A Dialogue between Two Christians

After a brief hiatus, Joshua and I are resuming our discussion of Intelligent Design and Darwinism. Previously we have posted a first statement and subequent responses (by Joshua in the case of this first topic), followed by my responses in couplets, however, in order to keep the discussion flowing at a more regular rate, we have decided to post our responses individually, as they come. This, then, is Joshua’s third response, and mine shall follow shortly.

1.

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

27th January, 2012

Joshua Gidney - Second Response

In response to Francis’ comments, I first would like to clarify something I wrote. In my previous response I wrote that intelligent design ‘isn’t even a form of creationism in any theistic sense.’¹ By this, I mean that ID theory does not rely on any theological premises, as Creationism does. ID is an inference from certain features in living systems and the cosmos whereas Creationism is based on a certain interpretation of the book of Genesis. William Dembski notes that ‘…the design theorists’ critique of Darwinism begins with Darwinism’s failure as an empirically adequate scientific theory, and not with its supposed incompatibility with some system of religious belief.’²

Motives and Implications

Although Francis has agreed that ID and Creationism are not the same thing, he still wants to argue that it is a form of creationism. The only way he can argue for this claim is to appeal to the religious beliefs of several key design theorists and to point to the supposed theistic implications of ID theory. Both of these attempts seriously fail.

Francis points out that ‘…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.’³ This astute observation has been raised several times by Francis and is usually thrown up by critics in a tone that sounds as if they’ve just uncovered a dark and dirty secret, as if the design theorists mentioned have a hidden religious agenda. First of all, no presumption is necessary. Theistic design theorists have always been honest and clear about what they believe is the best metaphysical interpretation of design inferences in nature. They are also honest when they insist that God is not inferred strictly by design detection. In Behe’s response to the Dover Trial he writes that ‘…I have repeatedly affirmed that I think the designer is God… that that personal affirmation goes beyond the scientific evidence, and is not part of my scientific programme.’⁴ Behe believes, as I do, that one can conclude the designing intelligence is God only when one brings in certain philosophical arguments and independent reasons. Meyer rightly points out that ‘there is an obvious distinction between what advocates of the theory…think about the identity of the designing intelligence…and what the theory of intelligent design itself affirms.’ ⁵ Francis fails to make the distinction between what ID as a theory claims, and the theological beliefs of particular ID theorists.

If Francis wants to show that ID is a form of creationism by pointing out supposed religious motives and beliefs of many Design theorist, or implications of ID theory, then this puts him in a dilemma. I will use the Big bang theory as an analogy. The Belgian astronomer and physicist Georges Lemaître was a committed Catholic priest who is credited as being the founder of the Big Bang theory.⁶  Does the fact that Lemaître believed in God (or thought that God is the best explanation of his theory), mean that Big Bang theory is a form of creationism or that this excludes Big Bang theory as a legitimate science? Similarly, as Behe righty points out ‘To many the notion of the Big bang was loaded with overtones of a supernatural event…nonetheless, despite its religious implications, the big bang theory was a scientific theory that flowed naturally from observable data…’ ⁷Every scientific theory has wider, extra-scientific implications. Whether or not they are theistic or atheistic, is entirely irrelevant to the science itself.

What of the motivations and metaphysical beliefs of Darwinists? Over and over, most of the key proponents of the Neo‐Darwinian synthesis claim that it makes an atheistic worldview more plausible. Francis Crick, the co‐discover of the DNA double helix, affirmed that ‘his distaste for religion was one of his prime motives in the work that led to the sensational 1953 discovery.’⁸ Does this invalidate his scientific achievement? No, it obviously doesn’t. This selective appeal to religious implications and motives is fallacious and beside the point.

What Francis, along with Denis Alexander, really wants to do is to force ID advocates into a corner by trying to show that design in nature requires a creator ‘What design theory identifies, therefore, is not a designer but, rather, a creator…’ ⁹ This is, to borrow a delightful phrase from Francis, ‘semantic squirming’. I shall respond to this point in three ways. Unfortunately this attempt fails due to his usage of a definition of design that ID theorists don’t use and thus erects a straw man. Firstly, this criticism is not one that affects ID theory, as it is a purely philosophical one. He’s trying to identify the designer and he is perfectly free to do so, but he is stepping outside of the science. Secondly this is a misrepresentation, or a misunderstanding of ID. William Dembski writes ‘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…’¹⁰ Thirdly, a key distinction needs to be made between designers and creators. To illustrate this point I can do no better than to quote Dembski at length:

‘…Creation is always about the source of being of the world. Design is about arrangements of… materials that point to an intelligence. Creation and design are therefore quite different. One can have creation without design and design without creation… It is logically possible that God created a world that provides no evidence of his handiwork. By contrast, it is logically possible that the world is full of signs of intelligence but was not created. This was the ancient Stoic view, in which the world was eternal and uncreated, and yet a rational principle pervaded the world and produced marks of intelligence in it… Creation asks for an ultimate resting place of explanation – the source of being of the world. Design, by contrast, inquires not into the ultimate source of matter and energy but into the cause of their present arrangements, particularly those entities, large and small, that exhibit signs of intelligence…’¹¹

Francis proceeds to comment on what he sees to be a theologically undesirable picture of God that ID paints but I will not comment on this yet, as we will treat this as a separate topic in the future.

Again, I want to correct Francis on his ‘comment in passing’ about the credentials of ID theorists. ID is a scientific theory that, like many other theories, requires interdisciplinary research and thus there are academics with different areas of expertise. Francis is making the mistake of thinking that ID only applies to biology, but it does not. As I have already pointed out, the key ID theorists have the relevant qualifications with respect to the aspects of ID they have primarily been responsible for advancing. As I also pointed out, Johnson is not the founder of ID theory.  It would be more accurate to call him the Godfather of ID. Johnson’s contribution to the debate was primarily his insight that Neo-Darwinism is mainly based upon naturalistic presuppositions rather than the actual empirical evidence. Johnson was indeed a layman but he did his homework and inspired a whole movement to question Darwinism. He helped clear the ground for ID to flourish. It is also important to recognise that Johnson neither came up with the term ‘intelligent design’, or the theory and concept of ID. ID ideas in fact go way back to the ancient Greeks.¹² It is clearly false to say that ID theory was ‘founded, primarily, by a lawyer.’¹³ Perhaps the movement, but not the theory. The theory has been developed and formalised by scientists with credentials just as good as any evolutionary biologist.

In responding to Francis, I chose only to respond to a couple of his key points. There are many comments that he made that I have not touched yet and so there is a lot more that can be said. However, I hope the reader can see that the arguments I have addressed do not stand up to scrutiny and thus should be rejected.

 References

1. Joshua Gidney. Debating Darwin and Design: Science or Creationism? (2). 2^nd Response: http://philosopherjosh.wordpress.com/2011/11/02/debating-darwin-and-design-science-or-creationism-2/
2. William A. Dembski. What Every Theologian Should Know about Creation, Evolution, and Design. Available at: http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_theologn.htm
3. Francis Smallwood. Debating Darwin and Design: Science or Creationism? (2). 2nd Response. Available at: http://musingsofscience.wordpress.com/2011/11/02/debating-darwin-and-design-science-or-creationism-2/
4. Michael 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/f/697
5. Stephen C. Meyer. Signature In The Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design. (New York: HarperCollins. 2009). p.447.
6. Important Scientists: Georges Lamaitre (1894 – 1966). Available at: http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/scientists_lemaitre.htm
7. Michael J. Behe. Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. (New York: Free Press. 2006).p. 244
8. Roger Highfield. Do our genes reveal the hand of God? Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3306329/Do-our-genes-reveal-the-hand-of-God.html
9. Francis Smallwood. Debating Darwin and Design: Science or Creationism? (2): Francis Smallwood-Second response. op cit.
10. William A. Dembski . Mere Creation: Science, Faith & Intelligent Design. (Downers Grove: IVP. 1996). p. 17.
11. William A. Dembski. ‘An Information-Theoretic Design Argument’, in Francis J. Beckwith, William Lane Craig & J.P. Moreland (ed.’s), To Everyone An Answer: A Case for the Christian Worldview, (Downers Grove: IVP, 2004), p. 78-7.
12. Jonathan Witt. A brief history of the scientific theory of intelligent design. Available at: http://www.discovery.org/a/3207
13. Francis Smallwood. Debating Darwin and Design: Science or Creationism? (2): Francis Smallwood-Second response. op cit.

The petition reads:

Teach evolution, not creationism

Responsible department: Department for Education

Creationism and ‘intelligent design’ are not scientific theories, but they are portrayed as scientific theories by some religious fundamentalists who attempt to have their views promoted in publicly-funded schools. At the same time, an understanding of evolution is central to understanding all aspects of biology. Currently, the study of evolution does not feature explicitly in the National Curriculum until year 10 (ages 14-15). Free Schools and Academies are not obliged to teach the National Curriculum and so are under no obligation to teach about evolution at all. We petition the Government to make clear that creationism and ‘intelligent design’ are not scientific theories and to prevent them from being taught as such in publicly-funded schools, including in ‘faith’ schools, religious Academies and religious Free Schools. At the same time, we want the Government to make the teaching of evolution in mandatory in all publicly-funded schools, at both primary and secondary level.

