Intelligent Design's Intellectual Dishonesty

The word 'theory' is used differently in science than it is used elsewhere. In science, 'theory' describes a unification of facts to explain observed phenomena. Colloquially, the word can mean: "an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture." Stephen Jay Gould explains this in his essay "Evolution as Fact and Theory" (1994):

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Because of the different uses of the word, creationists and intelligent design proponents often try to undermine the theory of evolution by stating that it cannot be a fact simply because the word theory is used to describe it. Anyone can see the ignorance displayed by such a claim. Not only does a person betray their misunderstanding of the definition of a scientific theory, but they reveal their ignorance of the evidence which supports the theory of evolution.

One might be willing to shrug off a creationist's effort to undermine the theory of evolution because its all they've got. Creationists, in contrast to ID proponents, are comparatively forthcoming regarding the types of beliefs they hold. For the most part, creationists have admitted their beliefs are religious, and we would therefore not expect any evidence to be presented.

Recently, even creationists are attempting to stick their head into scientific discourse and confuse young children as to what science is and how we understand our world. The best example of this is the Creation Museum founded by CEO Ken Ham. Giving his amusement park the label of 'museum' intentionally misleads the children who visit it, and gives them the false impression that what they are seeing is scientific and educational.

ID proponents are still the more intellectually dishonest group in the debate. Not only do they do hold the same nonsensical beliefs as creationists, but they tout them as being purely scientific, and are careful to keep them disguised as such. All ID claims have been refuted by scientists in peer-reviewed journals. A good summary of the refutations of ID can be seen in Dr. Ken Miller's (Brown University) lecture at Case Wester Reserve University in Cleveland.
Dr. Millers Lecture

ID proponents and creationists are now acutely aware that they cannot face the scientific community by making scientific claims. The reason for this is because all of the evidence supports the theory of evolution. The failure of ID's attempts at scientific (actually, dishonestly scientific) refutations of evolution are best exemplified by the reducibility of the bacterial flagella and the evidence for human chromosome number 2 being the fusion product of two ancestral chromosomes (Both explained in Dr. Miller's Lecture).

One would hope that since we know all the available evidence supports the theory of evolution, and creationists are purely religious, and ID proponents have been systematically refuted, the general education of evolution would increase. Recent Gallup polls show that this is not the case. In 2006, only 14% of Americans surveyed said they thought man evolved through non-guided processes. Compare that with 43% of people stating that they believed God created man in its present form and we have either failed in education, or people have succeeded in ignorantly or dishonestly undermining the theory. Either possibility presents a serious problem that needs to be confronted.

It is possible that these people choose to remain ignorant as a way to protect their beliefs. Some people feel that the theory of evolution attacks the existence of God. However, as I tried to demonstrate in the essay from 4/11/2008, this fear is totally irrational. If a God is assumed to exist, anything which we are capable of understanding through science should be welcomed and embraced as something God made us capable of understanding. It makes no sense to hinder our efforts to understand the world in which God placed us. Since our certainty in scientific knowledge is directly congruent with the amount of evidence we have for something, a person need not worry about betraying religious doctrine through scientific discovery. Science works directly with evidence from the observable world. A world, some might say, was created by God. Therefore, it is impossible to betray or disprove God through scientific observation. Carl Sagan wrote this:

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

Of course, that still may not be enough to calm an irrational fear of science. If that fear exists, people may choose to stay ignorant as a way to protect contrived understandings of our existence which make them happy. In a particular way, that could be the threatening aspect of science. Science works through objective and disinterested inquiry. The conclusions we draw may not necessarily be such that would make one happy. This uncertainty, could be the driving force behind the fear or rejection of science, and specifically the theory of evolution.

Now Playing...
Talkin' World War III Blues - Bob Dylan
In print...
Letter to a Christian Nation - Sam Harris

The Scope of Evolutionary Theory

Perhaps the most amazing part of the theory of evolution is that it pre-dates our knowledge of modern biochemistry and genetics. Amazingly, all of the knowledge we have subsequently gathered in the biological sciences has supported the theory. The theory remains under attack despite our understanding of the molecular mechanisms of evolution and the practical applications of evolutionary science in medicine. "Creation-Scientists" and proponents of intelligent design continually criticize the theory using the same unmistakable skepticism that they scoff at when debating the existence of God. The uneasiness that some religious people feel regarding evolution is truly unfortunate and due to either a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory or insecurities of faith resulting from scientific progress.

