Debating Darwin and Design: Science or Creationism? (2)

Debating Darwin and Design

A dialogue between two Christians

This is the second round of responses. You will find Joshua’s response to my first response to his opening statement below, followed by my second response.

1.

Is Intelligent Design science or ‘creationism in a cheap tuxedo’?

2nd November, 2011

Joshua Gidney – First Response

In my opening remarks I attempted argue that intelligent design is in no way synonymous with biblical young earth creationism. I also make the stronger claim that scientifically it isn’t even a form of creationism in any theistic sense. In his first response Francis ceded the former point but argues against the latter. He writes that ‘equation of ID with biblical creationism…is illegitimate,…’¹ and recognises that within the ID camp there is a wide range of views, pointing out that leading theorist Michael Behe emphatically rejects young earth creationism and is convinced by the evidence for common descent. Although both ID theorists, Francis compares Behe’s view with Paul Nelson’s view to illustrate the different positions within the ID tent. Nelson is quite a prominent ID theorist but is significantly more critical of Darwinian theory however, it is incorrect to say that Nelson’s view is base ‘history denial’ and doesn’t in fact hold explicitly to a young earth view. Responding to this accusation in a recent interview Nelson says ‘…I don’t believe in a six thousand year old or ten thousand year old earth; I actually don’t know how old the earth is. Professionally, in my work with my discovery colleagues, I take their date: 4.6 billion, but in my own thinking I don’t restrict myself to the assumptions being made by historical geology and cosmology.’²

Francis singles Michael Behe, William Dembski, and Phillip Johnson as being the three fathers of ID. The temptation he feels to call them ‘stooges’ reveals his low opinion of them and their work and I feel that it is an unwarranted denigration. This discussion will hopefully tell us whether or not they are indeed stooges. The three academics mentioned are indeed among the most prominent ID defenders but this by no means exhausts the long and growing list of significant contributors to the ID argument. I would add that Philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer should be counted as being one of the ‘fathers’ of ID due to his ground breaking argument for design from the origin of biological information in various articles and his book Signature In The Cell: DNA and the Evidence For Intelligent Design.

In his response Francis points out that Behe, amongst the three mentioned is the only qualified biological scientist. This is true but so what?  Johnson is a retired UC Berkeley lawyer and is often credited as the founder of the ID movement which is in many ways true. He was instrumental in providing ID theorists with a public voice and creating ground for the movement to develop. Johnson put forward ‘The Wedge Strategy’ and described his aim thus ‘My colleges and I want to separate the real science from the materialist philosophy.’³ He greatly helped getting  the ID movement going but did not invent ID as a theory and has not been responsible for the detailed scientific arguments because that is not in his area of expertise. Dembski’s expertise are entirely appropriate for the ideas that he has been advancing in support of design. As a highly qualified mathematician and philosopher, he has developed a theoretic al framework for ID, formalising a design detection criteria to assess whether something is designed or not. As a Bio-chemist Michael Behe has provided much of the meat on an empirical level within his own field along with many other appropriately qualified scientists such as biologists Douglas Axe⁴, Jonathan Wells⁵, Scott Minich⁶, Dean Kenyon⁷, and Philosopher of Science Stephen C. Meyer⁸.

Francis asks the question ‘…how is it that ID just simply can’t seem to rid itself of creationist associations?’⁹ This is an easy question to address because ID’s creationist associations only exist in the mind of its critics and not in reality. It is interesting to note that the two major young earth creationist organisations in America, Answers in Genesis and The Institute for Creation Research, both openly frown upon ID. Philosopher Peter S. Williams urges that ‘perhaps reporters in the media who refuse to take ID theorists at their word when they assert that ID is not creationism will take creationists…at their word when they make the same point!’¹⁰ ID’s alleged creationist associations exist largely because the media often disseminate often absurd misunderstandings and misrepresentations of what ID theorists are saying and these myths are often perpetuated by critics within the scientific community who also misunderstand the theory and are too stuck in their Darwinian box.  I think the main reason it is so difficult for ID to jettison its creationist associations is that Neo-Darwinism for many is very much an ideology and criticism of it is often unwelcome within academia. Given this fact it is clear that the most effective rhetorical tactic to use is to associate ID with right-wing Christian fundamentalists in an attempt to superficially disarm ID theorist’s arguments and make it easy for everyone else to view them as ‘a well-organised and well-financed group of nutters’.¹¹

Although I don’t see a legitimate connection between evolution and atheism it is tempting to turn the original question around and ask: How is it that evolution just simply can’t seem to get rid of its atheistic association? It is true to say that more often than not evolution is viewed to be in direct opposition to belief in creator but just because it can’t seem to get rid of a certain philosophical view doesn’t discredit the theory or imply that it is a form of atheism.

