks of design.

Where does that leave the Darwinists? Well, if the advocates of ID are right and that the lake of possible purely naturalistic explanations has been searched relatively thoroughly, then the Darwinists are the Nessie-apologists arguing that she is hiding under the surface in some undiscovered cave. Possible? Of course – but contrary to the presently existing best evidence.

Regardless of the way in which the God of the Gaps argument is dead, Dr. Larmer's article brings some long needed evaluation to the use of the argument by naturalists as a sure-fire end to any argument that those who refuse to toe the naturalistic line are somehow automatically engaging in some intellectual sleight-of-hand. Few efforts to point out failings in the naturalistic system are really argumentum ad ignorantiam, and the accusation that someone is making a "God of the Gaps" argument has become an excuse to simply dismiss excellent arguments against a particular worldview disguising itself as the only proper way to understand science.

A Pro-Intelligent Design Movie?

A new documentary film is being released featuring comedian and commentator Ben Stein. The film is entitled Expelled and sub-titled "No Intelligence Allowed".

Here is an excerpt from the e-mail announcment I received:

Ben Stein, the lovable, monotone teacher from Ferris Bueller’s Day Off and The Wonder Years is on a journey to answer one of the biggest questions ever asked: Were we designed or are we simply the end result of an ancient mud puddle struck by lightning? Stein, who is also a lawyer, an economist, a former presidential speechwriter, author and social commentator, is stunned by what he finds on his journey. He discovers an elitist scientific establishment that has traded in its skepticism for dogma. But even worse, along the way, Stein uncovers a long line of biologists, astronomers, chemists and philosophers who have had their reputations destroyed and their careers ruined by a scientific establishment that allows absolutely no dissent from Charles Darwin’s theory of random mutation and natural selection.

“Big Science in this area of biology has lost its way,” says Stein. “Scientists are supposed to be allowed to follow the evidence wherever it may lead, no matter what the implications are. Freedom of inquiry has been greatly compromised, and this is not only anti-American, it’s anti-science. Its anti-the whole concept of learning.”

Expelled uncovers that educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired in some cases for the fact that they believe there is evidence of “design” in nature, challenging the idea that life is a result of random chance. For example, Stein meets Richard Sternberg, a double PhD biologist who allowed a peer-reviewed research paper describing the evidence for intelligence in the universe to be published in the scientific journal Proceedings. Not long after publication, officials from the National Center for Science Education and the Smithsonian Institution where Sternberg was a research fellow began a coordinated smear and intimidation campaign to get the promising young scientist expelled from his position. This attack on scientific freedom was so egregious that it prompted a congressional investigation.

On his journey, Stein meets other scientists such as astrobiologist Guillermo Gonzalez, who was denied tenure at Iowa State University in spite of his extraordinary record of achievement. Gonzalez made the mistake of documenting the design he has observed in the universe. There are others, such as Caroline Crocker, a brilliant biology teacher at George Mason University who was forced out of the university for briefly discussing problems with Darwinian Theory and for telling the students that some scientists believe there is evidence of design in the universe. The list goes on and on.

Unlike some other documentary films, Expelled doesn’t just talk to people representing one side of the story. The film confronts scientists such as Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, influential biologist and atheist blogger PZ Myers and Eugenie Scott, head of the National Center for Science Education. The creators of Expelled crossed the globe over a two-year period, interviewing scores of scientists, doctors, philosophers and public leaders. The result is a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.

“The incredible thing about Expelled is that we don’t resort to manipulating our interviews for the purpose of achieving the ‘shock effect,’ something that has become common in documentary film these days,” said Walt Ruloff, co-founder of Premise Media and co-Executive Producer. "People will be stunned to actually find out what elitist scientists proclaim, which is that a large majority of Americans are simpletons who believe in a fairy tale. Premise Media took on this difficult mission because we believe the greatest asset of humanity is our freedom to explore and discover truth."

Fascinating. I am really hoping that this is what it appears to be: a movie that gives Intelligent Design a fair look and exposes the bullying that it has taken at the hands of the "scientific establishment". I will wait and see before passing judgment.

Creationism: A Threat to Human Rights?

According to Europe sees creationism as threat to human rights by the Reuters News Agency, June 24, 2007, the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly ("PACE") was to be voting on "a proposal this week to defend the teaching of Darwinian evolution and keep creationist and intelligent design views out of science classes in state schools in its 47 member countries." If the proposal had passed, it would have "firmly oppose[d] the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution by natural selection."

While I have on numerous occasions voiced my arguments why I believe ID is a science and should be treated as such, I understand why people disagree. I certainly recognize that ID is being tarred as "creationism in a white lab coat" (i.e., the robes which have been reserved only for the high priests of naturalism) by the popularizers of Darwinism when warning the general public about the evils of ID. This, in turn, leads to a pretty much universal acknowledgement that "everyone knows" that ID is merely creationism in disguise. Thus, these types of votes to keep ID from being taught don't surprise me in the slightest. They disappoint me, but they don't surprise me.

