Those critics have almost universally been religious representatives, chiefly Christians, who reject the idea that life on this planet could have come about any other means but through the 6 day Creation story from the Bible. Yet, even that argument has now evolved into one which accepts the results of evolution but which postulates an unseen hand behind it, guiding and directing with intelligence and foresight toward the end result we now see. What used to be called "creationism" is now known by its formal, and more scientific-sounding title of Intelligent Design.
Before delving into the claims of Intelligent Design, or ID as it is commonly referred to, it is helpful to distinguish what constitutes a scientific theory. This is, after all, the crux of ID, in that it is claimed to be a true scientific theory which accounts for not only the observations confirming evolution but also of an "intelligent designer", who is never referred to by name but is implied to be the Christian god by virtue of the affiliation of its chief proponents.
To the layperson, a theory means an idea or guess about a solution to a given problem. If my car breaks down, I can "theorize" that it might be the battery or the fuel pump.
According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, AAAS, an organization representing over 10 million affiliated scientists and publisher of the journal Science, a scientific theory may be defined as:
To a scientist, however, a theory represents the aim of research and data collection. It is the end result of formulating an explanation based on observation or experiment, and subsequently confirmed through additional experimentation yielding results which further confirm the original hypothesis. It further defines hypotheses as:
A scientific theory is an explanation of how nature works that encompasses many
tested hypotheses. A theory explains diverse observations, presents testable predictions and has not been contradicted by reliable evidence. At the same time, scientific theories are not “provable” in the sense that mathematicians use the word. Developing reliable theories is a main goal of science.
Scientists of varying disciplines adhere to this model and its advent can be traced to the influence of Karl Popper, who defined a valid theory as:
Hypotheses are tentative proposals used to explain data and are tested through further observations or experiments. Hypotheses may be falsified by conflicting data or supported by consistent data, but an hypothesis can never be absolutely confirmed or proved.
1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations.
2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.
3. Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.
6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence.")
7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later describe such a rescuing operation as a "conventionalist twist" or a "conventionalist stratagem.").
8. One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.
Of particular note is the eighth qualification, which constitutes the bulk of how science applies a method to determing the validity of a given theory. If we state a hypothesis to the solution of a problem or to explain observed data, then we must also state how that hypothesis could be shown to be false, even if that observation is never made. Thus, if I state my broken-down car is because of a dead battery, showing the battery to be full and healthy would falsify my originial hyposthesis.
Yet, in order to test that hypothesis, I must show a way for experimenting to produce data which either confirms or denies it. In this case, I would experiment on the battery by applying a volt and amperage meter to the terminals in order to test its health. The results of that experiment then confirm or deny my original hypothesis. If they confirm it, then I can procede to experiement further by replacing the battery and finding if the car starts. If either the car does not start or my meter test of the battery determines it is healthy, I must now formulate a new hypothesis. With each successful experiment confirming my hypothesis, I arrive closer to a workable theory which can be checked and verified by anyone else.
Thus, we arrive at a baseline to which we can compare proffered theories against and determine their scientific validity.
Intelligent Design is such a proposed theory, seeking to usurp, stand alongside, or surpass evolutionary biology and abiogenesis as valid scientific explanations for life and its menagerie of forms. The leading proponent of the ID charge is the Discovery Institute, an organization comprised of individuals with varying degrees of scientific credentials, headed by Bruce Chapman, a non-scientist public policy expert.
Discovery Institute hosts a variety of articles supporting ID which are described as "peer-reviewed". Such peer review, in this case, amounts to review among themselves and other supporters of ID. Whether reviewed by the at-large scientific community or not, the claims of ID amount to these criticisms of the more commonly accepted evolutionary theories:
1. The problem of irreducible complexity, which Discovery Institute' s Michael Behe defines as "a single system which is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."The conclusion reached by proponents of ID is that such problems can only be solved by the introduction of an entity acting outside the natural constraints of known mechanisms to achieve life as we know it. This based upon their ideas that life, indeed the universe, exemplify patterns and traits which are said to be "designed" and not occur through chance or other natural forces. Though it is often stressed that such a "designer" could be an alien race or culture, even Dembski has acknowledged "no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life", thus describing only a god-like power behind the formation of the universe and advent of life.
