Dumping Grounds

Unless you have been under a rock, you have heard of the trial that opened in Harrisburg, Pa. this week, concerning school curriculums and whether or not intelligent design has any place in the biology classes of the Dover school district. Currently, the district recommends an alternate textbook that presents the ideas surrounding intelligent design. 11 parents, backed by the ACLU, are suing the Dover School district for presenting â??religious conceptsâ? during class, thereby violating the Constitutional requirement of separation of church and state.

Dover became the first district in the entire nation to require its teachers to question the scientific validity of the theory of evolution and present intelligent design as an alternative. Teachers were required to state that â??The theory [of evolution] is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence, intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view.â? Teachers were not required to point out that not only is there no evidence that backs intelligent design, but that the idea itself is inherently untestable.

Pennsylvania is not the only place that the debate has been front and center. The Kansas Board of Education is considering changes that would â??encourageâ? the teaching of intelligent design in all Kansas schools. In Washington, the President sparked a firestorm of reaction when he seemed to endorse the teaching of intelligent design in schools, while refusing to state his own beliefs on the matter. However, while Bush was Governor of Texas, he supported the teaching of both the theory of evolution and creationism in Texas schools.

What is Intelligent Design?

So what is all the uproar about? What exactly is the idea of intelligent design? Very simply, it is the idea that the world, and all the living beings in it, is too complex to have arisen through the mechanisms espoused by Darwin, namely mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection. Therefore, life, while millions of years old, has been created and guided by an unseen hand, an unspecified intelligence. The specific nature of this intelligence is unknowable, but the theory is most often espoused by those who believe that the guiding force is the Christian God. The phrase â??intelligent designâ? was first used in this context in 1989 in the creationist textbook Of Pandas and People and was further popularized by Phillip E. Johnson in his 1991 book Darwin on Trial. The concept itself has been around for centuries, and was presented in Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica in the 13th century.

The modern idea of intelligent design is built around three principal concepts: irreducible complexity, specified complexity and that of a fine-tuned universe. Each of these concepts boils down to the basic tenet that it is so terribly unlikely that we exist, that some outside influence must have caused it to happen.

Irreducible complexity was introduced in 1996 by Michael Behe in his book Darwin’s Black Box. He defines it as

â??…a single system which is 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.â?

In effect, he proposes the idea that if there are multiple elements of a complex system that work together (and require each other to operate) that have no use by themselves, there is no mechanism that will cause that entire system to evolve. Among other examples, he cites the immune system as a set of parts which provide no advantage individually, but together give a tremendous benefit. Evolution, he says, cannot provide support for the intermediate pieces, and therefore provides no mechanism for the development of complex systems.

The problem with this argument is that many systems cited in his book as examples of irreducible complexity have been shown, through scientific method, to be reducible after all. As a matter of fact, all three of the biological examples that Behe used in his book, the immune system, blood clotting, and the flagellum, have been shown to be reducible. Beyond that, Niall Shanks and Karl H. Joplin have shown that evolution can produce irreducibly complex mechanisms that satisfy Behe’s decription of irreducable complexity. In their research they have concluded that biological mechanisms develop â??redundant complexityâ? and that Behe greatly overestimated the importance of irreducable complexity because his biological models were far too simple.

Personally, I don’t find it difficult to imagine that a complex system such as an eyeball could be the result of millions of generations of imperfect genetic reproduction (in effect, mistakes) because of natural selection. Those â??mistakesâ? that do not hinder the performance of the organism, and when several â??mistakesâ? align to provide an advantage, those organisms will become more successful, and prolific. Somehow I think that Behe simply underestimates how long life has been on Earth, and how long natural selection has had to operate. No one ever said that evolution was an efficient process.

Specified Complexity is the idea that if something is both specified and complex, it must have arisen through the influence of some intelligent cause. Did that make any sense to you? It didn’t to me, either. The example that the creator, William Dembski, cites, is as follows:

â??A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified.â? (Intelligent Design, p. 47)

The problem is that he simply defines anything as terribly unlikely to be CSI (complex specified information). Although he cites an awful lot of mathematics, many scholars argue that his reasoning is fatally flawed. For instance: It is terribly unlikely that I will ever win the lottery. However, it is downright probable that someone will win the lottery. To put this in evolutionary terms… it is terribly unlikely that humans would have evolved. But it is certainly more likely that something would have evolved. Much like the lottery, although any given outcome is extremely improbable, the fact that there are winning numbers happens all the time.