But what kills me about this particular vote is that it is being made by a council the job of which, according to the article, is to set "human rights standards in member states and enforce[] decisions of the European Court of Human Rights". On what basis does this particular council participate in what should be taught in science classes in schools? Well, apparently the council (or at least a committee in the council] believes ID is a threat to human rights. According to the article:

A report for the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly said the campaign against evolution has its roots "in forms of religious extremism" and is a dangerous attack on scientific knowledge.

"Today, creationists of all faiths are trying to get their ideas accepted in Europe," it said. "If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights."

Exactly how is it that if ID is accepted as a scientific theory it will threaten human rights? For that matter, how is it that if creationism is accepted as a possible answer to the questions about the origins of the universe and biological entities such an acceptance will threaten human rights? The article doesn't say. It makes the assertion that such threat will arise but does so without really saying why. Here, word for word, is what the article says (emphasis mine):

Creationism teaches that God created the world and all beings in it, as depicted in the Bible. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that teaching creationism in science class in public schools violates the separation of church and state.

Supporters of intelligent design, which holds that some life forms are too complex to have evolved, say it is a scientific theory that should be taught in school. But a U.S. court also has rejected this argument and the council report dismisses it as "neo-creationism."

The proposed resolution, to be put to a vote Tuesday, says member states should "firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution by natural selection."

"The teaching of the phenomena concerning evolution as a fundamental scientific theory is therefore crucial to the future of our societies and our democracies," the resolution said.

The word "therefore" is usually used to denote the conclusion of an argument. But for the life of me I don't see a reasonable argument here. Instead, I see a fairly correct description of creationism, a somewhat correct description of ID together with a note that one court -- the lowest level of court in the United States system -- found that it was "neo-creationism" (which finding was not appealed), then a statement of what member states ought to do. There is no argument being made here.

Based upon what the article says, I have a theory as to why ID and creationism are seen as presenting a threat to human rights: this proposal incorporates bigotry against Christian thought. Here's how: The idea may be that permitting the teaching of creationism and ID (the latter being lumped together with creationism) in the schools would be allowing entry to extremist attitudes in the education systems. Since Christian evangelicals who believe that the Bible is the Word of God are now grouped as "extremists", it is a blanket call against teaching of anything that can loosely be called religious in order to prevent a take-over of the education system by those "extremists" who will teach that women should be second-class citizens, homosexuals should be stoned, and any number of other false representations about the Christianity -- even evangelical Christianity.

To test this theory, I went to the PACE webpage and searched creationism. I discovered that the proposal had come from PACE's Committee on Culture, Science and Education. The lead spokesman ("rapporteur") for the group (at least, on this proposal) appears to be an elderly French socialist named Guy Lengangne. The text that was to be debated is ominously titled, "The Dangers of Creationism in Education." The latest version of the text of this measure makes many assertions that are simply erroneous. For example, it states:

Creationism, born of the denial of the evolution of species through natural selection, was for a long time an almost exclusively American phenomenon.

Actually, creationism has been around for a long time -- much longer than Darwin's theory of evolution. Moreover, it was not an "almost exclusively American" phenomenon. Now, if they are saying that since Darwinism has become the only acceptable view for origins that creationism has largely been aimed at challenging Darwinism and that such criticisms have largely originated in America, I can agree. But, of course, language has meaning, and I have serious difficulties with much of what has been written into this proposal as fact -- sometimes with the so-called facts themselves, and sometimes with the language used which creates inaccurate pictures.

Putting aside the problems with the facts, what exactly does the bill say about how creationism will be detrimental to human rights? The answer appears to be centered on paragraphs 10 through 12 of the proposal which read:

10. Evolution is not simply a matter of the evolution of humans and of populations. Denying it could have serious consequences for the development of our societies. Advances in medical research with the aim of effectively combating infectious diseases such as AIDS are impossible if every principle of evolution is denied. One cannot be fully aware of the risks involved in the significant decline in biodiversity and climate change if the mechanisms of evolution are not understood.

11. Our modern world is based on a long history, of which the development of science and technology forms an important part. However, the scientific approach is still not well understood and this is liable to encourage the development of all manner of fundamentalism and extremism, synonymous with attacks of utmost virulence on human rights. The total rejection of science is definitely one of the most serious threats to human rights and civic rights.

12. The war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism which are closely allied to extreme right-wing political movements. The creationist movements possess real political power. The fact of the matter, and this has been exposed on several occasions, is that the advocates of strict creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy.

I am absolutely flabbergasted. There is so much silliness and anti-theistic bias in these paragraphs I barely know where to begin. First, where in the world do these people get the idea that if ID is accepted as a scientific discipline, scientists will stop seeking medical cures for infectious diseases? Did they find that on some anti-intelligent design website? I contend that there is no support for this assertion. Nowhere have I ever read anyone connected with ID or creationism (except a few Christian Scientists -- that is, the denomination that calls itself "Christian Scientists", not scientists who are Christian) say that we should not be seeking cures for any number of diseases or illnesses. Nowhere have I seen anyone say that the work of scientists in these areas are not valuable or should not be continued. Nowhere have I seen anyone in these communities deny that micro-evolution does occur at the level of viruses and bacteria. To claim otherwise is the result of pure ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.

