CREATIONISM, EVOLUTION, AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN

CREATIONISM, EVOLUTION, AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN

Associate Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
A seminar given to the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Dec. 14, 2005 Revised and updated, March 2006 Thomas J. Wheeler, PhD Associate Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Some slides (especially concerning intelligent design) are based on slides provided by: Eugenie C. Scott, National Center for Science Education Glenn Branch, National Center for Science Education Chris Thompson, University of Washington Karen Bartelt, Eureka College Some slides are based on overhead transparencies originally prepared with Frank Lovell.

"More on Creationists and Meteoritic Dust” Creation/Evolution Newsletter 7, No. 4, 14-15 (1987)
In: Reviews of Creationist Books (L.R. Hughes, ed.), pp National Center for Science Education, Reprinted in Appleman, P. (ed.) Darwin (3rd ed.) (Norton Critical Editions), 2000 I have been involved in dealing with creationism for a long time – these are some articles I have written. Creation/Evolution 13(2), (1993) Reports of the National Center for Science Education 19(5), (1999)

OUTLINE Introduction – position statements, polls and news
Definitions – evolution, creationism; views of some religious groups Creationism – young-Earth, old-Earth The evidence for evolution Creationist arguments Creationism and the public schools Intelligent design –positions, critiques; Dover trial Conclusions – impact on teachers; political activities Resources

INTRODUCTION: POSITION STATEMENTS
Professional organizations in the biological sciences stand firmly behind teaching of evolution, and against teaching of “intelligent design.”

Letter to President Bush from Judith Bond,
ASBMB President, Aug. 4, 2005: “Intelligent design" is not a theory in the scientific sense, nor is it a scientific alternative to the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution has survived rigorous scientific scrutiny ever since it was promulgated in the mid-19th century, and is now recognized as one of mankind's greatest intellectual achievements. By contrast, "intelligent design" is not science since it is based on a belief that is inherently untestable--that is, that some unknown intelligence created life on earth… The overwhelming majority of scientists, including many who are people of faith, strongly support teaching the theory of evolution as how life developed on earth. Injecting untestable explanations for this highly complex phenomenon into science classrooms only confuses the distinction between theology and science, to the detriment of both. ASBMB logo and excerpt used with permission. In this and the next few slides, I want to make the point that while the presentation has my own views on the subject, it lies firmly within the public positions of scientific organizations to which some of us belong.

Board resolution on intelligent design, Oct. 2002:
Recognizing that the "intelligent design theory" represents a challenge to the quality of science education, the Board of Directors of the AAAS unanimously adopts the following resolution: Whereas, ID proponents claim that contemporary evolutionary theory is incapable of explaining the origin of the diversity of living organisms; Whereas, to date, the ID movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution; Whereas, the ID movement has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims; Therefore Be It Resolved, that the lack of scientific warrant for so-called "intelligent design theory" makes it improper to include as a part of science education; Therefore Be Further It Resolved, that AAAS urges citizens across the nation to oppose the establishment of policies that would permit the teaching of "intelligent design theory" as a part of the science curricula of the public schools… AAAS logo and excerpt used with permission.

From “Position Statement: The Teaching of Evolution” (2003)
Policy makers and administrators should not mandate policies requiring the teaching of "creation science" or related concepts, such as so-called "intelligent design," "abrupt appearance," and "arguments against evolution." Administrators also should support teachers against pressure to promote nonscientific views or to diminish or eliminate the study of evolution. This position statement reprinted courtesy of the National Science Teacher’s Association, Arlington, VA,

Press release, Dec. 22, 2005 Posted with permission, Kentucky Academy of Science

INTRODUCTION: POLLS AND NEWS

Polls and News CBS poll reported Oct. 23, 2005: “51% of Americans say God created humans in their present form.” Louisville Courier-Journal poll, Feb. 2000: among Kentuckians, biblical creationism was preferred to evolution by 63% to 23%. October, 1999: Kentucky Education Department substitutes “change over time” for “evolution” in curriculum guidelines.

“STATE OF STATE SCIENCE STANDARDS”
Released by Thomas B. Fordham Institute, Dec. 2005 Concerning Kentucky’s standards: “The gravest lack is the absence of the word ‘evolution.’… We must conclude that the writers tried to get the needed content into the standards and, by omitting that politically fulminating E-word, to suggest to suspicious persons…that it isn't there. For this reason the grade could have been reduced to ‘F,’ but the effort elsewhere, including the actual content of evolutionary biology provided, is strong enough so that we allowed the score-determined grade ‘D’ to stand.” Kentucky section:

Gallup Poll results (1982, 1993, 2004) show that Americans’ views on creationism and evolution have not changed in this period 44 to 47% agreed with the statement that humans were created in their present form within the last 10,000 years 35 to 38% agreed with evolution guided by God 9 to 13% agreed with evolution without God

“Creationism Proponents Already in Classrooms”
A story in the Baltimore Sun by Arthur Hirsch (Nov. 27, 2005) documented sympathy for creationism and intelligent design among high school teachers. Randy Moore (University of Minnesota): “There’s a consistent, a significant number of biology teachers in public schools who are creationists.” More than 2/3 of Kentucky teachers support teaching creationism along with evolution. In 5 states, nearly 20% of teachers do not accept evolution.

This 1976 Kentucky law is still on the books:
Although this law seems to be clearly unconstitutional, it apparently has never been tested in the courts.

