< Back | Home
Intelligent Design is not science: why this matters
By: John Wise, Contributing Writer, jwise@smu.edu
Posted: 5/4/07
Because science gives us methods to accurately understand and
manipulate the world we live in. Few people would dispute that our
present scientific understanding of the physical world has led to a
tremendously long list of advances in medicine, technology,
engineering, the structure of the universe and the atom, and on and on.
The list is nearly endless, but it does not include everything. Science
can tell us only what is governed by natural forces. Miracles are
extra-ordinary events; gods are super-natural beings.
Are there reasonable philosophical arguments that can be made for the
existence of God? Certainly. Are there reasonable philosophical
arguments that can be made that God does not exist? Yes. Is there
scientific evidence that answers either of these great questions one
way or another? None that holds up to close scrutiny. Collins has no
more scientific evidence that God exists than Dawkins has that God does
not. Their evidence is philosophical, not scientific. Philosophy can
encompass these issues, science cannot.
This actually matters and is important. If we call ID science, we will
have to redefine science to include supernatural causes and effects.
The usefulness of science stems from the predictable action of the laws
of nature and the strict rules regarding testable hypotheses. If you
modify the definition of science to include unpredictable supernatural
forces, magic and miracles, the utility of science will be lost because
we won't be able to form reasonable predictions from what we observe in
the natural world. No reverent believer would presume to know what goes
on in the mind of God, so how can the actions of God be predicted? For
science to progress and maintain its usefulness, it needs to be limited
to the laws of nature.
The Discovery Institute and the ID proponents that visited our campus
this April are busy right now attempting to redefine science to include
supernatural causes and effects.
A lawsuit (Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District)
brought before a U.S. Federal District Court in Harrisburg, Penn., by
parents concerned about these issues has vividly illustrated the
direction and the politics behind the Discovery Institute's effort to
redefine science. The parents challenged a curriculum change by the
Dover Board of Education that "…promotes the religious proposition of
Intelligent Design as a competing scientific theory."
In his September 2005 opinion, the judge in this case, John E. Jones
III, wrote that the "ID proponents confirmed that the existence of a
supernatural designer is a hallmark of ID." Judge Jones, on the three
Discovery Institute experts' testimony: "Professor Behe has written
that by ID he means 'not designed by the laws of nature,' and that it
is 'implausible that the designer is a natural entity.'" "Professor
Minnich testified that for ID to be considered science, the ground
rules of science have to be broadened so that supernatural forces can
be considered." "Professor … Fuller testified that it is ID's project
to change the ground rules of science to include the supernatural."
What the ID people propose is a monumental change to the way science is
practiced and has far-reaching implications.
Listen further to the transcripts of these hearings - they are
astounding. Professor Behe, star witness for the ID proponents and
Discovery Institute senior fellow, gave a Discovery Institute-approved
definition of scientific theory in his testimony. Unfortunately for
both Dr. Behe and the Discovery Institute, Eric Rothschild, the
brilliant lawyer for the parents, asked Dr. Behe, "But you are clear,
under your definition, the definition that sweeps in Intelligent
Design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?" And Dr. Behe
answered, "Yes, that's correct."
Is this what America wants and needs? A definition of science that is so weak and neutered that astrology qualifies?
Judge Jones, a life-long Republican conservative, who was appointed to
the federal bench by George W. Bush, spells it out clearly in his
opinion: ID "presents students with a religious alternative
masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a
creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs
students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom
and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere." Intelligent
Design is not science, and in order to claim that it is, its proponents
admit they must change the very definition of science to include
supernatural explanations.
These redefinitions of science will damage the utility of the sciences,
medicine and countless other technical fields. This is why it matters
and why so many scientists in our country (and at SMU) are worried.
The politics of this "redefinition" movement has a long history. Twenty
years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court in a case referred to as Edwards v.
