An intensifying battle over intelligent
design (ID) to be taught in science classes has been emerging across the
United States, alarming scientists and educators who consider ID as a
political ploy to repackage religion under the guise of 'alternative
science' to undermine the scientific theory of evolution. Policymakers
in 24 states are weighing proposals to introduce ID in their public
school curricula. Whether ID is a religious belief or a scientific
theory is at the heart of the controversy waged in courtrooms and public
forums.
Intelligent design holds that some complex
developments observed in nature that cannot be explained by natural
selection suggest design by an unspecified intelligent agent. Despite
the absence of identifying the designer or creator, the theory of ID
mimics the biblical account of creation - God created all matter,
various forms of life, and the world out of nothing.
Intelligent Design (ID) fails as science
To be considered as a scientific theory,
intelligent design must satisfy three criteria: 1) explanatory power; 2)
plausibility; and 3) falsifiability. The National Academy of Sciences
has declared that ID is not science because its intelligent designer
cannot be observed (plausibility) or verified by experiment
(falsifiability), and proposes no new hypothesis (explanatory power) on
how the world is designed. While the scientific theory of evolution is
supported by plenty of observable facts and repeated physical evidence
found in the process of mutations, gene flow, genetic drift, adaptation
and speciation through natural selection. The failure to meet all three
requirements is a compelling argument against ID being considered as
science.
Arguments for ID
The ID theory is largely
purported by two arguments known as irreducible complexity and
specified complexity. Michael Behe, a biochemical researcher and a
professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, forwarded the concept of
irreducible complexity in his book, Darwin's Black Box (Simon
and Schuster, 1996). He claims that the removal of any one of the
interactive parts of a cellular system would destroy the function of the
entire cell. Therefore, intelligent design is the blueprint for
everything to be in its right place to work. In The Design Inference (Cambridge
University Press, 1998), William Dembski, a mathematician and a
professor of science and theology at Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary in Louisville, argued for the inference of intelligent design
based on William Paley's famous 'watchmaker' analogy in 1802 Natural Theology.
Dembski asserts that patterns exhibited in nature being not only
complex but also specified infer some form of intelligent guidance in
their formation.
Complex Adaptive System (CAS) vs. ID Arguments
The observations made by
Behe and Dembski were inadequate and their conclusions faulty. The
explanation for nature to be the way it is lies in the comprehensive
theory of complex adaptive system (CAS). As a novel scientific theory,
much of what is known about CAS involves a combination of mainly three
accepted theories: evolution, chaos, and complexity. To put it simply,
CAS is an open network system in which many independent, self-organized,
yet interconnected agents (cells, species, individuals, societies,
etc.) compete, evolve and adapt to a changing environment, resulting in
an order of emergent system properties and a general pattern for the
whole system.
As a response to Behe's
assertion that a removal of a part would cause the whole system to fail;
perhaps so in his example of a mousetrap (man-made contraption) but not
so in a living cell that has the tendency to compensate the function of
a missing part with another cellular part due to the cell's dynamic
evolving system. According to CAS, a cell functions as a cellular system
when all its interconnected parts spontaneously interact with one
another. In addition, Behe dismisses an important aspect of a cell -
organelles (protein, enzyme, gene, etc.) in fact, do evolve through
natural selection to be of different types with specific functions.
Although Dembski uses the term 'complexity'
in his argument on specified complexity, he seems to overlook a crucial
point about complexity theory - that order arises from chaos due to
complexity. The 'order of emergent system properties' appears to be
Dembski's description of 'design'. And he assumes that a design
implicates intelligence behind a complex pattern, which is not
necessarily so, according to CAS. In the macroscopic world, one can see
the natural hierarchy of emergent properties (e.g., from a grain of sand
to a beach to a seacoast).
Furthermore, complexity theory could also
explain the gaps in the fossil record that proponents of ID hold as
evidence against evolution. Fossil record gaps are identified as
punctuated equilibrium in evolution - long stable periods interrupted by
a series of sporadic duration of rapid radical changes. The fact that
the presence of old and new species coexist on our planet speaks as
stark proof for evolution.
Moreover, the Miller-Urey experiment, which
succeeded in producing basic molecules at the first stage for generating
life from non-living matter, establishes the fact that natural
processes could produce the building blocks of life from non-living
matter. In reality, natural processes of nature can be explained without
a divinity or an intelligence equation.
ID Supported by Discovery Institute
Behind the big push for a national dialogue
on ID is the Discovery Institute, a Seattle think tank financed largely
by conservative Christian donors. With a $4 million budget, Discovery
Institute spends more than $1 million a year for research, polls and
media exposure supporting ID. It also uses about 85 percent of its
budget to funding researchers at major universities, and the rest of the
budget to publishing religious writings and launching political ID
campaigns. Since 2003, it has promoted the DVD, "Unlocking the Mystery of Life," which advocates ID shown on PBS stations in major markets and schools.
State vs. Religion
On the legal front, a courtroom drama over
teaching ID in a public school had made headlines for weeks - a reversal
of the famous 1925 Scopes 'monkey' trial in which a Tennessee man was
prosecuted for violating state law by teaching Darwin's evolution. As
the first ID court case followed closely by the media, the Dover Area
School District was put on trial for violating the constitutional
separation of church and state by teaching ID in science class. The
judge is still out on the verdict. Emboldened by the "free speech"
approach bolstered by President Bush who had endorsed teaching ID in
schools, ID advocates argued that banning ID from science class is a
violation of the First Amendment - unconstitutional limit on free
speech. However, national science organizations and university faculty
groups disputed that claim to mute free speech by pointing out subjects
like religion, alchemy and astrology have always been included in the
school curricula as non-science courses.
In a recent poll by Pew Forum on Religion
and Public Life, 64 percent of Americans believed that teaching ID
along side evolution is a simple matter of fairness. The bottom line of
the legal issue is not about the First Amendment whether one has the
freedom to express one's religious beliefs but rather one's religious
beliefs should be imposed as science. Religion has no place in science
class. And the voters in Pennsylvania in the November election
understood that well to have ousted all the education board members who
supported ID in the science curriculum.
(First published on UniOrb.com, December 1, 2005)