< Back | Home
Response to Professor Wise about Intelligent Design
By: Sarah Levy and Anika Smith, Contributing Writers
Posted: 4/18/07
It is a remarkable thing when your opponents make your points for
you, and for that we are grateful for Professor John Wise's response
late last week.
Incredibly, Wise paints the faculty at SMU who called for the
cancellation of the conference as martyrs for free speech. He wrote
that "even scientists have a First Amendment guarantee to the right to
express themselves." Who could argue with that? By all means, express
yourself - but don't disallow other scientists to do the same and then
claim that they are threatening your First Amendment rights.
We wonder whether Professor Wise thinks the First Amendment rights
of scientists extend beyond his own cadre of Darwinists to scientists
who are proponents of Intelligent Design. If so, he should be
concerned when calls for censorship like his own lead to the
persecution of professors like Nancy Bryson, who lost her position
after teaching criticisms of Darwin's theory that life developed
through an undirected process of natural selection and random
variations. There are many other documented cases of scientists who
lost their jobs because of their views on Darwinism. If First
Amendment rights for scientists apply anywhere, they certainly apply
here.
Instead of attempting to understand the arguments of his opponents,
Wise introduces a red herring, suggesting that we don't have to choose
between religion and science. No one was suggesting any such thing. ID
starts with the science, not with any religious basis. Ask Dr. Michael
Behe, who spoke at this weekend's Darwin vs. Design conference. He was
a Catholic when he was a Darwinist and remains a Catholic as a
proponent of Intelligent Design. What changed was not his religious
belief, but the mounting evidence on the side of ID.
Intelligent Design, like any scientific theory, uses the scientific
method (observation, hypothesis, experiment, and conclusion). It begins
with observations of the kinds of information produced when intelligent
agents act. Design theorists recognize that high levels of specified
and complex information is a hallmark indicator that an intelligent
agent was at work. Design theorists then hypothesize that if an
intelligent agent was at work, we will find high levels of complex and
specified information in biology.
Scientists can test for such information, and studies of molecular
machines and DNA reveal that they contain high levels of such
information and are irreducibly complex. Design theorists thus come to
the tentative conclusion that biological structures like the flagellum
were designed.
Instead of addressing these scientific arguments, Wise appeals to
the authority of consensus views and "the highest courts" of our
country. Providing no reasoning to back up his claims, he presents a
logical fallacy, an appeal to authority which dodges the real question.
What's more, the authority he cites is nonexistent because the U.S.
Supreme Court has never dealt with the teaching of intelligent design.
The only time it did strike down a non-evolutionary theory was when it
struck down the teaching of "creation science" in 1987. Even
intelligent design's harshest critics recognize that "most ID
proponents do not embrace the Young Earth Flood Geology, and sudden
creation tenets associated with [young earth creationism]." (Eugenie
Scott, pg. 128, Evolution vs. Creationism). Moreover, when the U.S.
Supreme Court struck down the teaching of "creation science," it did so
because it "embodies the religious belief that a supernatural creator
was responsible for the creation of humankind." (Edwards v. Aguillard,
482 U.S. 578, 592 (1987).) Because intelligent design does not try to
address religious questions about the identity of the designer, this
test does not apply to ID.
Instead of giving Intelligent Design a fair hearing, Wise tries to
instill the fear of Science into his audience. Amazingly, Wise equates
doubting Darwinism with doubting the validity of science itself. This
is just silly. Intelligent Design scientists use the scientific
method. Ironically enough, design principles have given us many of the
marvels Wise cites in his case against ID: intelligent engineering and
exploration are responsible for our technological society, not rampant
acceptance of Darwinism. No one is denying Professor Wise his right to
stand up and speak out. That was obvious from the start, when we
invited him and other SMU faculty to join us with their questions and
criticisms. Instead of coming to the conference with them, he tried
to keep ID off campus. We recognized and supported Professor Wise's
right to speak - why didn't he do the same for us?
About the writers:
Sarah Levy is a third-year law student at the Dedman School of Law. She can be reached at slevy@smu.edu.
Anika Smith is a recent graduate of Seattle Pacific University. She can be reached at anikas@spu.edu.
© Copyright 2007 Daily Campus