Aguillard "struck down the teaching of creation science … because it
embodies the religious belief that a supernatural creator was
responsible for the creation of mankind." Many ID proponents, including
The Daily Campus contributing writers Sarah Levy and Anika Smith, have
asserted that "because Intelligent Design does not try to address
religious questions about the identity of the designer, this test does
not apply to Intelligent Design." This is a critical assertion for the
ID proponents. They are saying that ID is different from creationism
and therefore the Supreme Court's rulings should not apply.
Judge Jones mentions a "creationist text" in his opinion that has
become very relevant to this point. The book, "Of Pandas and People,"
was intended to be a high-school textbook that presented the
Intelligent Design doctrine as science and was proposed by the Dover
Board of Education as an alternative to the Dover students' approved
biology textbook. In a brilliant move made by Eric Rothschild, a
subpoena for all documents and drafts related to the Intelligent Design
"Pandas" work and its Creationism predecessor text, "Biology and
Origins," was served on the book's Richardson publisher. After losing
their bid to quash the subpoena, the publisher surrendered a number of
early, unpublished versions of the books to the court. A comparison of
these original drafts with the actual published versions shows that the
words "creationist" or "creationism" were simply substituted with
"Intelligent Designer" or "Intelligent Design" just as if a word
processor search-and-replace function did the job.
The date when this "creationism" to "Intelligent Design" big switch
happened is absolutely damning to Ms. Levy and Smith's assertion that
Intelligent Design and Creationism are not one and the same. The
"switch" occurred in 1987, just weeks after the Supreme Court in
Edwards v. Aguillard ruled that creationism was religion and not
science, and could not be taught in public schools. No wonder Judge
Jones wrote in his Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion that "ID is creationism
re-labeled".
So yes, Edwards v. Aguillard certainly does apply. The ID proponents
have literally provided all of the needed evidence themselves. (As Levy
and Smith assert, it truly is a good thing when your opponents make
your points for you.) Simply changing the name from "creationism" to
"Intelligent Design" changes none of the logic, relevance or the impact
that the Edwards v. Aguillard decision had on the creationist movement
and now has on Intelligent Design. Neither one is science. Both have
been determined to be religious because they both require a
supernatural creator or designer.
It matters because the utility of science, medicine and technology is at risk.
The Discovery Institute was formed with the purpose of politically
furthering the religious beliefs of creationism and Intelligent Design.
Phillip Johnson, one of the founders of the Discovery Institute, has
made this clear in his writings. The goal is to redefine science in
America so that it is friendlier to the concepts of a Christian God.
Quoting Johnson's own words, "The objective is to convince people that
Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from
creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence
of God." In other words, don't allow this to be about creationism-ID
versus science. Make people think this is all about a choice they have
to make between God and science. This is deceptive at best.
Ms. Levy and Ms. Smith in their recent Daily Campus article certainly
are up on their Phillip Johnson and Discovery Institute indoctrination
tactics. Look how strongly they reacted to my statement that one need
not choose between religion and science. They state, "Instead of
attempting to understand the arguments …, Wise introduces a red
herring, suggesting we don't have to choose between religion and
science."
Well, Ms. Levy and Smith, we don't have to choose and I do understand
the arguments. We can have both science and religion. Philosophical and
religious beliefs do not have to conflict with science. Science simply
cannot and should not enter the supernatural realm.
Read the "Language of God." Read "Finding Darwin's God." Ask the
authors, Francis Collins (an evangelical Christian) and Kenneth R.
Miller (a devout Catholic), if science and evolution diminish their
faith. They will tell you that the natural reality is a grand and
glorious reality that beautifully complements their strong and devoutly
religious beliefs.
The foundations of Intelligent Design are in politics and religion, not
science. The nature of what we have learned about our physical world
does not have to conflict with our faith and understanding of the
spiritual domain. Don't let your faith become dependent on the politics
of flawed pseudoscience.
About the writer:
John Wise, Ph.D. is a biology professor at SMU. He can be reached at jwise@smu.edu.
© Copyright 2007 Daily Campus