Here’s the link:

https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/1617

I would urge those of you who agree with the proposition to sign this e-petition and make the science class for science.

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.

A Dialogue between Two Christians

If you would like to read our Opening Statements, click these links to read Joshua’s opening statement at his blog and my opening statement here. All the material will be available from either blog.

For now, I shall try posting the discussion in couplets, with an opening by either me or Joshua, followed by a response from the other. I shall date each couplet, so that it will be easy to follow the chronology, although the topmost post will be the most recent anyway.

Joshua has opened the discussion on this first topic, so you will find his opening followed by my first response below, further down the page.

1.

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

20th September, 2011

Joshua Gidney – Opening

As I have already outlined in my opening statements, intelligent design theory states ‘that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause…’¹ ID theorists also claim that the theory is a scientific one, ‘…an inference from scientific evidence, not a deduction from religious authority.’² The question whether ID theory is scientific or just creationism is one that provokes much, if not most, of the discussion on this issue and it is a lot rarer to hear measured, rigorous debate about whether the theory has the empirical evidence on its side. Because of this, it only seems necessary to sweep away some of these caricatures and straw men in order for us to discuss the validity of the methods by which we can detect design and what the empirical evidence itself suggests. In this part of the discussion, I will argue that ID is indeed a legitimate scientific theory and will attempt to defend it against claims to the contrary. I will also attempt to defend it against the common accusation that it is a synonymous with biblical creationism.

One of my prevailing irritations when it comes to discussions about ID is the fact that it is so frequently misunderstood and misrepresented by many critics and the media, sometimes shamelessly so. I held this position even when I rejected ID. As a result, many people tend look upon it with much suspicion and unwarranted scepticism. Whilst ID advocates have been largely consistent and clear in their claims, they are often met with accusations of being fringe lunatics, fraudsters, and stealth creationists. The infamous 2005 Dover trial in Pennsylvania had a huge impact on the public perception of ID, where Judge Jones ruled it out as being a religious doctrine and not science. Since ID had falsely been given the religious label, and was being used by a group of creationists to get it into school science classes, it was ruled out as being unconstitutional, violating Church-state separation. It was a public relations disaster. One of the most common rhetorical moves used by critics is when they illegitimately equate ID with biblical creationism in order to discredit it. It was famously labelled ‘creationism in a cheap tuxedo.’³ by Leonard Krishtalka.

In Charles Foster’s book The Selfless Gene: Living with God and Darwin, he asserts that intelligent design is ‘The currently fashionable fig-leaf to cover the nakedness of creationism…’⁴ This asseveration echoes the sentiments of most ID critics but it is plainly a gross mischaracterisation. ID theory is solely based on what theorists believe to be empirical evidence and mentions nothing of God, theology, or any religious belief in its premises. It should be pointed out that ID is broad tent because amongst its supporters are Christians, Young Earth and Old Earth creationists, Jews, Muslims, and agnostics. It is even technically possible for ID to be embraced by those who hold an atheistic worldview because design theory is ‘a philosophically minimalistic position’⁵ and thus carries ‘minimal metaphysical baggage…’⁶ Even though there are people within the design community who advocate biblical literalism and Young Earth creationism, this does not mean that ID is based upon any religious doctrine.

My own acceptance of ID was not the result of a theological reading. It was the result of a long, arduous, and detailed look at the arguments and evidence. The leading theorists in the ID movement also testify to coming to their position by looking at the empirical evidence and finding out that Neo-Darwinism has many deficiencies. One of the movement’s most prominent figures is Michael Behe. He recalls that one of the reasons he came to his position was through reading Michael Denton’s book Evolution: A Theory In Crisis. Denton is a Biochemist and an agnostic.⁷ Through Behe’s scientific research he noticed evidence of ID in Biochemistry. From this observation it should be plainly clear that Behe did not come to his position by scrutinising the Gospels through his microscope! ID is not creationism and critics would do well to acknowledge this. It is no fig-leaf and it is hiding nothing.

As ID theorist Steven Meyer writes ‘there are no good-non—question begging-reasons to define intelligent design as unscientific.’⁸ When considering the scientific status of ID, it is necessary to look in detail at what science is and isn’t. This necessarily involves much philosophy of science because science cannot answer the question itself. One way to help us the answer the question is to look at the history of philosophy and science. It is important to note first of all that throughout history the word science has meant different things and has changed considerably. Science in the early modern period simply referred to the study of nature and was called natural philosophy. Natural philosophers were permitted to appeal to all four of Aristotle’s four causes, which Aristotle thought were necessary in order to truly explain things in nature. It wasn’t until figures like Rene Descartes, Francis Bacon, and Thomas Hobbes that the rejection of final and formal causes was proposed, eliminating reference to function and teleology. When one speaks of science these days, it almost always refers exclusively to the natural sciences and it now seems to be largely equated with the principle of methodological naturalism, a principle I will examine in detail in subsequent responses.

One of the biggest myths about the sciences is that they speak with a single unified voice and that it has a set of principles that are uniform throughout the sciences. The truth is that natural science is very diverse and certain concepts need to be distinguished from one another. It seems that there are several categories in which different scientific fields fall into although many of them overlap: Experimental, observational, historical, and origins. Some unifying features of the sciences are that they are based on public evidence, they can be confirmed and tested empirically, are systematic, and use standard methods of reasoning. ID does conform to these principles and is based on publicly available evidence, is testable, makes predictions, and although falsifiable, this is not a necessary or a sufficient condition for a theory to count as science.

I realise that here I have only touched the surface of this topic and in my following response I will delve deeper into the principle of methodological naturalism and ID’s status as a scientific theory.

 References

1. Stephen C. Meyer. Signature In The Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design. (New York: HarperCollins. 2009). p. 4.
2. Ibid.
3. Leonard Krishtalka. Quoted by Gleen Branch in ‘Human Nature After Darwin by Janet Radcliffe Richards’. Philosophy Now. 40. March/April 2003, p.44.
4. Charles Foster. The Selfless Gene: Living With God and Darwin. (Great Britain: Hodder & Stoughton. 2009). p.XIV
5. Marcus R. Ross. Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism: Investigating Nested Hierarchies of Philosophy and Belief. http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2003AM/finalprogram/abstract_58668.htm
6. Peter S. Williams. I Wish I Could Believe In Meaning: A Response to Nihilism. (Southampton: Damaris Publishing. 2004). p. 349
7. Unlocking the Mystery of Life: The Scientific Case for Intelligent Design. (Illustra Media. 2002)
8. Stephen C. Meyer. Signature In The Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design. (New York: HarperCollins. 2009). p. 421

~

Francis Smallwood – First Response

‘One of the most common rhetorical moves used by critics is when they illegitimately equate ID with biblical creationism in order to discredit it… ID is not creationism and critics would do well to acknowledge this.’

In my opening statement, I asked if the Intelligent Design movement is, perhaps, just a ‘new strain of creationism’?¹ As Joshua says, many of ID’s critics cursorily dismiss ID as ‘creationism’, as if no more need be said. I don’t believe that this is a productive tactic, but despite the rhetoric is there something in the allegation?

Michael Behe writes in his book Darwin’s Black Box,

‘Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism. As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular [although scientifically indefensible]. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it.’²

Of the three fathers—I was tempted to say ‘stooges’—of the ID movement—Behe, Dembski and Johnson—Behe is the only qualified biological scientist. Dembski is a mathematician, as evinced by his enamour with gargantuan improbabilities; Johnson, not a scientist of any description, is a shrewd lawyer. As Joshua said, ‘It should be pointed out that ID is a broad tent,’ covering a wide spectrum of views. Whilst there are those within the ID community who subscribe to biblical creationism, notably Paul Nelson, it is apparent, solely from the quote above, that Behe’s intelligent design is far removed from Nelson’s base ‘history denial.’³

So, whilst the equation of ID with biblical creationism—as in six days, light before sun, etc.—is illegitimate, how is it that ID just simply can’t seem to rid itself of creationist associations?

In October, 2004 the school board of Dover, Pennsylvania altered the biology curriculum, so as to allow the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution. The board’s decision violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, separating Church from state, bringing them to trial, a band of indignant parents in frank opposition to the board’s actions.

Amongst the expert witnesses for the defense was Michael Behe. The following citation is excerpted from the trial transcript,⁴ where Behe was questioned by Eric Rothschild:

Q. …Please describe the mechanism that intelligent design proposes for how complex biological structures arose.

A. Well, the word “mechanism” can be used in many ways. In this I was—and when I was referring to intelligent design, I meant that we can perceive that in the process by which a complex biological structure arose, we can infer that intelligence was involved in its origin. …

Q. So intelligent design is about cause? …

A. Well, cause is a broad word, and when you’re trying to explain how something came about, you can say it came about for a variety of reasons. But intelligent design is one reason or one aspect or one cause to explain how the purposeful arrangement of parts that we see did come about.