Bringing up the infamous Dover Trial, Francis cites a brief exchange between Behe and Eric Rothschild. He points out that the most Rothschild got out of Behe in terms of an explanation was that an intelligence was involved in the process but this is not surprising because that is all the theory claims. Behe was right to hesitate because the word ‘cause’ is a very broad term as he mentions. William Dembski offers a clarification on this point: ‘intelligent design is…not the study of intelligent causes per se but of informational pathways induced by intelligent causes. As a result intelligent design presupposes neither a creator nor miracles. . . it detects intelligence without speculating about the nature of the intelligence. .. ’¹² Along with Kenneth Miller, Francis may wish to put the word ‘creator’ into ID theorist’s mouths but to do so would be to immediately step outside of science. Many theorists unashamedly admit that they believe the most plausible metaphysical interpretation of ID to be a theistic one but the key point is that this interpretation is not part of the theory itself. The implications of ID, whatever they are, do not disqualify the theory as being unscientific just as the Big Bang model was not labelled as being unscientific because many scientists thought it had strong theistic implications.

It is claimed that ‘Proponents of ID are desperate to distance themselves from creationism-if they don’t they can’t get into the school science class…’¹³ but this is false. Proponents of ID may well be desperate to get as far away from creationism as possible but as I have already argued, it is because it has nothing to do with creationism. It is the Darwinists who seem desperate to keep creationism closer to ID to damage its credibility. The main proponents of the theory do not want it in the school science class. This is another myth often perpetuated by critics. In his review of the BBC’s Horizon: The War on Science programme on ID, Peter S. Williams points out that ‘the Discovery Institute (which is a secular think tank which opposes efforts to mandate teaching creationism or religion in American schools) does not want ID taught in schools, preferring instead that students should simply be given access to scientific evidence both for and against Darwin’s theory as it appears in the peer-reviewed scientific literature…’¹⁴

Francis attaches unwarranted significance to the Dover trial in deciding ID’s validity. It may have been a ‘roaring triumph for evolution in its grand battle with creationism’¹⁵, but not Neo-Darwinism’s grand battle with ID. The members of the school board were indeed creationists but they tried to use ID ‘as the next best thing to the outlawed advocacy of “creation science”…^’16 Unfortunately Judge Jones ended up making highly mistaken decisions with regard to ID. In his review of the Court’s ruling on the scientific status of ID, Michael Behe concludes:

‘The Court’s reasoning…is premised on: a cramped view of science; the conflation of intelligent design with creationism; an incapacity to distinguish the implications of a theory from the theory itself; a failure to differentiate evolution from Darwinism; and strawman arguments against ID. The Court has accepted the most tendentious and shop-worn excuses for Darwinism with great charity and impatiently dismissed evidence-based arguments for design. All of that is regrettable, but in the end does not impact the realities of biology, with are not amenable to adjudication.’¹⁷

Space has not permitted me to address every point in Francis’ first response but will hope to examine any significant criticism Francis raised that I did not address in my next response.

References

1. Francis Smallwood. Debating Darwin and Design: Science or Creationism? (1): Francis Smallwood-First response. http://musingsofscience.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/debating-darwin-and-design-science-or-creationism-1/
2. Paul Nelson. David Berlinski, Claire Berlinski. Movie recording 28. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8kPOri3quQ&feature=related
3. Phillip E. Johnson, The Firing Line Creation-Evolution Debate (1997).
4. Douglas Axe. Biologic Institute. http://biologicinstitute.org/people/
5. Jonathan Wells. http://www.jonathanwells.org/
6. Scott Minnich. http://www.iscid.org/scott-minnich.php
7. Dean Kenyon. http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/video/BIOLOGY/KENYON/Kenyon.html
8. Stephen C. Meyer. http://www.stephencmeyer.org/biography.php
9. Francis Smallwood. Debating Darwin and Design: Science or Creationism? (1): Francis Smallwood-First response. op cit.
10. Peter S. Williams. ‘Evolution vs. Intelligent Design’ Radio Debate. http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_radiodebate.htm
11. Mary Wakefield. The Mystery of the Missing Links. http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/missinglinkmystery102803.htm
12. William A. Dembski. Mere Creation. (Downers Grove: IVP. 1996). p.17.
13. Francis Smallwood. Debating Darwin and Design: Science or Creationism? (1): Francis Smallwood-First response. op cit.
14. Peter S. Williams. The War on Science: How Horizon Got Intelligent Design Wrong. http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_horizonreview.htm
15. Francis Smallwood. Debating Darwin and Design: Science or Creationism? (1): Francis Smallwood-First response. op cit.
16. Peter S. Williams. The War on Science: How Horizon Got Intelligent Design Wrong. op cit.
17. Michael J. Behe. Whether Intelligent Design is Science: A Response to the Opinion of the Court in Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=697