An often overlooked truth about the theory of evolution is that it has nothing to do with the existence of God or the origin of life. The theory is intended to explain the diversity of life and the process by which new species are formed. Briefly, the theory states that the genetic variation of a generation will cause some organisms to be more likely to reproduce than others. The genotypes of organisms that reproduce most successfully will increase in frequency in the population.

We can see this process happen when we use drugs to combat bacterial or viral infections. For example, HIV is a retrovirus that uses human T-lymphocytes to reproduce. One of the drugs used to control HIV infection is the antiretroviral drug azidothymidine (AZT). Prolonged use of AZT to treat HIV infection will cause the virus population to evolve and develop resistance to AZT. This occurs due to the same reasons that mosquitoes become resistant to DDT and bacteria become resistant to certain antibiotics: There is a variation of one trait (for HIV it is the change in the shape of the active site of reverse transcriptase) which makes organisms with that variation more likely to survive and reproduce than other organisms in its population. AZT normally prevents DNA synthesis from viral RNA. AZT acts by binding as a thymidine-analog to the active site of the enzyme. The process of synthesizing DNA from a RNA genome by reverse transcription is much more error prone than simple DNA replication. The increased error rate causes increased genetic variation. The abundant variation ensures that some of the newly synthesized viruses will have a mutation in their active site that makes them insensitive to AZT. Thus, the only viruses that are able to reproduce are the ones that are resistant to AZT. So, by introducing AZT into an HIV patient humans cause the rapid evolution of HIV into an AZT-resistant virus.

The AZT-induced evolution of HIV is a good example of observing evolution because it involves all of the basic principles of the theory. Because it is a good example of observing what the theory of evolution attempts to explain, it is also a example for observing what the theory does not explain. The theory, like all scientific theories, is limited in its power of explanation by its specificity. It can only give us insight into how the process of descent with modification works. Evolution cannot possibly comment on the existence or nonexistence of a supernatural deity. This remains true even if the theory contradicts the historical model of the Bible. In fact, the historical contradictions between the bible and evolution are not unique to this debate. Evidence from the geological sciences and astrophysical sciences also give us evidence that contradicts biblical history.

The reason why there is a debate between so-called creation scientists and evolutionists is that the evidence and insight we gain from scientific inquiry is very threatening to religious believers. Evolution is the only scientific theory that will cause your average Joe-Christian to decide its time to argue science with scientists. At first glance, it seems baffling when one realizes that accountants, firefighters, school-teachers, lawyers, or (fill in a non-scientific profession of your choice) take an ignorantly stubborn stand against specialists who support the theory of evolution. Of course, it only baffles until it becomes obvious that these seemingly diverse people all share a faith in the Abrahamic God, and to concede a historical error in the Bible, Torah, or Koran would mean be to admit the fallibility of their holy text.

It does not have to be one or the other. You need not give yourself an ultimatum of 'God or evolution.' Evolution happened. There is no doubt about it. Some Christians have a problem with the theory because it is threatening to pre-conceived notions regarding the origin of man. In my experience, there are also a lot of Christians who do not have a problem with the theory. We need to remember that this is not the first time that scientific inquiry has challenged church doctrine. After presenting his deterministic model of the universe at court, the Marquis de Laplace was challenged because there was no god in his model. He is supposed to have responded by saying "it works very well without that assumption."

Scientific inquiry can tell us a great deal about our universe. It does not intend to disprove the existence of God. It does however, by means of disinterested and objective reasoning, create a useful and practical model of the universe and the life it contains. To quote Freud from 'The Future of an Illusion.'

"We believe that it is possible for scientific work to gain some knowledge about the reality of our world, by means of which we can increase our power and in accordance with which we can arrange our life. If this belief is an illusion, then we are in the same position as you. But science has given us evidence by its numerous and important successes that it is no illusion."

That's all the theory of evolution is. Its a direct product of the scientific method. Every time an experiment is done, we are trying to disprove a hypothesis. Repeated failures to do so result in an increasing confidence that the hypothesis is correct. Even when we are unable to explain things using the scientific method, it would be unproductive to try to explain them by means of the supernatural (the very definition of supernatural implies something beyond our grasp). Sigmund Freud, again:

"No, our science is no illusion. But an illusion it would be to suppose that what science cannot give us we can get elsewhere."

Religious followers should feel safe that the theory of evolution cannot, and does not intend to, prove the nonexistence of God. It can, and certainly does, give us an accurate description of the mechanisms by which genetic variation changes in relation to environmental selection factors.

Now playing...
mercedes benz - janis joplin
In print...
guns, germs, and steel - jared diamond