Q. Back to my original question. What is the mechanism that intelligent design proposes?

A. And I wonder, could—am I permitted to know what I replied to your question the first time?

Q. I don’t think I got a reply, so I’m asking you… what is the mechanism that intelligent design proposes for how complex biological structures arose?

A. Again, it does not propose a mechanism in the sense of a step-by-step description of how those structures arose. But it can infer that in the mechanism, in the process by which these structures arose, an intelligent cause was involved.

Q. But it does not propose an actual mechanism?

A. Again, the word “mechanism”—the word “mechanism” can be used broadly, but no, I would not say that there was a mechanism. I would say that we have an aspect of the history of the structure.

Q. So when you wrote in your report that “Intelligent design theory focuses exclusively on the proposed mechanism,” you actually meant to say intelligent design says nothing about the mechanism of how complex biological structures arose.

A. No, I certainly didn’t mean to say that. I mean to say what I said in response to the last question, that while we don’t know a step-by-step description of how something arose, nonetheless we can infer some very important facts about what was involved in the process, namely, that intelligence was involved in the process.⁵

Is it just me, or does it appear that ‘creation’ would have suited Behe’s explanation admirably? I cited this exchange at such length because I wanted to show that although Rothschild asked Behe again and again to explain the ‘actual mechanism’ giving rise to ‘complex biological structures’ the most he got in answer was ‘that intelligence was involved in the process’. ID denies that natural, scientifically explicable processes are capable of generating these complex structures and so attribute their existence to a non-natural intelligent ‘designer’, or is it an intelligent creator?

As Kenneth Miller so excellently put it, the intelligent designer is ‘not really a designer but a creator. We may say that a particular organ or species or biochemical system was “designed,” but “design” isn’t what we really mean. We may know that a building was designed, but we know that only because we can see the building itself. A design is nothing more than a concept, a plan, and 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—unless, in other words, he had actually built the building. Similarly, in the biological realm, a bacterial flagellum wasn’t just designed—it was created. By any reasonable use of language, our designer of molecular machines is actually the creator of those machines and the genes that specify them.’⁶

Proponents of ID are desperate to distance themselves from creationism—if they don’t they can’t get into the school science class—and whilst, as Joshua said, it is illegitimate to equate ID with biblical creationism, ‘Intelligence… is manifested in creativity. ID proponents believe that the intricate, complex structures that excite our sense of wonder must be the signatures of creative intelligence.’⁷ The conclusion that ID is some form of creationism, some ‘new strain’, does seem inevitable.

What was the reckoning, then, of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial? The ruling signified another roaring triumph for evolution in its grand battle with creationism. Judge John E. Jones III concluded:

‘The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy… The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources… In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.’⁸

 References & Notes

1. Zimmer, C. Evolution: the triumph of an idea. (London: William Heinemann, 2002). p.325.
2. Behe, M. Darwin’s black box: the biochemical challenge to evolution. (New York: Touchstone, 1998). p.5.
3. Dawkins, R. The greatest show on earth: the evidence for evolution. (London: Black Swan, 2010). p.436.
4. The transcript is available in full at: http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/intellige ntdesigncase/dovertrialtranscripts.htm
5. Michael Behe questioned by Eric Rothschild. Kitzmiller v Dover [2005] ACLUPA 4:04-CV-2688, p.82-85.
6. Miller, K. R. Only a theory: evolution and the battle for America’s soul. (New York: Viking Penguin, 2008). p.52.
7. Young, M. and Taner, E. Why intelligent design fails: a scientific critique of the new creationism. (New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2005). p.12.
8. Judge John E. Jones III’s memorandum opinion, Kitzmiller v. Dover [2005] ACLUPA 4:04-CV-2688, p.136-38.

~

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.

A Dialogue between Two Christians

Francis Smallwood – Opening Statement

Explanations must stand on their own evidence, not on the failure of their alternatives.¹

Francisco J. Ayala

Evolution is a fact as certain as gravity or heliocentrism. From all corners of scientific investigation, from cosmology to geology to biology, the story of this universe and this small, though marvellously distinguished planet residing within it, is one of constant change; a story of evolution. Things have not always been as they are now and we can assume with great certainty that things will look very different in years to come. The story of life on earth is told very basically as the generation of complexity from simplicity; the creation of ‘endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful,’² each blaring design, yet replete in the marks of their tangled past, evincing their true origins, constrained by ancestry and principles of engineering and economy and shaped and re-shaped and shaped again according to the specifications of their natural environment.

I, like Joshua, am a Christian and believe this marvellous world to be the creation of a God revealed to us in the words of Scripture. However, as to the nature of that creation we must look to science. I stand with Rev. Dr. John Polkinghorne in his proclamation that ‘Religion, if it is to take seriously its claim that the world is the creation of God, must be humble enough to learn from science what that world is actually like.’³

The statement that ‘life has evolved’ is uncontroversial (at least it should be!) and accepted by me and Joshua, although perhaps to slightly different degrees. So it is not a debate over evolution, as such, but a debate over causal mechanisms. I subscribe to the school of neo-Darwinism, which acknowledges Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection as the primary evolutionary mechanism, certainly the ‘only explanation we have of how complex life can evolve…’⁴ Clearly, as Darwin was eager to admit, natural selection is not the sole cause of evolution, other factors such as geographical separation (which is thought to be the main cause of speciation) and genetic drift are also responsible for change, but natural selection is the only intrinsically non-random mechanism capable of actual ‘design’.

Neo-Darwinism is the synthesis of two separate, though gloriously complementary, theories: Darwinian natural selection and Mendelian genetics. (The synthesis ‘may be traced to Theodosius Dobzhansky’s Genetics and the Origin of Species, published in 1937.’⁵) Crick and Watson’s discovery of the structure of DNA⁶ then unlocked Mendel’s genes and allowed us to understand the molecular properties and processes responsible for inheritance and the emergence of variation, the stuff of evolution.

The replication of DNA is ‘astonishingly faithful’, yet ‘Mistakes will happen,’⁷ and when a mutation occurs in the genotype (the genetic recipe) of an organism, this may, though not always, result in an alteration in its phenotype (the physical manifestation of the genotype). If this mutation improves the ‘fitness’ of the organism, allowing the organism to produce more offspring than its competitors, then the beneficial mutation will be selected and, over time, will spread throughout the population. The process of selection is gradual and cumulative, the accretion of mutations increasing the fitness of the organism responsible for the production of those ‘Organs of extreme perfection…⁸ which most justly excite[...] our admiration.’⁹

So, where do I stand with ID? Its advocates are eager to distance the movement from creationism and ‘creation science’ and to assert the theory as a purely scientific one, claiming that by pointing out holes in Darwinian theory – holes which are continuously being filled in – that the enterprise ‘detects intelligence without speculating about the nature of the intelligence,’¹⁰ as if, therefore, that without recourse to the ‘nature of the intelligence’ the theory remains scientific. Similarly, to distance ID from Christianity, biochemist Michael Behe has said, ‘All that the evidence points to is some very intelligent agent…  we focus simply on the observation of design. We don’t say from biochemistry the designer is God.’¹¹ Despite these efforts to distance ID from religion and Christianity, in particular, it is interesting to note that the creationist Phillip E. Johnson, Michael Behe and William Dembski – perhaps the three biggest names in ID – are all Christians. They all, I presume, believe the elusive designer to be one and the same God of the Judaeo-Christian tradition. Is ID just a ‘new strain of creationism,’¹² perhaps?

Since Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Copernicus, scientific study has been conducted according to so-called methodological naturalism. ID proponents insist that the scientific method (methodological naturalism) is some sort of naturalistic atheistic philosophy, when it is nothing of the sort. It is simply how we do science. And here’s the clinch: ‘Methodological naturalism works! … because scientists have persisted in taking a methodologically naturalistic approach, problems that hitherto seemed insoluble have given way to solutions.’¹³ The ID theorist demands a paradigm shift – and understandably! – because without it their ‘scientific theory’ cannot be so. When we explain something by saying that it is designed, not only do we contribute nothing useful to science, but we have stepped out of the very realms of science. (This severe deficiency has been one of the chief reasons that ID has not made it into school science classes, despite the shifty shenanigans of disreputable textbook authors.)

And thank goodness scientists have kept with methodological naturalism over the years! Believing that we can find natural explanations for natural phenomena, we have made bounding leaps in such important fields as medicine (to which evolutionary theory is constantly applied, although I am unaware of any applications of ID theory). The reason I am so grateful is that the moment you claim that something is intelligently designed, all form of further inquiry stops there. Phillip Johnson boldly claimed, ‘Give us five or ten years, and you’ll see scientific breakthroughs biologists hadn’t dreamed of before ID’¹⁴ Alas, the damning conclusion appears to positively contend Johnson’s bold claim; it seems that he made a promise he couldn’t keep.¹⁵ ID either tells us nothing or simply halts all investigation. If we actually want to understand the nature of this glorious world we inhabit, it seems that we should not look to ID.