~

Francis Smallwood – Second Response

Joshua and I are both agreed, then, that the equation of ID with biblical (young-earth) creationism is illegitimate. However, Joshua avers ‘the stronger claim that scientifically it [ID] isn’t even a form of creationism in any theistic sense.’¹ I think that this is an interesting point, to which I would offer two responses. The first is that I would disagree. With Joshua’s proposed inclusion of Stephen C. Meyer, the four fathers of the ID movement—Johnson, Dembski, Behe and Meyer—are all Christians. They all, presumably, believe the intelligent designer to be the God of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, despite their insistence that this is not inferred from the detection of design. Behe writes that ‘the identity of the designer will be ignored by science.’² However, I argued in my previous response that ‘A design is nothing more than a concept, a plan, and [that] we would have no evidence that a design ever existed unless someone had taken it and used it to produce a concrete object that we observe and study.’³ What design theory identifies, therefore, is not a designer but, rather, a creator, as ‘Intelligence… is manifested in creativity.’⁴ The design theorist purports that natural law, capable of so much, requires some non-natural interposition to achieve a flagellum, blood clotting system, or some such other complex construct.

My second response would be that I agree that ID ‘isn’t even a form of creationism in any theistic sense.’ I believe that the whole of Creation, in its glorious entirety, autopoietic, inherent with potential, testifies to God’s authorship—not just the fiddly bits. I would agree with Father George Coyne that ID belittles God, reducing him to ‘an engineer who designs systems…’⁵ Similarly, Denis Alexander writes that ID’s conception of the intelligent designer ‘is really nothing like the biblical revelation of God as Creator, the author of everything that exists, who is sovereign over every aspect of the created order. Indeed, the idea of God as “designer” in this engineering sense is not found in the Bible…’⁶

Regarding my accusing Paul Nelson of ‘base “history denial,”⁷’⁸ I don’t believe that this is incorrect. In an interview with Ronald Numbers, Hilldale Professor of Science and Medicine at the University of Wisconsin, Numbers asked Nelson if he was a young-earth creationist, to which Nelson replied, ‘theologically, yes’—whatever that may mean! When Numbers then asked him if he could put an age on his earth, he said, ‘No… My understanding of the Bible internally gives a certain view of the history of the world that is in apparent conflict with what most geologists, what most cosmologists see as a reasonable date for the earth and cosmos respectively, but I live with that tension.’⁹ Nelson does not explicitly deny the findings of modern geology and cosmology, but by his very refusal to affirm them he is guilty of ‘history denial.’

‘Francis singles Michael Behe, William Dembski, and Phillip Johnson as being the three fathers of ID. The temptation he feels to call them ‘stooges’ reveals his low opinion of them and their work and I feel that it is an unwarranted denigration. This discussion will hopefully tell us whether or not they are indeed stooges.’¹⁰ I admit that my jocund temptation to call them ‘stooges’ was rather mischievous—it wasn’t intended as a denigration per se. I do not deny the professionalism of the three.

‘In his response Francis points out that Behe, amongst the three mentioned [Behe, Dembski, Johnson] is the only qualified biological scientist. This is true but so what?’ ¹¹ I should probably point out that I did not issue this as any form of substantive criticism, nevertheless interesting, and, perhaps, telling. There were four primary founders of neo-Darwinism, or the ‘synthetic theory’—Theodosius Dobzhansky, a geneticist; Ernst Mayr, an ornithologist; G.G. Simpson, a palaeontologist; and G. Ledyard Stebbins, a botanist and geneticist—and all were highly acclaimed and highly influential biological scientists who sought to construct a mature, professional science. As I said, I do not advance this as any substantive criticism of ID or consider it sufficient for the espousal of Darwinism—it was merely a comment in passing. My main point was that the neo-Darwinian synthesis was not founded, primarily, by a lawyer.