President Bush comments on intelligent design
According to a story in The Washington Post, by Peter Baker and Peter Slevin (Aug., 2005), President Bush told reporters “that he believes that intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution as competing theories.” “Both sides ought to be properly taught…so that people can understand what the debate is about,” he said. But according to presidential science advisor John Marburger: “evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology…intelligent design is not a scientific concept”

DEFINITIONS

EVOLUTION vs. EVOLUTION THEORY
Evolution, the diversification of life from earlier forms (common descent) is something that has happened beyond any reasonable doubt. Evolution theory is the set of explanations (mutations, natural selection, geographic isolation, etc.) for how this diversity has come about. It is well-established, but fine points are debated.

Intelligent design advocates fall in a range of beliefs on creationism and evolution. Many of the more vocal advocates are “old Earth” creationists, but some are “young Earth” creationists, and some are probably theistic evolutionists. Note the group labeled “Theistic Evolution.” There are many believers in various religions that also accept evolution. The next few slides will document this point. Used with permission from National Center for Science Education.

EVOLUTION IS NOT ANTI-RELIGIOUS
View of some religious groups

American Jewish Congress Central Conference Of American Rabbis
Some religious groups that have taken positions defending the teaching of evolution and/or attacking inclusion of creationism or intelligent design (from NCSE web site): American Jewish Congress Central Conference Of American Rabbis General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) The General Convention Of The Episcopal Church Roman Catholic Church

Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences (1996)
Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, fresh knowledge has led to the recognition that evolution is more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory. Pope John Paul II Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences (1996)

Intelligent design rejected by leading Vatican astronomer
According to an Associated Press story (Nov. 18, 2005), Rev. George Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory, said that “’intelligent design’ isn’t science and doesn’t belong in science classrooms.”

Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, and an evangelical Christian, said: “From my perspective as a scientist working on the genome, the evidence in favor of evolution is overwhelming.”

Creationists (and intelligent design advocates) attack evolution for its “materialism” or “naturalism.” This attack is inappropriate. Science relies on methodological materialism: when doing science, only naturalistic explanations are considered. There is also philosophical materialism: rejection of the existence of the supernatural. But evolution (like other areas of science) takes no position for or against the supernatural.

CREATIONISM Young-Earth Old-Earth

Young-Earth Creationism
A leading organization promoting young-Earth creationism has been the Institute for Creation Research in California. Henry Morris, former president of the ICR, wrote the creationist textbook, Scientific Creationism. Morris died Feb. 25, 2006.

Young-Earth Creationism
More recently, Answers in Genesis, based in northern Kentucky, has become prominent in the young-Earth creationist movement. This group is led by Ken Ham. Answers in Genesis is currently building a Creation Museum, scheduled to open in 2007.

“SCIENTIFIC” CREATIONISM MODEL
Sudden creation of universe, Earth, and living things a few thousand years ago. Changes only with major “kinds” of life (microevolution); no evolution from one “kind” to another (macroevolution). Humans are a distinct “kind,” unrelated to any other animal. A worldwide flood created most of Earth’s geological strata and fossils. These points are not based on scientific evidence, but on religious faith in the literal truth of Genesis.

The major claims of young-earth creationism have been disproved
The Earth and universe are billions of years old, not a few thousand years old. Evidence comes from geological features, radiodating of rocks, and distant astronomical objects. There has not been a worldwide flood that created most of the fossil record. It cannot explain the order of the fossil record, and many features could not have formed under flood conditions or in only a few years. All forms of life did not appear suddenly at about the same time. They appeared at many different times over billions of years. Humans are not a distinct “kind” of life. We are closely related to apes. Note that the claims of a young Earth are incorrect by six orders of magnitude. Young Earth creationists reject not only modern biology, but also the findings of geology, astronomy, and physics.

Old-Earth Creationism
One leading old-Earth creationist is Dr. Hugh Ross, of the Reasons To Believe ministry

OLD-EARTH CREATIONISM
Accepts the scientific evidence that Earth and universe are billions of years old. Rejects the idea of common descent. However, if common descent is not true, there must have been thousands of creation events spread over billions of years in a pattern that looks like evolution.

THE EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION (COMMON DESCENT, MACROEVOLUTION)
(Among nearly all experts in the biological sciences, there is no doubt that evolution has occurred.)

SOME CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE THAT EVOLUTION HAS OCCURRED
The hierarchy of living things – comparative anatomy, DNA sequences, etc. The fossil record – gradual appearance of living things over billions of years, including intermediate (transitional) forms Biogeography – the distribution of living and fossil plants and animals Vestigial features – useless or altered features reflecting evolutionary history. Embryology – stages of development reflect evolutionary history. Creationism cannot explain these observations. The evidence for evolution is immense; I will just focus on the categories of evidence, with an example of each.

Evolutionary Developmental Biology (“Evo-Devo”)
“Evo-Devo can trace the modifications of structures through vast periods of evolutionary time – to see how fish fins were modified into limbs in terrestrial vertebrates, how successive rounds of innovation and modification crafted mouthparts, poison claws, swimming and feeding appendages, gills, and wings from a simple tube-like walking leg, and how many kinds of eyes have been constructed beginning with a collection of photosensitive cells.” --Sean B. Carroll, Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo One category that has grown in its power in recent years is the study of development at the genetic level.