Darwinism is, admittedly, an incomplete theory, but this simply means that there is more work to be done, as scientists are pleased to know! Despite the claims of ID, the theory of evolution – falsifiable as any other proper scientific theory must be – it seems that the same cannot be said for ID – has not been disproven.

That being said, even if Darwinian evolution was not the answer, that in no way supposes that design, by default, is. As Francisco Ayala writes in the quote I placed at the beginning of my statement, ‘Explanations must stand on their own evidence, not on the failure of their alternatives.’

After briefly trying to state where I stand on the matter before we embark on what (hopefully!) promises to be a fruitful discussion, I would just like to close with a few further words from Ayala:

‘There is “design” in the living world: eyes are designed for seeing, wings for flying, and kidneys for regulating the composition of the blood. The design of organisms comes about not by intelligent design, but by the interaction of mutation and natural selection, in a process that is creative through the interaction of chance and necessity.’¹⁶

References

1. Ayala, F. J. (2009). There is no place for intelligent design in the philosophy of biology: Intelligent design is not science. In: Ayala, F. J. and Arp, R., eds. (2009). Contemporary debates in philosophy of biology. (Oxford: Wiley Blackwell). Ch.20. p.375.
2. Darwin, C. (2009). The origin of species and the voyage of the Beagle. (London: Vintage). p.913.
3. Polkinghorne, J. (2006). Science and creation: The search for understanding. (West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Foundation Press). p.117.
4. Pinker, S. (1997). How the mind works. (London: Penguin). p.154.
5. Ayala, F. J. (1982). Beyond Darwinism? The challenge of macroevolution to the synthetic theory of evolution. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1982(2). p.275.
6. Watson, J. D. and Crick, F. H. C. (1953). Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid. Nature 171, p.737-738.
7. Dawkins, R. (2006). The selfish gene, 30^th anniversary ed. (New York: Oxford University Press). p.16.
8. Darwin, C. (2009). The origin of species and the voyage of the Beagle. (London: Vintage). p.671.
9. ibid. p.538.
10. Dembski, W. A. (1998). ‘The intelligent design movement’. Cosmic Pursuit, March 1. Available at: <http://www.designinference.com/documents/1998.03.ID_movement.htm>
11. Behe, M, in conversation with Sutherland, J. (2005). ‘A design for life’. Guardian, 12 Sep. Available at: <http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/sep/12/religion.news>
12. Zimmer, C. (2001). Evolution: the triumph of an idea. (London: William Heinemann). p.325.
13. Ruse, M. (2006). Darwinism and its discontents. (New York: Cambridge University Press). p.48.
14. Slack, G. (2007). The battle over the meaning of everything: evolution, intelligent design, and a school board in Dover, PA. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass). p.vii.
15. Alexander, D. (2008). Creation or evolution: do we have to choose?. (Oxford: Monarch Books). p.308-311.
16. Ayala, op cit. p.364.

A Dialogue between Two Christians

Joshua Gidney – Opening Statement

‘Automatically rejecting dissenting views that challenge the conventional wisdom is a dangerous fallacy, for almost every generally accepted view was once deemed eccentric or heretical. Perpetuating the reign of a supposed scientific orthodoxy in this way, whether in a research laboratory or in a court room, is profoundly inimical to the search for truth…’ ¹

Stephen J. Gould

When it comes to the ultimate, vexing questions of origins, life, meaning and purpose, few are as hotly debated as questions about Darwin’s theory of evolution and Intelligent Design theory. For decades there has been much controversy in public and academic circles and although this controversy is most prevalent in America, the heated discussion can be found thriving almost anywhere. Due to the nature of the issues, discussions are often fraught with emotion, ideological baggage, worldview and religious beliefs and so it is often remarkably difficult to get to the truth behind the matters at hand. These questions are so important and attract such passion because they are to do with our own history, nature and origin. As philosopher and mathematician David Berlinski notes ‘There is a wide appreciation of the fact that if biologists are wrong about Darwin, they are wrong about life…^’2 They are also important because science is one of the most successful and powerful cultural authorities, and theories firmly held to be true within the scientific community often have a huge influence on how everybody else views the world.

It is true to say that Neo-Darwinism ‘The synthesis of Darwin’s original theory with Mendelian genetics…’³, is zealously affirmed by the majority of those within the scientific community. Biological complexity, they claim, has evolved by natural selection acting upon random/chance genetic mutations, producing descent with modification. Neo-Darwinian theory can be expressed simply in the following way:

RV + NS –> DWM

These are purely non-teleological unguided mechanisms and so it is argued that Neo-Darwinism is sufficient to explain the diversification of all biological life without reference to any creative intelligence. The theory is said to be strongly supported by several different lines of evidence which ‘Taken together…converge to provide a mutually supporting evidential framework.^’4, and although the theory has been voluptuously embraced by the majority of the scientific community, it has been rejected with contempt and disdain by many people ever since it was first proposed.

Amongst Darwin dissenters are Creationists who mistakenly oppose it based on their particular literalistic interpretation of the Genesis account of creation. On the other hand many committed atheists attempt to surreptitiously foist a metaphysically naturalistic philosophy onto the theory. Since the majority of the human race is religious in some sense, no wonder it’s opposed and disbelieved by so many! Despite all this it is vital to note that ‘There is an important difference between the biological theory of evolution and the various philosophies that people have tried to derive from it…’⁵ Neo-Darwinism, if true, would not in any way imply atheism as there are many independent reasons to think that it is false. Also it seems that it is perfectly possible to reconcile scripture with the theory of evolution as Christians are open to a wide variety of interpretations, allowing them to follow the evidence wherever it leads. Science is not in a perpetual conflict with Christianity. The more fundamental question is whether or not Neo-Darwinism is true. I myself do not think so. Being a committed Christian, I used to be a tentative theistic evolutionist but against my will I have recently been persuaded to join another party.

As I have mentioned, the clash between creationism and evolution has a long and turbulent history, but in the last couple of decades the Neo-Darwinian paradigm has been challenged by another voice. This challenge has come from the Intelligent Design movement. They are a small but growing number of scientists and academics from various fields, who believe strongly that Neo-Darwinian theory is inadequate to explain certain physical features within the universe. They also believe that there is positive, scientifically detectable evidence that some form of intelligent agency is involved. Being a born again Darwinian, Richard Dawkins, along with most other evolutionary biologists, affirm that biology is ‘The study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed.^’6 The appearance of design being entirely illusory. In contrast, ID theorists believe that ‘…real design exists in nature and is empirically detectable by the methods of science^’7 (emphasis added). Philosopher Peter S. Williams succinctly summarizes the core claim of ID theory as claiming that ‘empirical evidence warrants a scientific design inference using reliable design detection criteria.’⁸

ID advocates claim that to recognise something as having been designed, it needs to exhibit both complexity and specificity. Design theorist William A. Dembski has defended this design detection criteria at length and it is known as “specified complexity”, also referred to as “complex specified information” (CSI). This criterion tells us that ‘Neither complexity without specificity nor specificity without complexity compels us to infer design’⁹, but a combination of both does. It is important to note that ‘Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence (SETI)’¹⁰, and thus design detection is already used in other scientific circles. Once the design detection criteria is applied to particular features in the universe, design theorists argue that intelligent design can be shown in several areas within nature (this is a point that’s often forgotten by many critics). Proposed areas that claim to exhibit signs of intelligent causation are the information rich structures found in DNA, irreducibly complex bio-molecular machines, the Cambrian explosion, the fine-tuning of our solar system and local habitat, and the fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the universe for the development of carbon based life. Design inferences tend to be more controversial in the area of biology because they suggest that there are certain features that cannot be explained by purely Darwinian processes.

Although the ID movement is growing, it is true to say that the majority of the mainstream scientific community do not accept it. In fact, to say this would be an understatement. There are many people who hold ID theory in such withering contempt, that it probably makes their blood pressure rise to triple digits when they discuss it. Witness chemist Peter Atkins in his remarkably apoplectic review of biochemist Michael Behe’s book Darwin’s Black Box:

‘Dr Behe waves his magic wand, discards the scientific method, and launches into his philosopher’s stone of universal explanation: it was all designed. Presenting this silly, lazy, ignorant, and intellectually abominable view — essentially discarding reason and invoking that first resort of the intellectually challenged (that is, God).’¹¹

Vacuous objurgations such as these are often hurled by many scientists who oppose ID and it often prompts a lapse from the well-ordered decencies of academia. As the controversial movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed revealed, opposition amongst the scientific ‘elite’ is often so vociferous that many people who have expressed support for ID, have been ostracized and ‘expelled’ from academia, several supporters losing their jobs.¹² As well as provoking indignation amongst many atheistic scientists, it also frustrates many theistic evolutionists and Creationists. Theistic evolutionist Denis Alexander claims that ‘it fails to meet the most basic criteria of scientific theorising and practice.’¹³ whilst biologist and Catholic Kenneth Miller, one of ID’s most vehement critics, argues that ‘…design is built upon a stunning lack of curiosity and a remarkable unwillingness to embrace scientific discovery. Design rests ultimately on the claim of ignorance…’¹⁴ Critics claim incessantly that ID theory is merely a form of “stealth creationism”, that ‘Not a single paper espousing creationism or intelligent design has ever been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.’¹⁵, and that all of the claims made by ID theorists have been refuted or are devoid of any content.