Personally, I do not find the argument of specified complexity compelling in any way whatsoever. It seems to miss the point, at least to me.

The concept of a fine tuned universe is closely related to that of specified complexity, in that it concerns ideas that proponents regard as incredibly unlikely. The idea is that the universe was not likely to have had all the features necessary for life to arise. There has not been much mainstream discussion of this idea, and it clearly the weakest of the three major tenets of intelligent design.

Criticism of this idea is widespread and compelling. Again I cite the lottery example: possibly it is unlikely for a universe to have arisen that allows us, but it is not unlikely that a universe would arise that allows someone. But, even this turns out not to be true, as Stephen Hawking and James Hartle have shown that from the conditions immediately following the Big Bang, there are a number of types of universes that could have formed. The type of universe that we live in will be formed over 90% of the time, however. So maybe the universe that we live in is not a long shot at all. I’m terribly biased, but I am going to believe the calculations of the preeminent physicist of our time before I believe many of the â??scientificâ? conclusions cited above.

If one is going to be a proponent of intelligent design, one has to have some idea as to what the intelligent force behind the creation of life is. As I cited earlier, this idea is commonly put forth by conservative Christians. Of course, there are other ideas: aliens (proposed by the Raelian movement, and some UFO conspiracy buffs), or through panspermia (an idea first proposed around 430 BCE, by Anaxagoras, and later used to explain why all the aliens look alike in Star Trek). Of course, neither of these alternate ideas propose an intelligence capable of creating the fine-tuned universe, nor do they answer the question of â??who made the aliens?â?

I have found it curious that the conservative Christians who back teaching intelligent design in the schools are the same people (usually) who believe in the literal truth of the Bible, and also who absolutely believe in the omnipotence and omniscience of God. Intelligent design is completely incompatible with first and last of these ideas, and is on dubious ground with the idea of omnipotence.

If you are going to back intelligent design, the very first thing you have to do is admit that the creation story in Genesis is not true. Not only is it not literal, it is flat out wrong. Intelligent design absolutely admits that life forms evolve, just that it is the hand of God, and not natural selection, that provides the impetus for change. This is not how Genesis reads. Not even if you try to take Genesis as figurative can you get any idea of evolving life forms from the first chapters of the Bible.

The strange thing is, though, intelligent design seems to imply that the guiding force is not quite sure what they are doing. Species go extinct, it took several tries to make modern man from a prehistoric chimpanzee, and you must admit that something designed the platypus on purpose. (Yeah, that was a little humor… is anyone still reading this far? Trust me, the best stuff is coming up.)

Personally, I have long felt that the idea of an omniscient God didn’t make sense to me… if God knows everything, then he not only knows how to create the universe, but he also knows how every event in the past 14 billion years (and in the next 14 billion) was going to turn out beforehand.

If that is the case, then why did He bother? What is the point if you know exactly how it is going to turn out? A phrase I like to use is: I give God more credit than that. He doesn’t know how things are going to turn out, we’re not predestined. He’s not omniscient. Of course, that’s just my opinion, I could be wrong.

The only possible interpretation of intelligent design (and I really hate to put it under the same umbrella) that I find compelling (and as a matter of fact, I probably regard as more likely than any other possibility) is the so called Clockmaker hypothesis. The idea is that the universe itself, and all the laws of physics that case it to work, were created by God (very possibly in the Big Bang itself) and then He stepped back to see what would happen. Life arose on Earth (and possibly other places) because of the way the universe was created, but not through the specific action of God. I have no problem with this idea, although I regard it as completely an article of faith, and schools should only concern themselves with the universe as it was created, and not the idea of who or how it was created.

One other idea that unquestionably deserves recognition here is the idea of â??Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (FSM).â? FSM is the creation of Bobby Henderson, who wrote a letter in June 2005 to the Kansas Board of Education in â??supportâ? of intelligent design being taught in the schools.

