Here We Go Again...

The Evolution vs. Intelligent Design controversy is back in the news again thanks to a trial in Pennsylvania over a school board's decision to add the theory of Intelligent Design to the curriculum.

To which my friend Gene sent me this excerpt from an MSNBC article on why Scientists dismiss Intelligent Design:

After examining ID's two main arguments, the answers to the original questions -- what does ID offer? And what can ID explain that evolution can't? -- is not much and nothing, leading scientists say. "The most basic problem [with ID] is that it's utterly boring," said William Provine, a science historian at Cornell University in New York. "Everything that's complicated or interesting about biology has a very simple explanation: ID did it."

Evolution was and still is the only scientific theory for life that can explain how we get complexity from simplicity and diversity from uniformity. ID offers nothing comparable. It begins with complexity-- a Supreme Being -- and also ends there. The explanations offered by ID are not really explanations at all, scientists say. They're more like last resorts. And, scientists argue, there is a danger in pretending that ID belongs next to evolution in textbooks. "It doesn't add anything to science to introduce the idea that God did it," Provine told LiveScience. Intelligent design "would become the death of science if it became a part of science."

Unfortunately, I don't think that this is a very persuasive agrument against ID, especially to those who don't understand Evolution or are afraid that it results in only materialistic reductionism.

A more persuasive argument to the masses (most of whom are not Biblical literalists) is merely the following.

Evolution does not make any claims as to the ultimate origins of life, i.e. biogenesis. It merely suggests a mechanism by which new species are formed. A mechanism which incidentally is supported by mountains of evidence in various fields such as paleontology, geology and perhaps most convincingly molecular biology and genetics.

Nor is there anything in Evolution which says that God (whatever your conception of God is) did not design Evolution as part of his plan, i.e. that God endowed life with the ability to adapt and specialize.

Therefore Intelligent Design is completely redundant, aside from not being scientific in that it offers no evidence that is testable. Intelligent Design offers no theories as to how to explain species change and adaptation nor does Evolution necessarily contradict ID's central premise. So what's the point? In other words, Evolution does not negate a belief in God or a Supreme Being. They are compatible, so why create an unnecessary schism? (That is a rhetorical question. The schism or "wedge" is an intentional strategy of fundamentalist Biblical literalists -- but that is not the majority of folks who are being seduced by the ID argument. The majority are Christians of the non-fundamental variety who need to be re-assured that Evolution is not a threat to their worldview. Loss of scientific literacy is.)

Furthermore, strictly speaking, Intelligent Design does not imply that the designer was the Judeo-Christian God. It merely implies that there was some designer. This designer could be Zeus or Brahma, any other god or even advanced aliens.

The real test of whether ID is being advocated as an alternative "theory" or whether it is just a cover for Christian creationism is how those pushing ID will react to possibility that a classroom discussion of the designer would include consideration of Zeus or Aliens (i.e. like the monolith creators in 2001) as potential creators.

Lastly the notion that Evolution is "only a theory" is as sad as it is ridiculous, for it betrays a stunning lack of understanding of science by the general population. Everything in science is only a theory. Should we put labels on textbooks warning that the Theory of Gravity is "just a theory"?

Here is another often overlooked point. It does not matter if Evolution is correct or not. It is simply the basis of all modern biology, and must be taught in schools, because it is what the current scientific community has accepted. Who are parents and school board officials to determine what goes into a science class? If we want our children to be able to compete in a world wide scientific community then they have to understand contemporary scientific thought. If someone, somewhere is to ever overturn Evolution (as is the hope of the creationists) then that person had better understand Evolution. Einstein did not ignite the quantum physics revolution by avoiding learning Newtonian theory.

Let ID and other creation myths be discussed in theology or philosophy classes. Yes, I know most high schools don't have a mandatory philosophy class and that may be the biggest problem of all -- lack of critical thinking.

One of my favorite Reason authors, Cathy Young (who embodies fair and objective analysis), now has her own blog. See her latest take on the Evolution wars:
http://cathyyoung.blogspot.com/2005/09/evolution-wars-are-here-again.html