As mentioned, despite all the controversy and often vituperative debate that this topic provokes, these questions remain at once profound, fascinating and important. As a committed Christian, I used to hold the position of theist evolution but have gradually been persuaded that the Neo-Darwinian synthesis is deficient and that the ID theorists are correct. I think that ID is too often misrepresented, misunderstood and its various criticisms are largely without merit. I also affirm that it is a legitimate scientific theory. My good friend Francis is also a committed Christian but holds to a theistic evolutionary view and so on this issue we are in disagreement. Because we are both fascinated with questions such as these, we have decided to initiate a respectful written dialogue, all of which will gradually be published on both our blogs. It should be said that neither of us are scientists or are formally qualified in the areas pertinent to the issues, but we will attempt to responsibly present research and substantial and informed argumentation. We both hope that readers will find the discussion edifying, thought provoking, and helpful.

References

1. Brief Amici Curiae of Phys., Scientists, and Historians of Sci. in Support of Petitioners, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., at 2–6, 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (No. 92–102).
2. David Berlinski. The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions. (United states: Basic Books. 2009). p.186.
3. Graeme Finlay. Stephen Lloyd. Stephen Pattemore. David Swift. Debating Darwin: Two Debates: Is Darwinism True & Does it Matter? (Milton Keynes: Paternoster Press. 2009). p.X.
4. ibid. p.131.
5. Dennis Alexander. Robert S. White. Beyond Belief: Science, Faith and Ethical Challenges. (Oxford: Lion Hudson. 2004). p.106.
6. Richard Dawkins. The Blind Watchmaker. (New York: W.W. Norton & Company. 1986). p. 1.
7. Marcus R. Ross. Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism: Investigating Nested Hierarchies of Philosophy and Belief. (2003) Available at: http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2003AM/finalprogram/abstract_58668.htm
8. Peter S. Williams. The Design Inference from Specified Complexity Defended by Scholars Outside the Intelligent Design Movement: A Critical Review. Philosophia Christi (Vol. 9, Issue 2, 2007). Available at: http://epsociety.org/library/articles.asp?pid=54
9. Williams. The Design Inference from Specified Complexity Defended by Scholars Outside the Intelligent Design Movement: A Critical Review. Op.cit.
10. Uncommon Descent. ID Defined. Available at: http://www.uncommondescent.com/id-defined/. (Accessed 25^th August 2011).
11. The Secular Web. 1998. Peter Atkins Review of Darwin’s Black Box. Available at: http: < http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/peter_atkins/behe.html>. (Accessed 25^th August 2011).
12. Cf. Ben Stein’s Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Premise Media/Vivendi Entertainment, 2008).
13. Denis Alexander. ‘Designs on Science’. Available at: < http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=260&TopicID=2&CategoryID=1>. (Accessed 26th August 2011).
14. Kenneth Miller. Only a theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul. (Viking Penguin: New York. 2008). p.87
15. Charles Foster. The Selfless Gene: Living With God and Darwin. (Hodder & Stoughton: London. 2009) p. xiv.

The plan is that we shall each write an opening statement (which we have nearly completed, I think) to kick off the discussion, stating where we both stand on the matter. We shall then decide on five topics most pertinent to the issue and proceed to discuss those. We shall post the discussion on each of our blogs, so that it can be accessed from either of them, updating them with our responses to each other as they come, so that you may follow the discussion as it unfolds.

Joshua shall be arguing the case for ID and I shall be arguing for neo-Darwinism. We are both Christians and over the last year or so have found that we agree on a great deal. However, in the last few months we have come to find that, whilst there are certainly a great many beliefs we share, the issue of ID and Darwinism has come to be an issue of some divergence, not one of ugly contention but one of respectful disagreement. We hope that the discussion will be one where this respectful disagreement is evident, and will try to reduce the risk of vitriolic polemicism!

I am looking forward to the discussion, and if you are interested in the debates concerning design and Darwinism, I am sure that you will be interested in following this discussion as it unfurls!

William Paley (1743-1805)

‘In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer, that, for any thing I knew to the contrary, it had lain there for ever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to shew the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be enquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that, for any thing I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch, as well as for the stone? Why is it not as admissible in the second case, as in the first? For this reason, and for no other, viz. that, when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we could not discover in the stone) that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e.g. that they are so formed and adjustedas to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that, if the several parts had been differently shaped from what they are, of a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any other order, than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all could have been carried on in the machine, or non which would have answered the use, that is now served by it.’¹

Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975)

Paley’s natural theology was perturbed and subsequently disbanded in the following years, as a new view of nature emerged in the nineteenth century, the pre-eminent revolution embodied in Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, which has proved the most astounding and credible theory in the history of biology. In the words of Theodosius Dobzhansky, ‘Nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution.’² In the famous eponymous article, Dobzhansky asks the question ‘Is there an explanation, to make intelligible to reason this colossal diversity of living beings?’ and responds that ‘The only explanation that makes sense is that the organic diversity has evolved in response to the diversity of environment on the planet earth.’³

However, what had appeared an extinct notion, or discipline, has been resurrected in the guise of Intelligent Design theory (ID). ID arose in America in the 1990s upon the publication of several books by Phillip E. Johnson (‘not a biologist, nor a scientist of any kind, but a lawyer’⁴) (Darwin on Trial: 1991), Michael Behe (Darwin’s Black Box:1996), and William A. Dembski (The Design Inference: 1998). ID ‘is an anti-Darwinian movement’ – although, bizarrely, it champions Darwinism as the explanation for much of life’s diversity – ‘that seeks to identify highly specified examples of design in living organisms, putting these examples forward as evidence for a designer.’⁵ ‘ID claims intelligent causation is the best explanation for information-rich structures, that intelligent causation is empirically detectable, and that intelligent causation is admissible in scientific theory making.’⁶

Now, after looking at what intelligent design is, let’s have a look at what proponents of ID say it isn’t, and then move on to examine ID and see whether it stands to scrutiny. ID proponents are eager to assert that ID is ‘not “creation science”‘⁷ and that it is ‘not natural theology.’⁸

So, let’s examine the first denial: Is ID creation science? Well, ID is not creation science in the sense of flood geology, a literal interpretation of Genesis and subsequent mangling of virtually all scientific evidence to fit the mould of an ancient, pre-scientific text. But ID does claim that several biological properties are ‘irreducibly complex’ and that they cannot therefore be explained by gradualistic, cumulative evolution. So what could explain the existence of these properties if they defy evolution, and if they had to spring into existence ‘ready-made’ (as if any component was missing would mean dysfunction), apart from special creation? I would certainly regard ID as a form of creation science, for that is what it is! (Incidentally, in Richard Dawkins’ book A Devil’s Chaplain‘s index, I was amused to find the index reference for ‘Intelligent Design’ redirected to ‘Creationism’!)

Secondly, is ID natural theology? Does ID argue that ‘the presence of God… can be discerned within creation’?⁹ ID proponents cannot risk their theory being considered anything other than scientific, for then it cannot rival Darwinism in any meaningful sense. Dembski writes that ID ‘detects intelligence without speculating about the nature of the intelligence.’¹⁰ Behe has said, in an interview for the Guardian with John Sutherland, that ‘All that the evidence from biochemistry points to is some very intelligent agent. Although I find it congenial to think that it’s God, others might prefer to think it’s an alien – or who knows? An angel, or some satanic force, some new age power. Something we don’t know anything about yet… we focus simply on the observation of design. We don’t say the designer is God.^’11

However, is this true? It might be worth noting that Johnson, Dembski and Behe are all Christians (as am I), so I would be inclined to suspect that they do believe that the designer is God! And the other point is that the intelligent designer would not likely be, according to design theory, an ‘alien’, or some such other earth-bound, physical entity, as anything more complex than, say, a bacterial flagellum motor – as a designer of irreducibly complex biological contraptions must be! – must not be able to be explained by gradualistic evolution, as (1) it is physical and finite and (2) (according to design theory) it will contain irreducibly complex forms necessary to its function, as it is immeasurably more complex than a bacterial flagellum. Postulating a physical designer requires another physical designer, and so on, ad infinitum. If we are to avoid an infinite regress we must invoke an entity which could, in principle, do the job of the designer, and such an entity would be a ‘conscious, mind-like reality’, an ‘eternal mind’¹² – an entity recognisable as God. Regardless of our personal beliefs, it appears that the only possible designer would be God.

So what becomes of ID’s claim that it isn’t natural theology? Well, ID ‘detects intelligence without speculating about the nature of the intelligence’, but when the only possible designer is God, ID ‘detects [the] intelligence’ of God. Of course, as Behe says, the designer could be something non-physical and non-God, such as ‘An angel, or some satanic force, some new age power’, but does this assertion hold any credence? I think not. When the only possible designer is God, the notion becomes a natural theology, and therefore becomes something other than science. It becomes something which by defintion cannot be verified in the same way a scientific theory can. I conclude that ID is natural theology, but it just can’t be admitted by design theorists, for as soon as it is, it becomes something other than what it purports to be, confounding the enterprise.