Evolutionary Developmental Biology (“Evo-Devo”)
“…all complex animals…share a common ‘toolkit’ of ‘master’ genes that govern the formation and patterning of their bodies and body parts…The discovery of the ancient genetic toolkit is irrefutable evidence of the descent and modification of animals, including humans, from common ancestors.” Sean Carroll Increasingly, we are understanding what it takes to form an organism during development. By comparing the gene expression patterns in different organisms, we will be able to see what is needed in evolution to change one type of organism to another.

In 2005, the sequence of the chimpanzee genome was reported.
EXAMPLE – HUMAN EVOLUTION PHYLOGENY: comparative features show that humans are closely related to the great apes, and, among the great apes, most closely related to the chimpanzees. In 2005, the sequence of the chimpanzee genome was reported. “The papers confirm the astonishing molecular similarities between ourselves and chimpanzees. The average protein differs by only two amino acids, and 29% of proteins are identical…The total genetic difference between humans and chimps, in terms of number of bases, sums to about 4% of the genome.” Science 309, (2005) I will use humans as my example of how the different categories of evidence support evolution.

HUMAN EVOLUTION: FOSSIL RECORD
The fossil record documents an abundance of forms that, over millions of years, gradually change from more ape-like to more human-like. See, for example, the chart found in Nature 422, (24 April 2003). BIOGEOGRAPHY: As Darwin predicted, these fossils are found in Africa, near our closest relatives, the great apes.

HUMAN EVOLUTION - EVIDENCE FROM:
EMBRYOLOGY The embryo has a notochord, which later disappears Pharyngeal pouches, similar to gill pouches, develop Three separate sets of kidneys develop The eyes form at the side of the head, then shift to the front A tail develops, then regresses VESTIGIAL FEATURES Muscles to move our tails Appendix

Creationism is not supported by evidence
For the most part, creationists do not attempt to present positive evidence for creationism. Mostly they present negative arguments, attacking evolution The only positive argument is that living things appear to be well-designed. (Discussed later with intelligent design)

Popular creationist arguments have been refuted by experts
No transitional forms Gaps in the fossil record Second Law of Thermodynamics Probability arguments Humans and dinosaurs living together Out of sequence geological strata Dust on the moon Decline in Earth’s magnetic field Salt in the ocean Evolution is in chaos

Scientists have considered the hypotheses proposed by creation science and have rejected them because of a lack of evidence. Furthermore, the claims of creation science do not refer to natural causes and cannot be subject to meaningful tests, so they do not qualify as scientific hypotheses. National Academy of Sciences, 1999

Creationism vs. evolution: a religious and social controversy, not a scientific controversy
There is no significant doubt within the scientific community that evolution has occurred. Creationists take their case to the general public, not the scientific community Creationism is promoted largely by religious organizations Creationist materials are filled with religious arguments and Biblical references.

As the last two presidential elections showed, people who are concerned about the social issues shown at upper right represent a powerful voting bloc. When they are convinced that belief in evolution is responsible for such trends, this has a great impact on public school science education. Slide from Answers in Genesis

CREATIONISM AND THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Arkansas and Louisiana cases Kansas standards Georgia stickers Santorum amendment Academic freedom (Intelligent design, Dover later) The next section of the presentation will deal with these selected events and issues concerning the public schools.

The First Amendment (1791):
…Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof … The Lemon Test (1971): the government’s action must have a secular purpose; the primary effect of the government’s action must neither promote nor inhibit religion; and the government’s action must not excessively entangle it with religion Court cases concerning creationism and evolution focus on the First Amendment “establishment clause.” The “Lemon Test,” named for a Supreme Court decision, has been used by federal courts to decide if a government action violates the First Amendment.

1. Banning evolution Antievolution laws 1919-1927
(Notes from National Center for Science Education staff) It’s an old problem—so old that in fact we’re living in the third major phase of antievolutionism now. Each phase is in reaction to a sudden improvement in the quality of evolution education. The first phase, for example, followed in reaction to evolution’s being included in high school textbooks, in high schools that for the first time were trying to impart more than readin’, ritin’, and ‘rithmetic to an increasingly larger audience. It took the forms of attempts to ban evolution, most famously in the Butler Act under which Scopes was prosecuted. Without going into historical details, these laws were enacted in several states in the 20s, and thereafter there was little action until the 60s, when they were widely ignored, repealed, or – with the Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards v. Aguillard (1968) – ruled to be unconstitutional. We needn’t dwell on this phase further. Epperson vs Arkansas - invalidated Arkansas statute that prohibited teaching of evolution.

2. Seeking “equal time” “Creation science” 1961-1987
TJW notes: with the courts ruling that states could not ban teaching of evolution, a new strategy arose, that of teaching evolution alongside so-called “creation science.” Notes by NCSE staff: Evolution re-entered the classrooms nationally after a Cold-War-fuelled reinvigoration of public school science education. With evolution back in the classroom, it was only a matter of time before creationism made its comeback. And it did so in…

Judge Overton in McLean v. Arkansas (1982):
… the evidence is overwhelming that both the purpose and effect of Act 590 is the advancement of religion in the public schools. Ruled that creation “science” is not science. An equal time for “creation science” law in Arkansas was thrown out by a federal judge in 1982. Notes from NCSE: And Judge Overton found that Act 590 indeed violated two of the prongs of the Lemon test.

Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987 – struck down Louisiana law requiring“equal time” for creation science. The law was endorsing a particular religion.

Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987 … teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done … --Justice Brennan The people of Louisiana … are quite entitled, as a secular matter, to have whatever scientific evidence there may be against evolution presented in their schools… -Justice Scalia (dissenting) Notes from TJW: Two of the opinions of the justices in the Louisiana creationism case left potential openings for creationism advocates to use in getting their views into public schools. Notes from NCSE: One was the idea of further disinfecting creationism – which had already been renamed “scientific creationism” and “creation science” – of its overtly religious content. Such innovations as “abrupt appearance theory” and “initial appearance theory” swiftly came and went, but the version with the most staying power was “intelligent design theory.” I’ll return to this shortly.

Consequences of Edwards Decision
“Scientific alternatives to evolution” - “abrupt appearance theory” - “intelligent design theory” (but these are not scientific) “Evidence against evolution” (but there is no evidence that casts serious doubt on evolution) “Teach the controversy” (but evolution is not controversial among scientists) Some of the strategies that were adopted after it was ruled that “creation science” could not be taught.

Politics and ID: Kansas
1999 – Kansas Board of Education deletes evolution from science curriculum 2001 – changes in Board lead to restoration of evolution 2002 and 2004 – elections lead to more conservative Board 2005 – after months of deliberation, in November the Board votes 6-4 to institute changes that are critical of evolution. The Board also decides to redefine science, so that it would not be limited to natural explanations. 2006 – candidates on both sides prepare for the next round of elections.

Disclaimers/Textbooks
Alabama - "This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory…No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered as theory, not fact." Texas - BOE proposed replacing all biology textbooks with new ones that did not mention evolution. Oklahoma disclaimer- similar to Alabama's Mattoon, IL - school board rejects textbooks because of evolutionary content (later reversed) 2001 Cobb County, GA - disclaimers in HS biology and middle school science texts. I will focus on the last example, Cobb County, Georgia.

This textbook contains material on evolution
This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered. Cobb County, GA, 2002

Cobb County, Georgia, stickers
Subject of federal court case. Outcome: stickers ruled unconstitutional, January 2005 (hearing of appeal begins, December 2005)

Politics and ID: Santorum Amendment
June Sen. Rick Santorum (R, PA) proposes amendment to the No Child Left Behind bill. (Amendment drafted by Phillip Johnson, a leader of the intelligent design movement) It is the sense of the Senate that– (1) good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; and (2) where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject.

The Santorum amendment
Passed 98-1, but went to conference committee, where it was deleted. Some language from the original amendment is in a committee report, which has no force of law. However, creationists sometimes cite this amendment as if it were a law.

Academic freedom issues
Considered to apply to right of college and university professors to perform research and publish in areas of choice. “Academic freedom is not a license to teach anything you like.” – Kenneth Knight, AAUP. For high school science classes, issues are appropriateness (e.g., must be science, not religion) and competence (in accord with what the scientific community considers good science) Peloza case (1991): “Teachers do no have a constitutional right to teach or not teach certain subjects based on their personal views.” John Peloza, a California high school teacher, sued his school district, claiming that he was being forced to teach evolution and prevented from discussing his religious beliefs.

Evolution of Creationism
Intelligent Design Flat-Earthism Geocentricism YECism OECism Bible Free Old Earth TIME TRAITS Heliocentricism Earth Round Last Common Ancestor

The argument from design (William Paley, Natural Theology, 1802)
Notes from NCSE staff: Along came “intelligent design.” Its pedigree is complicated. In spirit, it goes back to the tradition of British natural theology, which had its culmination with William Paley’s Natural Theology (1802), which argued that just as a watch’s organization of parts arranged to perform a function bespoke the existence of a watchmaker, so an eye’s organization of parts arranged to perform a function bespoke the existence of an eyemaker—of a Designer.

Refutation of the design argument
Design is only apparent, and can be explained by evolution. There are many things in biology that do not appear to be well designed. Stephen Jay Gould popularized the argument of the panda’s “thumb,” a modification of a wrist bone that serves the function of an opposable thumb. It doesn’t look well-designed, but it works.

Refutation of the design argument
The biological arms race Parasites Arms race: many organisms have elaborate structures and mechanisms to help them capture prey. Prey organisms in turn have complex defense mechanisms. If this was all designed, whose side is the designer on? Some parasites have extremely complex lifestyles. For example, Plasmodium, the organism that causes malaria: Was this all designed? If so, why?

How does “intelligent design” differ from the classical design argument?
Discoveries in biochemistry and molecular biology reveal far greater complexity than previously thought, and it is claimed this could not have evolved. (Behe) Claims based on information theory. (Dembski)

Intelligent design: other general aspects
Takes no position on the identify of the designer. Takes no position on the age of the Earth (though most leading advocates are old-Earth). Could include progressive creationism (intervention at multiple times to create new species or features) and theistic evolution (common descent, but with special intervention needed to create some complex features). Component of “cultural renewal,” seeking to remove strict naturalism from science.

Minor players in ID Paul Nelson – Young-Earth creationist
Stephen Meyer – Exec. Dir. Of the C(R)SC Guillermo Gonzalez – Astronomer at Iowa State Alvin Plantinga – Theologian at Notre Dame David DeWolf – Law Professor at Gonzaga U. John Calvert – Lawyer, Dir of ID Network Scott Minich – Microbiologist, University of Idaho

But mostly we just hear about four individuals:
Philip Johnson – lawyer Michael Behe – biochemist Jonathan Wells – trained in molecular and cell biology William Dembski – mathematician Only two of these have trained in relevant areas (one of them only to the postdoc level). Is this a scientific movement that deserves to be included in high school science classes?