Joshua says that ‘ID’s creationist associations only exist in the mind of its critics and not in reality.’¹² Certainly, ID theorists are adamant in their insistence on the dissociation of ID with biblical creationism, and you can’t blame them when the likes of Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne¹³ and P.Z. Myers¹⁴ paint ID with the same brush as they would use to paste young-earth creationism. And whilst I would insist on a distinction between the two, simply, and prosaically, because they are not identical—‘Many, if not most, of the leaders of the ID movement subscribe to, or at least are open to, some form of evolution’¹⁵—ID does claim that natural law is exhaustible or insufficient, incapable of achieving certain structures, requiring some non-natural (creative) interposition. Whilst Dawkins, Coyne and Myers should acknowledge the distinction between varieties of creationism, I think that their sense of association is entirely warranted. In the words of Michael Ruse, ‘the point of the intelligent design movement is to promote the intellectual respectability of interventions outside the natural order of things.’¹⁶ In a similar vein, Alexander writes, ‘That “the Emperor has no clothes” at this point is readily shown by asking ID proponents about how and when this supposed design was injected by the presumed designer into the biological process and at what stage. The type of answers given sound very like miraculous interventions…’¹⁷

Nevertheless, Dembski writes that ‘intelligent design does not require miracles. Just as humans do not perform miracles every time they act as intelligent agents, so there is no reason to assume that for a designer to act as an intelligent agent requires a violation of natural laws.’¹⁸ (He writes that ID does not invoke miraculous creation, but that, rather, ID simply demarcates between ‘undirected natural causes on the one hand and intelligent causes on the other.’¹⁹) This ‘extrapolation’ from observations of human agency to the agency of an intelligent designer is tellingly prevalent in the ID literature: ‘Disciplines as diverse as animal learning and behavior, forensics, archeology, cryptography, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence thus all fall within intelligent design.’²⁰ This is the standard validation for ID. If we dig up a vase or come across a case of homicide, we understand and identify both as products of intelligent agency. ID presumes that, as we identify certain complex structures (such as vases and murders) as obvious products of intelligent agency, so too, when we observe complex structures in nature (such as bacterial flagella) we can also identify these as products of intelligent agency. An intelligent agent obviously crafted the vase, an intelligent agent obviously committed the murder, and, therefore, by the same logic, an intelligent agent obviously had to have fashioned the ‘irreducibly complex’ bacterial flagellum. But is this really so? Larry Arnhart puts it well: ‘We have all observed how the human mind can cause effects that are humanly designed, and from such observable effects, we can infer the existence of humanly intelligent designers. But insofar as we have never directly observed a divine intelligence (that is, an omniscient and omnipotent intelligence) causing effects that are divinely designed, we cannot infer a divinely intelligent designer from our common human experience.’²¹ The intelligent agents which Dembski (correctly) states that we identify in the sciences are all agents that we have experience of, and all are acknowledged products of evolution.²² This is a crucial detail which ID theorists ignore. Unless the intelligent designer is also a product of evolution, this comparative extrapolation cannot hold true.²³

‘Although I don’t see a legitimate connection between evolution and atheism it is tempting to turn the original question around and ask: How is it that evolution just simply can’t seem to get rid of its atheistic association? …just because it can’t seem to get rid of a certain philosophical view doesn’t discredit the theory or imply that it is a form of atheism.’²⁴ This reversal of my question is an interesting one. Certainly, in the minds of many, evolution equals atheism—once, talking with someone after Church one morning about evolution, I was asked if I accepted evolution and when I replied that I did, I was then asked, ‘But you wouldn’t call yourself an atheist?’—and when people hear the so-called ultra-Darwinists, such as Dawkins and Coyne, maintaining that atheism is practically a logical extension of Darwinism—‘the branch of science that conflicts most directly with religion,’²⁵ in the words of Coyne—this is hardly surprising. However, one must demarcate between evolutionary science and evolutionism. Michael Ruse warns that we ‘should be careful to distinguish when we are doing science and when we are extrapolating from it…’²⁶ This is not to say that evolution, as a professional science, does not have bearings on metaphysics, but it does mean that whilst Dawkins and Coyne are, of course, permitted to extrapolate from their science to their metaphysical naturalism (and, therefore, atheism), that they cannot expect their science to justify their atheism, however harmonious they purport the two to be.

Regarding ID, then, I think that the reversal of my question, whilst certainly interesting, is not a true parallel, as ID’s apparent union with creationism is not simply a philosophical view, but an integral feature of the (supposedly) scientific theory. Irreducibly complex structures such as the flagellum are too complex to evolve—which, incidentally, appears not to be the case²⁷—and, therefore, defy naturalistic explanation, so the design theorist feels warranted in declaring design—which, as I have argued, means creation. Despite the semantic squirming of ID advocates, there simply seems no other word for it.

Unfortunately, space has not allowed me to address each of Joshua’s points, although, I am sure, there will be opportunity in future exchanges.