~

In the next post I shall attempt to further inspect the claims of ID, and hopefully make some sense. This post has been a kind of preliminary, somewhat longer than originally intended, introducing the discussion. The next post will hopefully dig a little deeper.

References

1. Paley, W. (1802). Natural theology: or, evidence of the existence and attributes of the deity, collected from the appearances of nature. (London: Taylor and Wilks). p. 1-2.
2. Dobzhansky, T. (1973). ‘Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution’. The American Biology Teacher (35), p. 125-129.
3. ibid. p. 126.
4. Dawkins, R. (2003). A devil’s chaplain: reflections on hopes, lies, science and love. (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company). p. 221.
5. Alexander, D. (2008). Creation or evolution: do we have to choose?. (Oxford: Monarch Books). p. 293.
6. Williams, P. S. (2004). I wish I could believe in meaning: a response to nihilism. (Southampton: Damaris Publishing). p. 349.
7. ibid. p. 351.
8. ibid. p. 354.
9. McGrath, A. (1994). Christian theology: an introduction. (Cambridge, Massachusets: Blackwell). p. 158.
10. Dembski, W. A. (1998). ‘The intelligent design movement’. Cosmic Pursuit, March 1. Available at: <http://www.designinference.com/documents/1998.03.ID_movement.htm> [Accessed 13 June 2011]
11. John Sutherland in conversation with Michael Behe. (2005). ‘A design for life’. Guardian, 12 Sep. Available at: <http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/sep/12/religion.news> [Accessed 13 June 2011]
12. Ward, K. (2011). Is religion irrational?. (Oxford: Lion Hudson). p. 17.

This is (evidently) the second post in this series which will examine some of the objections to evolution and Darwinian mechanisms and attempt to respond to these objections in defence of Darwinism.

If you haven’t read the first post in the series and wish to do so please click the title of the previous post to read:

1. Charles Darwin… and Friends

~

2. Objections to Evolution

Chaos → Order

One of the objections to evolution in general is the direction which the process takes where biological simplicity bequeaths complexity. The Darwinian view proposes that the all life we see today, in its glorious complexity and diversity, is descended from one single self-replicating molecule. When this replicator emerged (no one yet knows how!) natural selection harnessed its awesome capability for self-perpetuation and self-generation and began to act upon it. This replicating molecule is our DNA – our genetic code – although it may not have been DNA which originally arose.

Sadi Carnot (1796-1832)

Anyway,  the Second Law of Thermodynamics, formulated by Sadi Carnot (1796-1832), a French physicist and military engineer, concerns the dissipation of energy from a “high order” to a “low order” state which can be measured with a value called entropy – an increase in entropy means an increase in disorganization – and this “concept of entropy and the formulation of the second law… introduced the idea of irreversible processes, of an ‘arrow of time’, into science… some mechanical energy is always dissipated into heat  that cannot be completely recovered. Thus the entire world-machine is running down and will eventually grind to a halt.”¹ The prevailing view of nature at the time of the origination of entropy and the Seond Law was a highly mechanistic one, where the future could be predicted if one had knowledge of all conditions of the present. (This illusion was shattered by the emergence of quantum mechanics, which showed that uncertainity is inherent in nature.) This machine-view of nature which saw the universe as a cosmic clockwork automaton which having been wound up at the beginning of time would gradually tick to a halt led to a “sharp contrast to the evolutionary thinking among nineteenth-century biologists, who observed that the living universe evolves from disorder to order, towards states of ever-increasing complexity… Who was right, Darwin or Carnot?”²

The resolvement of this contention began with the Austrian biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy, who recognised that there was a distinction between open and closed systems:

“The organism is not a static system closed to the outside and always containing the identical components; it is an open system in a (quasi-) steady state … in which material continually enters from, and leaves into, the outside environment.”³

Newtonian mechanics concerned the physics of the macroscopic universe – the ultimate closed system. However, biologists were considering life – an open system. And whilst a system’s openness does not determine that it lives, the continual flux of energy does mean that we cannot consider the open system as we would a closed system; we cannot mathematically express the open system with linear equations: non-linear equations have to be employed. And this non-linearity means that chaos can evolve into order; simplicity can bequeath complexity.

The other important concept to grasp is that a non-linear system (such as a plant) may be dependent on a linear system (such as the sun). As the sun expounds vast quantities of energy, its entropy ever-increasing, a plant metabolises this energy (see diagram below) – “as one system (the sun) ‘runs down’ so another system (life) ‘runs up’.”⁴

The metabolic processes of a plant cell (Capra: 1996, p. 161)

Only a Theory

Another of the objections to evolution is that it is “only a theory.” The word “theory” has multiple definitions, and the objection to evolution that it is “only a theory” is to confuse the technical definition with the general defintion, both of which are very different. Denis Alexander writes “that when biologists speak of the ‘theory of evolution’ they do not thereby doubt its veracity, as in the phrase used in common speech: ‘it’s only a theory’. The term ‘theory’ in science is used in rather a technical sense to refer to that overarching scheme of ideas making sense of a certain set of data.”⁵

The technical definition certainly contrasts with the general definition, and those who object to evolution on account of its being a “theory” – “perhaps mischievously, perhaps sincerely”⁶ – employ the irrelevant (in this case) general definition. Richard Dawkins proposed the adoption of a “mis-borrowed” term to account for this technical definition: “theorum” (taken from mathematics and spelt differently (“theorum” as opposed to mathematics’ “theorem”).⁷ “A scientific theorum has not been – cannot be – proved in the same way a mathematical theorem is proved. But common sense treats it as a fact in the same sense as the ‘theory’ that the Earth is round and not flat is a fact, and the theory that green plants obtain energy from the sun is a fact. All are scientific theorums: supported by massive quantities of evidence, accpeted by all informed observers, undisputed facts in the ordinary sense of the word.”⁸

Half an Eye

Another prevalent objection is the near-rhetorical question posed by some creationists What use is half an eye? This is an objection which betrays a total misunderstanding of Darwinian evolution, and endows selection with a foresight which it does not have. (This denial of foresight is not the same thing as evolutionary convergence, which is a far more complex phenomenon dependent on laws – both physical and biological – inherent in nature, resources, and ideals of engineering. (Although it is unhelpful to bring Platonic philosophy of “forms” into the discussion, as this confuses mutable ideal solutions dependent on the factors listed above with immutable forms independent of those factors.))

I shan’t spend too long considering the evolution of the eye, as several months ago I wrote a series of posts on this subject which you may want to look at:

1. Evolution of the Eye: Mount Improbable and First Steps
2. Evolution of the Eye: Pinhole Cameras and Lenses
3. Evolution of the Eye: Nilsson & Pelger and Lens Evolution

However, pertaining to the present discussion, “when evolution was young, animals had to make physical contact with objects before they could tell that those objects were there. What a bonanza of benefit was witing for the first animal to develop a remote-sensing technology: awareness of an obstacle before hitting it; of a predator being seized; of food that wasn’t already within reach but could be anywhere in the large vicinity.”⁹ The objection of What use is half an eye? mistakenly supposes that there is the ideal of a highly sophisticated human camera eye, with complex lenses and a marvel of neural circuitry, as the standard that if not had in all its complex entirety is simply useless. (Besides, our eye suits our physiology but our eye would not suit an ant or a snail.)

Fantasy snail able to see as well as humans can (Dawkins: 1996, p. 129.)

Any improvement in visual perception will be selected, because being able to sense sunlight or the shadow of a predator is infinitely better than no vision. Without foresight or conscious engineering, selection cannot envisage an eye, such as ours’, and then attempt to assemble one; instead it has to work with what it has and if there is any beneficial variation you can guarantee the moulding hand of selection will be there to ensure its presence in the gene pool.

Take a Chance

Another of the common objections to evolution is the dismissal of evolution as a chance process. This accusation could not be further from the principles of Darwinian evolution. Whether theist or atheist, evolution scientists understand the Darwinian mode of evolution to be highly non-random, to be far from chance. Darwinian evolution, as understood in the neo-Darwinian synthesis (the incorporation of Mendelian genetics within the Darwinian framework), is the non-random selection of random genetic mutation.

“Darwinism is widely misunderstood as a theory of pure chance… One stage in the Darwinian process is indeed a chance process – mutation. Mutation is the process by which fresh genetic variation is offered up for selection and it is ususally described as random. But Darwinians make the fuss they do about the ‘randomness’ of mutation only in order to contrast it to the non-randomness of selection, the other side of the process… selection is sublimely and quintessentially non-random.