Major players in ID

The Discovery Institute
Conservative Seattle think tank run by former Reagan adviser Bruce Chapman DI establishes the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture - funds whole ID movement - $1 million/year $2.8 M through 2003 from Howard Ahmanson and Fieldstead and Co. (Christian reconstructionist movement) Center for Science and Culture (previously Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture) Goals: To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies. To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God. CRSC web site, Oct. 1999

The Wedge A document detailing the plans and strategies of the CRSC to reform science. “If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a ‘wedge’ that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points.” (Wedge document) Phases: 1. Research; 2. Publicity and Opinion-Making; 3. Cultural Confrontation and Renewal For the Discovery Institute’s view of the Wedge Document, see (pdf file):

Foundation for Thought and Ethics
Publisher, Of Pandas and People, the intelligent design textbook Has other intelligent design publications as well William Dembski, Senior Fellow, Center for Science and Culture, is Academic Editor.

Role in ID: Tear down the “evil” that is naturalism
Major players in ID: Philip Johnson Professor of Law (emeritus), Berkeley Books: Darwin on Trial The Wedge of Truth Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds Reason in the Balance Presumed author of the “wedge document” Role in ID: Tear down the “evil” that is naturalism

Role in ID: Poke holes in the best known examples of evolution
Major players in ID: Jonathan Wells Book: Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? PhD from Berkley, Yale Reverend in the True Parents Organization (Unification Church) Role in ID: Poke holes in the best known examples of evolution

“Icons of Evolution” Logic
Textbooks illustrate evolution with examples 2. Examples are flawed/misleading or fraudulent 3. Therefore evolution is false/bad science #3 does not follow from 2; #2 is not generally true!

This article provides a refutation of Icons of Evolution.

Major players in ID: William Dembski
Books: The Design Inference; No Free Lunch Doctorates in mathematics and philosophy, and master of divinity degree Recently joined the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, where he heads a new Center for Science and Theology Accepts that the Earth is billions of years old “I do believe that organisms have undergone some change in the course of natural history (though I believe that this change has occurred within strict limits and that human beings were specially created).”

William Dembski’s “Explanatory Filter”
The filter is presented as a flowchart for assessing the cause of an event. If the event is “highly probable” it could be due to natural law. If it is of “intermediate probability” it could be due to chance. If it is of “small probability” but not “specified,” it could be due to chance. If it is of “small probability” and “specified,” it must be due to design. see:

Some flaws in the explanatory filter (Mark Perakh, Skeptic, Nov. 2005)
We can’t assign probability without knowing the cause Most events arise from a combination of causes Specification is related to probability, not a separate feature Hasn’t been shown to work; only examples are where answer already known. It is simply an argument from improbability.

Another book by Dembski: No Free Lunch
“In No Free Lunch I argue that material systems are not capable of organizing themselves into complex specified structures apart from intelligence.” NFL refers to certain theorems in optimization theory, related to search algorithms and fitness functions. NFL says that a given algorithm does no better than another when averaged over all fitness landscapes. Dembski claims that, therefore, evolution can do no better than a random search – which isn’t good enough. But an algorithm can do better than random in specific fitness landscapes, such as encountered in evolution. Moreover, evolution does not have a prespecified target.

Critique by David Wolpert, co-author of the No Free Lunch theorems:
"…his (Dembski's) arguments are fatally flawed and imprecise…All one can do is squint, furrow one's brows, and then shrug." "…neo-Darwinian evolution of ecosystems does not involve a set of genomes searching the same fitness function, the situation considered by the NFL theorems…recent results indicate that NFL results do not hold in co-evolution." Lack of peer review: Dembski claims to have made revolutionary discoveries. “He has even been hailed by one of his allies in the Discovery Institute as ‘the Isaac Newton of information theory.' Yet his work on these subjects has not appeared in any journal of statistics or information theory, and, as far as I can determine, not one professional statistician or information theorist has approved of this work.“ – Richard Wein Source for Wolpert quote: review for the American Mathematical Society, 2003.

Conclusion of philosopher of science Michael Ruse: “Dembski is ‘just plain wrong.’”
Pennock, Science 301, 1051 (2003)

Major players in ID: Michael Behe
Book: Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution Professor at Lehigh University Popularized “Irreducible Complexity” (Supports common descent)

Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box
Major argument in ID: Irreducible Complexity “By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box The bacterial flagellar rotor is a complex assembly of proteins that spans the inner and outer membranes. As protons cross the inner membrane, the energy is used to spin the flagellum. This is the favorite example used by Behe and other intelligent design proponents. The Bacterial Flagellum: ID’s mascot

BEHE’S EXAMPLES OF IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY
Molecular motors: bacterial flagella; cilia Blood clotting cascade Protein trafficking Immune system Metabolic pathways Despite his claims in Darwin’s Black Box, there were many papers on the evolution of the systems he discusses. Plausible evolutionary pathways have been proposed, even if all of the steps are not known.

Scientists respond to Behe
Simpler systems may exist in some organisms, showing that the structures are not irreducibly complex. Complex features can arise from simpler precursors. Eventually all parts may be indispensable, but this need not have been true in earlier stages. Co-optation: structures that have one function can be recruited to take on new functions. Considerable evidence indicates that proteins involved in complex pathways and structures have evolved from other proteins. Darwin's Black Box is nothing more than an argument from personal incredulity: Behe can’t imagine how a flagellum could have been produced via natural selection, therefore, the flagellum is the product of intelligent design!