References & Notes

1. Gidney, J. Debating Darwin and design: science or creationism? (1), Opening. Available at: http://philosopherjosh.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/debating-darwin-and-design-science-or-creationism-1/ [Accessed 15 October 2011]
2. Behe, M. Darwin’s black box: the biochemical challenge to evolution. (New York: Touchstone, 1998). p.251.
3. Miller, K.R. Only a theory: evolution and the battle for America’s soul. (New York: Viking Penguin, 2008). p.52.
4. Young, M. and Taner, E. Why intelligent design fails: a scientific critique of the new creationism. (New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2005). p.12.
5. Coyne, Father G. V, cited in Lombard, M. Intelligent design belittles God, Vatican director says. Catholic Online, January 30, 2006. Available at: http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18503 [Accessed 16 October 2011]
6. Alexander, D. Creation or evolution: do we have to choose?. (Oxford: Monarch Books, 2008). p.316.
7. The term ‘history denial’ was coined by Richard Dawkins in his book The greatest show on earth: the evidence for evolution. (London: Bantam Press, 2009).
8. Smallwood, F. Debating Darwin and design: science or creationism? (1), First response. Available at: http://musingsofscience.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/debating-darwin-and-design-science-or-creationism-1/ [Accessed 17 October 2011]
9. Nelson, P. in an interview with Ronald Numbers. Science Saturday: inside the mind of a creationist. bloggingheads.tv, 25 July 2009. Available at: http://brainwaveweb.com/diavlogs/21107 [Accessed 16 October 2011]
10. Gidney, op cit.
    
11. ibid.
    
12. ibid.
13. Coyne, J. and Dawkins, R. One side can be wrong. Guardian, September 1, 2005. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/sep/01/schools.research [Accessed 19 October 2011]
14. ‘Intelligent Design creationism is all about hiding Jesus under a blanket of pseudoscience and smuggling him into the public schools. Nothing more, nothing less.’ In: Myers, P.Z. Intelligent design is warmed over creationism. Pharyngula, April 30, 2009. Available at: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/04/intelligent_design_is_warmed-o.php [Accessed 23 October 2011]
15. Ruse, M. The evolution-creation struggle. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006). p.256.
    
16. ibid. p.255.
17. Alexander, op cit. p.315.
18. Dembski, W. A. Intelligent design: the bridge between science and theology. (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1999). p.259.
    
19. ibid.
20. —. Is intelligent design a form of natural theology?. Metanexus Institute, November 5, 2001. Available at: http://www.metanexus.net/Magazine/Default.aspx?TabId=68&id=3130&SkinSrc=%5BG%5DSkins%2F_default%2FNo+Skin&ContainerSrc=%5BG%5DContainers%2F_default%2FNo+Container [Accessed 23 October 2011]
21. Arnhart, L. Conservatives, Darwin & design: an exchange. First Things, 107, November, 2000. Available at: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/conservatives-darwin-amp-designan-exchange-22 [Accessed 24 October 2011]
22. Regarding the claim that extraterrestrial intelligence is the product of evolution, whilst unproven, is considered likely by Richard Dawkins. He has made the prediction ‘that, if a form of life is ever discovered in another part of the universe, however outlandish and weirdly alien that form of life may be in detail, it will be found to resemble life on earth in one key respect: it will have evolved by some kind of Darwinian natural selection.’ (Dawkins, R. The blind watchmaker. (London: Penguin, 2006). p.288.)
23. If the intelligent designer was like us, in regards manner of design, as Dembski claims, he would also have to be a natural being, and this would mean that the intelligent designer would—as a significantly more complex natural being—have likely been the product of intelligent design too, necessitating the invocation of another intelligent designer, ad infinitum, ad absurdum.
24. Gidney, op cit.
25. Coyne, J. Intergalactic Jesus: review of Can a Darwinian be a Christian?: the relationship between science and religion by Michael Ruse. London Review of Books, 24 (9), May 9, 2002. Available at: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v24/n09/jerry-coyne/intergalactic-jesus [Accessed 2 November 2011]
26. Ruse, M. Is evolution a secular religion?. Science, New Series, 299 (5612), 2003. p.1524.
27. Miller, K. R. The flagellum unspun: the collapse of “irreducible complexity”. In: Dembski, W. A., Ruse, M. Debating design: from Darwin to DNA. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004). p.81-97.

~

Please do comment if you would like to share either your own thoughts on these issues, or your thoughts of our treatment of the issues, or air your criticisms of our treatments, as all are always constructive.

Advertisement