[However] even mutations [are] non-random in various senses… [for they] have well understood physical causes, and to this extent they are non-random… [as] X-rays cause mutations. Mutations are also more likely to occur in some genes than in others. There are ‘hot spots’ on chromosomes where mutation rates are markedly higher than average… Mutations can be reversed (‘back mutations’). For most genes, mutation in either direction is equally probable. For some, mutation in one direction is more frequent than back mutation in the reverse direction. This gives rise to so-called ‘mutation pressure’ – a tendency to evolve in a particular direction regardless of selection. This is yet another sense in which mutation can be described as non-random… [However] mutations are random with respect to quality, and that means they are usually bad because there are more ways of getting worse than of getting better.”¹⁰

Evolution is not chance. Natural selection ensures that. What is random (to a degree) is the flux of material available for selection to work with. In relation to the first topic – “Chaos → Order” – selection shapes the process of evolution by selecting order, by selecting mutations which benefit the reproductive success of an organism. Simple “random” variation would not produce anything worth noting, but in the hands of selection the possibilities are magnificent and evident.

~

In this post I have attempted to respond to several common objections to evolution. I also hope that, whilst (hopefully) in a sense proving evolution, that it will be apparent that there in no reason to reject evolution on religious grounds. I have spoken of life and evolution in this post as a very natural phenomenon, because science (of which evolution theory is a part) explains the natural world. I am not denoting a metaphysical naturalism by speaking of life in terms of genes and selection, but am detailing the process of the evolution of life in scientific terms, and therefore natural terms. For a scientific explanation of life, for why and how we are here, we find the reason with Darwinian evolution. But for a metaphysical explanation for our existence, for purpose and for meaning, we have to open our eyes further. We have to look beyond our little world to something far greater.

References

¹ Capra, F. (1996). The web of life: a new synthesis of mind and matter. (London: Harper Collins). p. 48.

² ibid.

³ Bertalanffy, L. v. (1968). General system theory. (New York: Braziller). p. 121 quoted in ibid.

⁴ Alexander, D. (2008). Creation or evolution: do we have to choose?. (Oxford: Monarch Books). p. 139.

⁵ ibid. p. 137.

⁶ Dawkins, R. (2009). The greatest show on earth: the evidence for evolution. (London: Black Swan). p. 9.

⁷ ibid. p. 11

⁸ ibid. p. 13

⁹ –. (1996). Climbing mount improbable. (London: Penguin Books). p. 126.

¹⁰ ibid. p. 70-71.

~

Francis Smallwood, 2010

In this post I aim to give a brief overview of the history of evolutionary thought and to detail some of the discoveries which led to the synthesis of neo-Darwinism. The subsequent posts shall then examine objections to the theory where I shall attempt a defence of Darwinism and consideration of faith, both scientific and religious, in relation to Darwinism, before concluding with a consideration of the scientific endeavour itself.

~

1. Charles Darwin…

Charles Darwin (1809-1882)

Charles Darwin’s (1809-1882) On the Origin of Species was published on Thursday 24th November 1859, priced at fifteen shillings, and revolutionized biology. Whilst a number of scientists had whiffed the aroma of the idea, had their appetites whet by a suggestion of the principle, or had even begun to see the idea as certainly possible – the equivalent of tasting the wine, or eating the first morsel of the dish – Darwin’s book served up the principle of evolution by natural selection on a platter, accompanied by a large dish of empirical evidence, which is what was necessary for the theory to leave the realms of theory without evidence to a higher steppe of empirical reasoning.

HMS Beagle set sail from Plymouth on 27th December 1831, amongst the crew a geologist and naturalist who had amassed a reputation as a collector of fossils. This man’s name was Charles Darwin. The Beagle sailed along the coast of South America, and here Darwin analysed the tortoises of the Galápagos Islands, which were to feature in his discovery. Darwin was able to collect various fossil samples and it was the research undertaken on this journey that formed the basis for the theory and the data which support it. The voyage of HMS Beagle had been intended as a two-year excursion but came to an end after five years.

Darwin developed his the theory of evolution by natural selection in an admirable, scientifically proper manner, refraining from publishing his work impetuously, instead toiling for the truth and foraging through the data which he had acquired, letting the evidence lead him where it may. Twenty-eight years elapsed between 1831 (the voyage of the Beagle) and 1859 (the publication of On the Origin of Species) and when Darwin’s most famous work was published he had prepared thoroughly, with the matters which may have been subject to questioning ready with evidential responses.* However, whilst Darwin’s work was exquisite, it was by no means conclusive. For instance, Darwin knew that characteristics were inherited but he knew not by what means. He proposed a theoretical “gemmule” as the mode of inheritance. Darwin did not develop an unblemished, theoretical masterpiece of biological science, but he laid the foundations for a productive foray into the field of evolutionary biology and, primarily, showed us by what mechanism: natural selection.

and Friends

Gregor Mendel

Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)

Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) a Augustinian monk and scientist earned the title “The Father of Modern Genetics” and rightly so. Mendel, whilst at St. Thomas’ Abbey, experimented with pea plants, breeding them and tirelessly analysing the offspring, recording all of the results with an indefatigable impeccability. One of the most important areas of the discovery was the colour of the pea plants.

Mendel would take yellow peas and would breed them and record the colour of the offspring. Mendel succeeded in refuting the conventional thought on inheritance at the time of Darwin which claimed that characteristics from the parents were blended together to produce the child’s personal traits in a kind of “inheritance smoothie.” (This view was problematic for Darwin’s theory, as his idea stated that successful traits would be maintained throughout the generations if they aided survival, whereas the notion of blending would incur the dilution and subsequent loss of a trait as it was blended throughout the generations.) Mendel’s experiments with pea plants showed that the offspring from a yellow pea plant would be yellow and green at a ratio of 3:1. According to contemporary conventional thought the offspring should have all been a yellowy-green. But instead Mendel’s pea plants exhibited this discrete colour pattern. Mendel realised that traits were not blended in a mixture, but that they were inherited in discrete hereditary quanta (what we now know to be genes).

Punnett square displaying Mendels results

Mendel’s experiments laid the foundations for modern genetics. Mendel was able to infer that there must be “dominant” and “recessive” particulate units of inheritance (what we now know as “alleles”). The unit specifying a yellow plant was the “dominant” trait (A in the above diagram) and the unit specifying for a green plant was a “recessive” trait (a in the above diagram). In the Punnett Square above you have a 2×2 grid with A and a in separate squares both on the x and y rows. Each trait (A and a) is worth ½, so you need two “half-units” to make the full unit. However, because the A trait is dominant you only need one “half-unit” of A and the plant will be yellow. The only opportunity a recessive (a) has to determine the colour of the plant is if A is totally absent. So, when we multiply out the units:

AA = dominant

Aa = dominant

Aa = dominant

aa = recessive

Mendel’s discovery of particulate hereditary units formed the basis for modern genetics and the neo-Darwinian synthesis is founded strongly on the principles of genetics. Another defining characteristic of neo-Darwinism is its emphasis on random genetic mutation which can then be acted on by non-random natural selection. The Mendelian perspective also shows us how singular traits can be maintained throughout a family lineage, as a “successful” gene (i.e. a gene that aided survival and reproduction) being a particulate unit would not be blended and “diluted” in the genealogy of blendings, but would, rather, survive intact, kept in there by the guiding hand of selection.

Thomas Hunt Morgan

Thomas Hunt Morgan (1866-1945)

Thomas Hunt Morgan (1866-1945) was an embryologist who furthered understanding of chromosomes and their influence on the organism’s manifestation (what would come to be known as the genotype on the phenotype) while studying the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster. The chromosomes of the fruit fly are fairly large, as chromosomes go, and Morgan was able to observe these. He then studied the fruit fly and found that he could group its characteristics into four different types. The significance of the number four? The fruit fly has four chromosomes. But the developments which Morgan was making did not halt here. He found that there was one group of characteristics which was slightly smaller than the rest, and so he found that one of the chromosomes of the fruit fly was smaller than the rest! What was beginning to happen was that from Darwin’s vision of natural selection, Mendel had discovered particulate hereditary quanta and had recognised the principles of inheritance. Hunt Morgan and similar early research to this was beginning to pin-point the location of these units (the chromosomes) bringing what had been empirically proven in theory into actual biological study. The neo-Darwinian synthesis was ever-emerging.¹

Watson and Crick

Perhaps the greatest scientific discovery in the biological field since Darwin, the discovery of the structure of DNA – the genetic code – by James D. Watson (b. 1928) and Francis Crick (1916-2004) unlocked the secret of life.

James Watson (left) and Francis Crick (right)

In 1943, the renowned physicist Erwin Schrödinger delivered a series of lectures at Trinity College, Dublin on the title “What is life?” and said, “It is these chromosomes… that contain in some kind of code-script the entire pattern of the individual’s future development and of its functioning in the mature state.”² It was becoming clear that the chromosomes somehow contained this “code-script,” though quite how it was contained and what the actual “code-script” was remained a mystery. DNA “had first been isolated, from the pus-soaked bandages of wounded soldiers, in the German town of Tubingen in 1869 by a Swiss doctor named Friedrich Mieschler [who] guessed that DNA might be the key to heredity… [However] DNA had few fans [and] was known to be a comparatively monotonous substance.”³

Watson and Crick were an unlikely pair: Watson promising and precocious, nineteen years of age and already with a bachelor’s degree; Crick the opposite: he was thirty-five years of age (a difference of sixteen years between the two of them) and without a PhD. However, they both shared the enthused belief that the secret of life (nothing too mundane) lay with DNA and so began a series of examinations and experiments which led to the discovery of the exquisitely elegant double helix – the emblem of life. On 28 February 1953, Francis Crick ran into The Eagle pub and exclaimed, “We’ve found the secret of life!” Then, on 25th April 1953, Watson and Crick published their revolutionary paper entitled Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid in the scientific journal Nature changing biology and the sub-discipline of biological evolution forever.