Second, climate change is now associated with evolution? That's new to me.

Third, paragraph 11 makes a huge leap. It somehow claims that the failure to properly understand science leads to extremism. Exactly how this happens is not explained. It simply makes the assertion that ignorance about the scientific approach "is liable to encourage the development of all manner of fundamentalism and extremism, synonymous with attacks of utmost virulence on human rights. The total rejection of science is definitely one of the most serious threats to human rights and civic rights." The exact mechanism of this supposed attack is not spelled out and remains a mystery. This probably explains the failure of Reuters to spell out the reasoning more thoroughly -- there is none!

Fourth, paragraph 12 associates creationism with extreme right-wing political movements. I agree that conservatives are more likely to reject the broad claims of Darwinism, but to call them extreme is, in many cases, itself extreme. In my view, calling someone extreme in most cases is simply an ad hominem. Any political science student recognizes that the use of such language is a way of damaging an opponent without having to engage the opponent's position. Thus, people say that President Bush is an extremist or that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is an extremist as a means of discounting their arguments or positions without seriously engaging them. Usually, calling someone or some group extreme points more to the speaker's political affiliation and/or alliances than the person or group identified.

Fifth, the creationist movements don't possess much political power. If ID is seen as creationist and creationism is so powerful, how come ID is being taught in only two (I think that's the number) school systems in the United States?

Sixth, "the advocates of strict creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy"? Excuse me while I laugh. This is a campfire tale with Christianity taking the role of the bogey-man. Whether these people want to accept it or not, it was out of the Christian tradition that democracy and freedom received their starts. Christian belief in America is what allowed Democracy to come forth. Human rights in America and England (where they were first put into play) arose from the belief in inalienable rights granted by a sovereign and personal God.

In all honesty, the idea that creationism -- especially ID -- will somehow threaten human rights is a phantom being pushed by those with a political agenda. This was so obvious that it was recognized by the members of PACE when they debated whether to table the proposal (which they ultimately did).

Mr VAN DEN BRANDE (Belgium). – Thank you, Mr President. When we looked at the draft resolution, we thought that it would be better to refer it back to the committee, because we think that the issue is not to deny the scientific evolution theory. But our group is convinced that the proposal is unbalanced. We are open to discussing it, but there is in fact a preliminary question: are we a scientific academy, or are we a political body? Is this item appropriate? In any case, I ask that the draft resolution should be referred back to the committee. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. There are now three proposals. Are there any further proposals to change the order of business? I call Mr Hancock.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – I think that Mr Van den Brande has posed an interesting question. One wonders why Tuesday’s business is necessary at all, because I share his view that this is a political Assembly, dealing with political items that affect the core values of the Council of Europe. We are not here to discuss religious matters.

Mr. Lengangne reacted to the referral of the proposal back to committee as any good zealot would: he claimed it to be a conspiracy:

‘I can only see this as a ploy on the part of people who will use any means they can to combat the theory of evolution and impose creationist ideas. What we have here is the makings of a return to the Middle Ages, and too many members of this human-rights-based assembly fail to see it’.

Ah yes, the old if-we-allow-ID-it-will-take-us-back-to-the-Middle-Ages ploy. Never mind that this type of thinking represents a use of the slippery slope fallacy. Never mind that there is no reason to believe that this is some type of device by some under-cover creationists to thwart the motion of the people-who-know-better. I guess Mr. Lengangne cannot accept the simple fact that the delusions represented by the proposal may not necessarily be acceptable to the entire PACE body -- or, at minimum, that the PACE body may think that this needs a little more careful thought than the committee has apparently exercised so far.

This entire proposal appears to be the result of religiously motivated bigotry. I see no reason that PACE need address this at all, and the grounds upon which it is being presented to PACE are faulty and erroneous. ID and creationism do not constitute a threat to human rights either in the form of a failure to seek cures for diseases or in the form of a threat to human rights from extremism. This proposal, should it come up again, should be rejected.

The State of Intelligent Design by Phillip Johnson

Evolution News and Views has posted an entry entitled Phillip Johnson Gives State of the Debate Report in Think Philosophy Journal. In it, Professor Johnson says something that corresponds to my own view:

Today authoritarian rules ban the hypothesis of intelligent design from scientific discussion and fiercely suppress it by lawsuits. A genuinely confident scientific culture that was making continual progress in confirming its theories and solving problems would not need or want to rely on intimidation to silence dissent. It may require many long years of struggle before the hypothesis of real design in biology will be able to receive a fair hearing, but the day of that fair hearing will arrive, and eventually people may wonder how a materialist theory as shaky as Darwinism was able to captivate so many minds for so long. * * * I am still convinced that the possible role of intelligent causes in the history or life will eventually become a subject that leading scientists will want to address in a fair-minded manner. For now, the influential scientific organizations are passionately committed to explanations that consider only material causes, so they reject out of hand any suggestion that intelligent cause may also have played some role. It seems that supporting materialism, rather than following the evidence to whatever conclusion it leads is their prime commitment.