Mr. Henderson asks that Kansas also require the teaching of â??otherâ? theories of intelligent design, including FSM, as practiced by â??Pastafarians.â? The tenets of his â??religionâ? are as follows:

• The universe was created by an invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster.
• All evidence pointing to evolutionary mechanisms operating in the world was placed there by the Flying Spaghetti monster.
• No amount of science can disprove the Flying Spaghetti monster, as he continues to guide the universe (and alter test results) with â??His Noodly Appendage.â?
• All instruction as to the FSM theory of intelligent design must be done while wearing full pirate regalia, as â??He becomes angry if we don’t.â?
• Global warming is caused by the decline in the number of pirates worldwide.
• There is documentation of the creation of the universe. Specifically, there is a written account (drawing) showing the FSM, a tree covered mountain, and a midgit [sic].

While many people find the FSM movement simply hilarious, it is very important to remember… there is exactly the same amount (and type) of evidence supporting FSM-ism as there is intelligent design guided by the Christian God.

My point being that is is a matter of faith, not science, and as such, does not belong in a school curriculum.

faith - n. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

There is no material evidence for FSM, just as there is no material evidence for intelligent design. The guiding force is unknowable, invisible, and undetectable. It is, therefore, a matter of faith.

For those few of you still reading (this is the first blog entry I have ever written that I outlined beforehand, and consequently, I am fairly certain it is my longest entry ever) you may be wondering why I care? First of all, I have no children, so I’m not concerned about what they might be exposed to in the schools. Second of all, as I have already discussed, I am a Christian, and have no problem with the idea of a Creator. (Just to be clear, though, I have huge problems with the idea that the Creator then became a guiding force in the day to day operation of the universe.)

I care because I feel that this public debate is indicative of a larger issue in our society. An issue that has subtlely creeped into our daily lives, into our government, and into our schools. An issue that, believe it or not, at the very forefront of the possible adoption of a constitution in Iraq.

The idea that America is creeping ever closer to a fundamentalist government, of exactly the type we would like to prevent in Iraq. Can you imagine a non-Christian getting elected President? I can’t. Do you think that even 15 years ago the idea of an American President endorsing the idea of teaching fundamentalist Christian ideas instead of Darwin in science class would have been met with such… apathy? I don’t. Current public opinion is swinging toward support for tighter integration of Christian faith and our government.

Even as a Christian, this terrifies me.

Please explain to me how a fundamentalist Muslim government is bad, and a fundamentalist Christian government is good.

• Fundamentalist Muslim law is bad, because it opresses women and denies them basic rights. (Fundamentalist Christian government oppresses homosexuals and denies them basic rights, but that’s ok.)
• Fundamentalist Muslim governments fund terrorism, which kills thousands of Americans (Fundamentalist Christian governments fund invasions, which kill hundreds of thousands of Afghans and Iraqis)
• Fundamentalist Muslim governments oppress minority denominations, and kill them if they continue to insist upon representation (The minorities counter attack, further escalating hostilities) (Oh, wait… Christian governments do the same thing)

I’ll be fair. It’s been 120 years since Mormons and mainstream Protestant Christians have killed each other in cold blood. But it did happen. How is that different that the Shiite and Sunni muslims killing each other in Iraq?

I am sure that some of you reading this think that I am over-reacting, but the first amendment reads, in part:

â??Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereofâ?

and I feel that the endorsement of faith-based ideas in the schools is certainly the first step to the establishment of an official religion. Maybe not a huge step, but it is a step nonetheless. Once any piece of the Bill of Rights is breached, all of the others are on shaky ground.

Parents who feel strongly that they want their children to receive religious instruction in their school have a perfectly viable option: private school. Or home schooling. Those that cannot afford private school have every moment outside school from the time their children wake up until they go to bed at night for spiritual instruction. That is what being a parent is all about. Be involved. Don’t ever forget that the most influential person, the most important teacher, in your child’s life, is you.

If you bothered to read this far, post a comment. Moreso than anything I have written in a long time, this topic warrants a debate. I’m interested in what you think. Liz, I know you are busy, so you are exempted

Comments RSS

Name (required)

Mail (hidden) (required)

Website