The DNA Revolution

However, whilst Watson and Crick had discovered the structure of DNA, cracking the code proved the next obstacle and more problematic. Crick was responsible for much of the theorizing behind the genetic code. The letters of the “code-script” were known (A, C, G and T (standing for the nucleotide bases adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine)) and it was certain that this base alphabet would code for the twenty-letter code of the amino acids which are the building blocks of proteins. But just how it actually did this was the mystery.

However, through the 1960s many discoveries were made and continued to be made with greater frequency throughout the 1990s and into the 2000s, culminating in the grand achievements of the Human Genome Project which was launched in 1990 and completed in 2003, whose objectives were to:

• “identify all the approximately 20,000-25,000 genes in human DNA,
• determine the sequences of the 3 billion chemical base pairs that make up human DNA,
• store this information in databases,
• improve tools for data analysis,
• transfer related technologies to the private sector, and
• address the ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) that may arise from the project.”⁴

DNA is found in the chromosomes of an organism, which are in turn founded in the cell nucleus of an organism (see diagram below). In the case of humans, chromosomes invariably number 46, although the number varies for other kinds of organisms, although within one kind the number will remain the same. Humans inherit 23 chromosomes from the mother and 23 chromosomes from the father (technically, humans inherit 22 complementary pairs of chromosomes from each parent and then an X or Y chromosome from each parent (XX making the child female; XY making the child male) when the sex cells (“gametes”) – the egg in the case of the mother and the sperm in the case of the father – fuse in sexual reproduction to form a complete cell with 46 chromosomes (a zygote). In the chromosomes DNA is packaged in chromatin. The purpose of DNA is (predominantly) to encode the recipes for the proteins to be manufactured, in the four-letter alphabet of A, C, G and T.

Packaging of the chromosome

The illustrious structure of DNA consists of two spiralling swirls (helices) of a sugar phosphate (see diagram, below). And extending along the spiralling frames are a series of “base-pairs.” The nucleotides adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine form something like varying rungs on the ladder of the sugar phosphate. Except, rather than one base forming one rung, two bases form one rung, as a pair. And the bases in the pairs specify one another diametrically, so an A “half-rung” specifies a T half-rung (and vice versa) and a C half-rung specifies a G half-rung. These base-pairs can then specify certain functions.

A strand of DNA

In DNA replication, the two diametrically complementary strands separate (see diagram below) and then polymerases are responsible for the formation of complementary half-rungs along the “half-ladders,” so that one strand of DNA begets two daughter strands and therefore the self-perpetuation of the genetic material encoding an organism by replication. It is DNA replication which makes evolution possible and this is one of the Mendelian revolutions which led to the formulation of the neo-Darwinian synthesis – non-random selection upon random genetic mutation. For when DNA replicates it does so imperfectly, i.e. mutations occur. This may be the alteration of an A to a G (a “point mutation”) which may or may not alter the protein manufactured. (A “triplet codon” (a three-letter base sequence) codes for one amino acid in a protein, but more than one codon may code for a certain amino acid so a single point mutation may not alter the amino acid and therefore the protein specified.) These point mutations – the mutations of base letters – are like misspellings.

DNA replication

DNA replication is not too imperfect however, and almost always makes faithful replications, for if it were too errant it would only be harmful to the organisms, as there would be no stability. Genetic variation can be beneficial and it can be harmful, but it is largely neutral. However, “when genetic variation does make a difference to the organism, for good or ill, natural selection begins to operate and the organism will tend to leave, over many generations, greater or fewer numbers of offspring, a process known as ‘reproductive success.’”⁵

Other kinds of “mutations” include:

• “Deletions: A portion of the chromosome is missing or deleted.
• Duplications: A portion of the chromosome is duplicated, resulting in extra genetic material.
• Translocations: When a portion of one chromosome is transferred to another chromosome. There are two main types of translocations. In a reciprocal translocation, segments from two different chromosomes have been exchanged. In a Robertsonian translocation, an entire chromosome has attached to another at the centromere.
• Inversions: A portion of the chromosome has broken off, turned upside down and reattached, therefore the genetic material is inverted.
• Rings: A portion of a chromosome has broken off and formed a circle or ring. This can happen with or without loss of genetic material.”⁶

All of which can alter the structure and function of an organism, for “good or ill.”

Conclusion

In this post I aim to have detailed some of the discoverers and their discoveries relevant to the formulation of neo-Darwinism – Darwinian selection in the light of modern Mendelian genetics. Darwin did not know of Mendel’s work, even though the two were contemporaries. However, sadly for Mendel, the importance of his experiments with pea plants was not realised by those who knew him and the sequestered monastery was hardly the thoroughfare of scientific discovery. It has only been in the last century that Mendel  has been recognised for his work and retrieved from the depths of obscurity and hailed the Father of Modern Genetics. Mendel showed us that the units of heredity are particulate discrete quanta and showed us a new vision of heredity altogether.

Darwin laid the foundations for the modern era of evolutionary biology. Heaps of empirical proof supported his hypothesis that natural selection is not the sole but the primary means of evolution. He demonstrated how, with an incredibly elegant and stunningly simple theoretical framework, we could understand not (contrarily) the origin but the creation, the generation of species. The unfolding of life was revealed with the publication of a book on Thursday 24th November 1859 priced at fifteen shillings. A book worth infinitely more in terms of its brilliance and vision.

James D. Watson and Francis Crick, two brilliant – yet unlikely – scientists unlocked the structure of DNA  – the secret of life. The discovery of the structure of this most amazing molecule unveiled Mendel’s particulate units, and the subsequent discoveries of the DNA revolution have led those such as Dobzhansky and Mayr to an overwhelming synthesis, incorporating the findings of a Victorian English naturalist, an Augustinian Monk, and a whole host of some of the most brilliant minds in science – the neo-Darwinian understanding of “evolution by non-random selection – the only game in town, the greatest show on earth.”⁷

~

* This is according to the traditionalist view. The late Stephen Jay Gould, in the essay “Darwin’s Delay,”⁸ writes that the reason for the late publication of Darwin’s Origin was not simply the timely accumulation of data, or refinement of the theory (although, of course, this would have occurred in those twenty-eight years), for after his return from the Beagle‘s voyage he devoted eight years to the writing of four weighty tomes on barnacles! Darwin later wrote that he “doubt[ed] whether the work was worth the consumption of so much time.” Gould writes that “the negative effect of fear must have played at least as great a role as the positive need for additional documentation.”

But what was Darwin afraid of? Not, as is commonly thought, of revealing his belief in the heresy of evolution, as this was “a very common heresy during the nineteenth century,” but his fear of revealing his materialism. “No notion could be more upsetting to the deepest traditions of of Western thought than the statement that the mind – however complex and powerful – is simply a product of brain.”⁹ From Darwin’s notebooks it is evident that he was materialistically inclined, whilst his friend and co-discoverer of natural selection, Alfred Russel Wallace, could not bring himself to admit materialism, and insisted that the human mind was divinely contrived. It was not simply collecting data that caused Darwin to delay, but the intolerance which would be shown him were he to admit such a philosophical view.

(We can wonder whether the Origin would have been published if Darwin had not wished to publish his findings before Wallace beat him to it. (Darwin had intended to to lay out his theory in a collection of detailed volumes, rather than in the few-hundred pages of the Origin.))

References

¹ McGrath, A. (2005). Dawkins’ God: genes, memes, and the meaning of life. (Blackwell: Oxford).

² Schrödinger, E. (1967). What is life? mind and matter. (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge). quoted in Ridley, M. (1999). Genome: the autobiography of a species in 23 chapters. (Fourth Estate Limited: London). p.14

³ ibid. p.48.

⁴ Human Genome Management Information System. (2008). “What is the Human Genome Project”. [online] http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/project/about.shtml [Accessed 24th April 2011]

⁵ Alexander, D. (2008). Creation or evolution: do we have to choose? (Monarch books: Oxford).

⁶ National Human Genome Research Institute. (2010). “Chromosome abnormalities”. [online] http://www.genome.gov/11508982 [Accessed 25th April 2010]

⁷ Dawkins, R. (2009). The greatest show on earth: the evidence for evolution. (London: Bantam Press). p.426.

⁸ Gould, S. J. (1977). “Darwin’s Delay”, in Ever since Darwin: reflections in natural history. (New York: Norton).

⁹ ibid. p.23.

~

Francis Smallwood, 2011