Intelligent design arguments are simply negative arguments against evolution:
Supposed disproofs of evolution (irreducible complexity, information): experts agree that these arguments are flawed and do not disprove evolution Probability arguments: but we cannot assess the probability without knowing in detail all possible evolutionary scenarios

Behe responds by changing arguments:
“’I quite agree that my argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof,’ he says – though he continues to believe that Darwinian paths to irreducible complexity are exceedingly unlikely. “Behe and his followers now emphasize that, while irreducibly complex systems can in principle evolve, biologists can’t reconstruct in convincing detail just how any such system did evolve.” H. Allen Orr, The New Yorker, May 30, 2005

Many flagellar proteins are homologous to proteins in the Type III secretion apparatus.
Bacterial flagella (colors indicate conserved functions; proteins do not necessarily have homologous sequences) In this section I look at some of Behe’s examples of supposed “irreducible complexity.” For a discussion of the evolution of flagella, see: “Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum,” by N. J. Matzke Blocker, Ariel et al. (2003) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100, Copyright 2003 National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. Used with permission. Possible evolutionary scenarios have been proposed in which a primitive export pore changes to an active secretion system; acquires an adhesion function; develops a pilus, which becomes a flagellum; acquires regulatory and switching mechanisms, etc. Function changes from export to secretion to adhesion to motility.

Blood clotting Prothrombin and factors X, IX, XI, and VII are homologous. A proposed scenario (Miller, Finding Darwin’s God): A plasma serine protease (zymogen form), when exposed to damaged tissue, can get activated, cutting proteins nonspecifically and producing clot. Addition of an EGF domain allows cellular binding. A fibrinogen-like protein is recruited to be the target of the proteolysis. The original protease is autocatalytic, but by gene duplication an activating protease can be added. The cascade is extended backward. Further levels of control are added.

Immune system Innate immune system: found in all multicellular organisms. Adaptive or antibody-based immune system: restricted to jawed vertebrates.

Emergence of the organs, cells, and molecules of the AIS during the evolution of chordates
Black = fully developed Shaded = ancestral form Light = not known The components of the adaptive immune system have been added gradually during evolution. The system is not irreducibly complex. Klein, Jan and Nikolaidis, Nikolas (2005) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102, Copyright 2005 National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. Used with permission. Copyright ©2005 by the National Academy of Sciences

Hypothetical scenario for the emergence of the major histocompatibility, T cell receptor, and B cell receptor molecules by gradual evolution, which encompassed modification of preexisting domains, joining together of different domains, and possibly generation of new domain designs Proteins of the immune system have evolved. They contain domains that are found in many other proteins. Klein, Jan and Nikolaidis, Nikolas (2005) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102, Copyright 2005 National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. Used with permission. Copyright ©2005 by the National Academy of Sciences

Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. Darwin on the eye: To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree… Behe did not use the eye as one of his molecular examples, since it involves anatomical structures as well, but it is frequently cited as something that supposedly is too complex to have evolved. Some creationists like to quote the passage on the left, suggesting that Darwin doubted that evolution could explain the eye. However, he raised this as a rhetorical point. As explained in the continuation on the right, he felt that evolution could in fact produce the eye. The chapter containing the quotes can be found at:

Evolution of the eye Possible stages in evolution of the eye, as indicated by eyes in existing organisms. Photosensitive epithelium Simple eye cup (some gastropods) A deeper cup, providing directional information (many annelids and gastropods) Further toward a pinhole eye (some molluscs) Refractive lens, resulting from increased protein concentration (some gastropods) Flat, pigmented iris surrounding the lens allows for better focusing (fish, squids; some gastropods, annelids, and crustaceans) (from Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology) See figure at: The fact that these eyes are functional in different organisms despite not having all the features of complex eyes shows that eyes are not irreducibly complex.

Evolution of the eye: two recent papers on eye proteins
1. C-Opsin found in light-sensitive cells in the brain of Platynereis, a marine worm (Arendt et al. (2004) Science 306, ) Figure used with permission, American Association for the Advancement of Science. The data indicate that in the last common ancestor of animals with bilateral symmetry, both the r- and c-type opsins (along with corresponding types of photoreceptor cells) were present. In the resulting vertebrate and invertebrate lineages, different types of photoreceptors evolved as the basis of the visual system. Even if we don’t know the details of how it evolved, the molecular evidence clearly shows that the eye did evolve. r-opsin = rhabdomeric (invertebrates); c-opsin = ciliary (vertebrates)

Evolution of the eye: two recent papers on eye proteins
2. βγ-Crystallin was found in Ciona, a urochordate (which does not have a lens) (Shimeid et al. (2005) Current Biology 15, ). “The conservation of the regulatory hierarchy controlling βγ-crystallin expression between organisms with and without a lens shows that the evolutionary origin of the lens was based on co-option of pre-existing regulatory circuits controlling the expression of a key structural gene in a primitive light-sensing system.”

Evolution of complex structures: summary
We do not know in complete detail how these structures evolved. However, plausible scenarios have been proposed. Simpler systems are found in some organisms, demonstrating that they are not irreducibly complex. Moreover, the molecular evidence indicates that these structures did evolve. In no case have researchers reached an impasse to further understanding of how the structures may have evolved.