2. The problem of specified complexity, which Discovery Institute's William Dembski illustrates as: "A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified."
It would be easy to stop at this point and show that such a hypothesis is inherently untestable or falsifiable. The ID proponents state the universe shows design and thus their conclusion could only be falsifiable by showing the natural formation of something not fitting their ideas of design. However, a true indictment of this assertion requires addressing all raised points and proceding to an inevitable conclusion.
Irreducible Complexity
The argument for irreducible complexity usually centers on complex biological structures, such as the human eye. Such structures, it is said, could not have evolved naturally as their final function is impossible without underlying sub-structures or systems. Take away any of those at any stage of evolution and the eye could not function as an eye and is thus biologically unimportant.
Such an argument, however, rests on unproven assertions that what we now see in the eye is what has always been required present to be an eye. A good analogy is in Flash presentations found on modern Internet website. The end result of the Flash program is usually an interactive multimedia presentation, yet the files used to create the final result are unable to be derived from merely reducing the presentation itself. Some aspects can be "reverse engineered" but the influences of programming cannot be similarly derived.
Thus, a human eye may not necessarily be the end product of a sequential series of changes but is merely the result of several sub-structures along the path of evolution, some of which were discarded or kept.
Michael Behe has acknowledged that his original assertion amounted to "sloppy prose" and admits “I quite agree that my argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof".
He continues to contend, however, that science cannot show how such structures evolved naturally, while not explaining why the lack of explanation from one theory validates his own.
Specified Complexity
Dembski's ideas concerning the probability of seeing the patterns observed in nature, specifically in the human genome, amount to the analogy of "a tornado tearing through a junkyard and assembling a Boeing jet". Specifically, he is stating that such complexity is mathematically improbable on the order of 1 in 10 ^ 150 chance of occurring only by chance.
Yet, Dembski's "complex specified information" (CSI) is only improbable because Dembski says so. He has not demonstrated that CSI is impossible or improbable in nature and only concludes that it is based upon his own mathematical calculations. It eliminates such mechanisms as chance and regularity before arriving at its "design" conclusion.
Conclusions of ID
The final analysis of ID shows that it makes these assumptions and/or conclusions:
1. The patterns observed in nature, including biological life and the universe as a whole, indicate the direction of an intelligent designer with god-like powers.
2. Whatever gaps are present in current evolutionary biology and cosmology can only be explained by the interference of that same god-like intelligent designer.
With either conclusion, the end result is the same statement: God did it. No method for evaluating this claim is given. No test can show whether such an intelligent designer exists or not. No falsifiable alternative to the "theory" is offered. There is no experiment which can be conducted that will yield any result that confirms or denies the existence of such a supernatural entity. In short, the Intelligent Design Theory is nothing more than an attempt at pounding a god-answer into the holes which constitue the riddles of life.
Even more suspect is how religious advocates have readily embraced this "theory" and actively campaign to have it included alongside accepted science in school classrooms. This shows a clear motivation to have a religious explanation substituted or equated with science, thus lending scientific weight to that same religion.
This opinion has been weighed out by not only scientists, but legal courts. Such an opinion was recently delivered in Dover, PA, wherein the verdict stated:
The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the factsRecently, in the United Kingdom, the British government was forced to respond to a dessemination of "teaching materials" to classrooms across the country. The UK's Education Ministry stated:
of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the
Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the
seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and
moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious,
antecedents.
Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock
assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory
is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in
general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the
theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the
scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the
existence of a divine creator.
To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.
"Neither intelligent design nor creationism are recognised scientific theories and they are not included in the science curriculum."Such attempts by creationists play on public ignorance rather than scientific acceptance. By imparting just enough information to "sound" scientific, ID proponents are waging a public relations campaign which encourages otherwise uninformed citizens to question why science is disallowing an allegedly viable alternative to evolution. The onus is thus on the science community to respond by educating the public and engaging in public debates wherever and whenever possible in order to expose the poor scientific underpinnings of ID.
(Brian Ragle would like to thank Dr. Katrina Kelner, of AAAS' Science Magazine, for her invaluable assistance in researching this article. He would also like to thank "AppleGirl", on irc.dal.net for her inspiration to definitively research this topic.)
No comments:
Post a Comment