The problem with accepting the evolution of complex features
It is difficult (especially for people not trained in science) to imagine the power of the immense number of replicating organisms, taken over millions of years, to produce cumulative changes. But there are many things that are true yet beyond our ability to comprehend: Examples: the universe is about 14 billion years old and contains about 1076 atoms. The human body has about 1014 cells. An estimated 1030 bacteria live on Earth. Given the immense numbers of bacteria, how can one conclude that over many millions of years it would not have been possible to evolve something as complex as the flagellar rotor?

Recent books providing critiques of intelligent design
Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism (Robert T. Pennock) Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives (Robert T. Pennock, ed.) Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design (Barbara Forrest & Paul R. Gross) Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction (Eugenie C. Scott) Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution (Kenneth R. Miller) Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism (Matt Young and Taner Edis, eds.) Unintelligent Design (Mark Perakh)

Scientific problems with intelligent design:
No concise definition of what is meant by "design.” No consensus on who the "designer” is. No position on when, or how many times, the “designer” acted. No position on the age of the Earth No position on common ancestry. Did evolution occur, with the designer just inserting complex structures and pathways?

No proposed mechanism for “design.” Michael Behe in the Dover trial: In an attempt to pin Professor Behe down, Mr. Rothschild asked, “What is the mechanism that intelligent design is proposing?” Mr. Behe said: “It does not propose a mechanism in the sense of a step-by-step description of how these structures arose.” He added that “the word ‘mechanism’ can be used broadly” and said the mechanism was “intelligent activity.” Laurie Goodstein, New York Times, Oct. 19, 2005

No theory: “Easily the biggest challenge facing the… intelligent design community, is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a big problem. Without a theory it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions and a handful of notions such as irreducible complexity and specified complexity, but as yet no general theory of biological design.” ---Paul Nelson, Touchstone Magazine, Aug. 2004

Many things in biology do not look well-designed. (“Features that strike us as odd in a design might have been placed there by the designer for a reason – for artistic reasons, to show off, for some as-yet undetectable practical purpose, or for some unguessable reason – or they might not.” – Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box.)

No research in support. “In the nearly ten years since the publication of Behe’s book…I.D. has inspired no nontrivial experiments and has provided no surprising insights into biology.” H. Allen Orr, The New Yorker. (In 2005, a peer-review paper was finally published in an obscure journal, but it offered no new evidence or arguments.) “The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses related to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research. ‘They never came in,’ said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president…’From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don’t come out very well in our world of scientific review,’ he said.” – Laurie Goodstein, New York Times, Dec. 4, 2005

Intelligent design is a “science stopper”: if we give up and say something was designed, then we will stop looking to see how it may have evolved. “Science is a philosophy of discovery. Intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance. You cannot build a program of discovery on the assumption that nobody is smart enough to figure out the answer to a problem.” – Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of Hayden Planetarium, Natural History, November 2005.

Even if intelligent design qualified as science, it is not appropriate to teach in school science classes There is virtually no published research in support. It is rejected by nearly all experts in the relevant areas of science. In no other area of science do the schools teach something with so little support among scientists.

“…once you win the scientific consensus, quite automatically you wind up in the curriculum, college courses, and eventually in high school and grade school classes. Intelligent design has been either unable or unwilling to win the scientific consensus, so what you see now is an end run around the scientific process to use political means, state boards of education, curriculum development to inject this into the classroom without winning the scientific consensus…” --Kenneth Miller (Brown University), American Enterprise Institute panel discussion on intelligent design, Oct. 21, 2005

Intelligent design is a religious movement

Johnson admits what ID is really about
"This isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science," said the [Biola] conference's prime mover, law professor Phillip Johnson of the University of California at Berkeley. "It's about religion and philosophy." [Jay Grelen, "Witnesses for the Prosecution,“ World, , (11)26]

Goals of the Discovery Institute, Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (leading promoter of intelligent design): --To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies. --To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that “In the beginning was the Word,” and “In the beginning God created.” Establishing that point isn't enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message. Phillip Johnson (2000). Forward to Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science, Probe Ministries, Grand Rapids, MI. p. 5 "Father's words, my studies, and my prayers, convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. “ Jonathan Wells, Unification Church sermon “…intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information technology.” William Dembski, Touchstone, July/Aug 1999:84.

THE DOVER CASE

Dover, Pennsylvania In 2004, the school board adopted a policy in which biology teachers were to inform students about “gaps/problems” in evolution, and to include intelligent design in the ninth grade curriculum. The intelligent design textbook Of Pandas and People was endorsed as a reference. A lawsuit was filed against the policy, with a federal trial held in late 2005.

DOVER TRIAL Evidence presented in the trial clearly showed that:
The school board wanted to teach creationism. The school board knew that intelligent design is a form of creationism. In November, 2005, eight of the school board members that had supported intelligent design were up for re-election. All were defeated.

This is evidence introduced at the trial, showing that “Of Pandas and People” was changed from a creationist textbook to an intelligent design textbook simply by changing a few terms. Note that in 1987 the Supreme Court ruled against teaching creationism in public schools.

DOVER TRIAL In December 2005, Judge John Jones issued a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs. “After a searching review of the record and applicable case law, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.”

We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980’s; and ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. --Judge John Jones, decision in Dover case

As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. --Judge John Jones, decision in Dover case

IMPACT OF THE DOVER DECISION:
It will now be more difficult to introduce intelligent design in high school classes. In February, 2006, the Ohio Board of Education reversed an anti-evolution policy, partly in response to the Dover decision. Plans to introduce intelligent design legislation in some states were modified after the decision.

LESSONS FROM THE DOVER TRIAL
Creationism provides the driving force. Intelligent design provides a superficially intellectual cover, supposedly free of religious content. Proponents appeal to the idea that it is only fair to admit alternative views.

CONCLUSIONS Impact on teachers Recent political activity

CONCLUSIONS: THE IMPACT ON TEACHERS
In many textbooks, evolution is placed in a chapter near the end, where it is often rushed through (or left out entirely) at the end of the school year. NSTA Survey (March 2005) When asked if they feel pressured to include creationism, intelligent design, or other nonscientific alternatives to evolution in their science classroom, 31% of teachers responding said they did. When asked if they feel pushed to de-emphasize or omit evolution or evolution-related topics from their curriculum, 30% agreed. Notes by NCSE staff: And for every local school district like Dover, we know of dozens – and there must be thousands more – where antievolution is not so blatant but nonetheless exerts a chilling effect. Again, this is a phenomenon that the media has picked up on of late… Even though people who track this have known about it for a long time. An informal NSTA survey in 2005 confirmed previous, more rigorous, studies.

CONCLUSIONS: POLITICAL ACTIVITY
Reports of the National Center for Science Education, Nov-Dec 2004

ANTI-EVOLUTION ACTIVITY IN THE STATES
Notes by NCSE staff: At the state level, there are two main kinds of action. Take a look at this map, which records state-level antievolutionist activity from 2001 to Green states are states with antievolution legislation introduced. In 2005 so far, there have been ten bills introduced in nine states – an up-to-the-minute map would have a green Pennsylvania, too. Although such legislation is, as you see, common, the good news is that it’s rare for it to succeed. Realistically, much of it is apparently introduced as a sop to creationist constituents and is never regarded as having much of a chance: many of these bills die quiet ignominious deaths in committee. More important, we feel, are the other sorts of state-level activity involving boards of state education and state departments of education, here indicated with red slashes. One traditional venue is biology textbooks: in states where there’s a centralized textbook adoption process, like Texas, creationists have typically been out in force during the textbook reviews, protesting the exclusion of creationism and the inclusion of evolution the biology textbooks. A new venue for c/e activity is due to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which imposed new measures to hold schools accountable for their students' progress -- and in the process dramatically expanded the role of standardized testing in American public education – states are required to develop state science standards, sets of guidelines saying what scientific concepts, knowledge, and skills students are expected to have at different points in their public school education. In the hands of knowledgeable and responsible science educators, such standards include evolution as the central unifying principle of biology that it is. But just as the post-Sputnik resurgence of evolution motivated creationists to get out there and fight, so the inclusion of evolution in state science standards motivates them to get out there and fight. And most of the red-slashed states here represent fights over the place of evolution, and religiously motivated pseudoscientific “alternatives” to it, in the state science standards. Expect to see these regularly for the indefinite future.

Antievolution legislation in 2004
Oklahoma HB 2194 Michigan HB 4946, HB 5005 Missouri HB 911 Minnesota HF 2003, SF 1714 Alabama HB 336 Mississippi HB 1288

Antievolution legislation in 2005
Alabama HB 352/SB 240 Arkansas HB 2607 Georgia HB 179 Missouri HB 35 Mississippi HB 2886 Montana HB 1199 Oklahoma SB 719 South Carolina SB 114 Texas HB 220 (textbooks) New York A 3036

Politics: Kentucky In December, it was reported that Republican members of the legislature were interested in intelligent design legislation. In January, Governor Fletcher, in his “State of the Commonwealth” address, said: “So I ask, what is wrong with teaching ‘intelligent design’ in our schools. Under KERA, our school districts have that freedom and I encourage them to do so. This is not a question about faith or religion. It’s about self-evident truth.” At a later news conference, Fletcher said that teaching of intelligent design should be a local decision. No bills related to evolution have been introduced in the 2006 session. (KERA = Kentucky Education Reform Act) Cached copy of Governor Fletcher’s speech: See earlier for law allowing Bible story of creation to be taught. In response to letters critical of his position on intelligent design, Governor Fletcher has been sending out a form letter that shows he links intelligent design with creationism:

Politics: Indiana A November story reported that some Republican Indiana legislators were developing legislation to require teaching of intelligent design. Some of these legislators had met earlier with Carl Baugh, a young-Earth creationist. A January story reported that as a result of the Dover decision, the intelligent design idea was replaced by a bill requiring “accuracy in textbooks.” Baugh appears not to be held in high regard even by most creationists; he has been criticized by Answers in Genesis: “AiG thinks that he’s well meaning but that he unfortunately uses a lot of material that is not sound scientifically. So we advise against relying on any ‘evidence’ he provides, unless supported by creationist organisations with reputations for Biblical and scientific rigour.”

RESOURCES

Crisis center www.NCSEWeb.org
The National Center for Science Education is leading the fight for teaching of evolution in public schools.

Web page used with permission.

Resources The Talk Origins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy TalkDesign.org: Critically Examining the “Intelligent Design” Movement The Panda’s Thumb: Group weblog on evolutionary theory, the claims of the anti-evolution movement, and the defence of the integrity of both science and science education.

CREATIONISM, EVOLUTION, AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "CREATIONISM, EVOLUTION, AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

CREATIONISM, EVOLUTION, AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "CREATIONISM, EVOLUTION, AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback