The University of Maine student newspaper since 1875
About Us
Contact Us
Staff
Donate
home
News
Opinion
Style
Sports
Archives
Print Edition
Last updated: Thursday, May 24, 11:59 a.m.
Columnists | Opinion

Columnist: Intelligent design not adapted for scientific survival

By Tyler Francke
Posted on Dec. 03, 2009, at 1:43 a.m.

The year is nearly over, and one important event has escaped attention in this newspaper: the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species,” widely considered one of the most important scientific works of the past 300 years.

Darwin proposed an elegantly simple explanation for the complexity of life: Species change gradually over time, and the ones that prove best adapted to their environment survive to pass on their genes.

Biologists had discussed evolution for decades before Darwin’s explorations in the Galapagos that led to “The Origin.” However, he introduced the mechanism of natural selection, which was considered unimportant by many until the 1920s but now forms the backbone of the evolutionary synthesis — a union of several biological ideas that is accepted by 99.9 percent of scientists today, according to author Brian Alters, an expert in evolution history and education.

But the case is not yet closed. According to a 2007 Gallup poll, a stunning 43 percent of American adults believe “God created human beings in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years,” a belief that effectively cripples the foundation of modern biology.

Enter Christian evangelist Ray Comfort. Taking advantage of increased public interest in Darwin, he has printed over 100,000 copies of “The Origin” and distributed them at top universities across the country. The catch is a special introduction in each, written by Comfort, that espouses information about the gospel and intelligent design, or ID.

Intelligent design has sought to challenge Darwin’s theory of evolution on scientific grounds, arguing that the complexity and apparent design in nature could only have been produced out of nothing by an intelligent creator. It is ostensibly irreligious, but the majority of its proponents and supporters are, like Comfort, Christians. But not all believers buy it. I’m Christian, and I personally think ID is quite stupid.

ID is not science, which involves observation, hypothesis, experimentation and eventually theory. Evolution has followed this, standing up to rigorous testing and piles of evidence, including fossils, DNA, animal behavior, microbial experiments, phylogenetic studies and biological functions. Furthermore, evolution fits perfectly into the findings of every other discipline, from geology to psychology. ID, on the other hand, is not testable and has gone backwards, starting with a theory and then looking for evidence to support it.

But there is none. ID relies on three tenets: weaknesses in evolutionary theory, the low probability of the unguided appearance of life and irreducible complexity. Clearly, these are not evidential supports but negative arguments — and fallacious ones that presume discrediting evolution proves life poofed into existence by the will of an intelligent agent.

I disagree with atheist biologist Richard Dawkins on many things, but not his frank response to Comfort’s ploy: “There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot.”

Scientists do science, and the evaluation of any scientific proposition should come primarily from them. Scientists aren’t buying the ID position, so proponents have instead been working hard to present directly to the general public.

Scientists can make mistakes, but if the evidence truly didn’t support evolution, it would have been debunked long ago by ambitious insiders eager to make their name as household as Darwin’s.

Comfort’s idea, although clever, abuses the purpose of an introduction, attempting to undermine Darwin’s views with unsubstantiated speculations he never would have supported. However, I would never advocate censorship of an idea. I encourage you to research ID, either through Comfort’s writings or other proponents like Michael Behe, Philip Johnson and William Dembski. I’m confident that an honest and thorough search will bring you to the same place as me: ID has no scientific basis and doesn’t belong in any classroom, whether at a theological seminary or the University of Maine.

Tyler Francke is writing his honors thesis on the history of the science-religion clash and the compatibility of evolution and Christianity.

This entry was posted on Thursday, December 3rd, 2009, 1:43 am. You can follow any responses to this article through the RSS feed.

«
»
  • James E Gambrell

    Mr.Franke,
    Before submitting your thesis please read the works of Karl Popper.
    Science is the best fit in the emperical search for the truth, but the best it can do is to find constant evidence of probilities. Science can never exceed this limit. Absolute facts of actuality may exist but they are past the boundaries of science. If a scientist exceeds this limit he is speculating or acting on his own belief or faith.
    James E Gambrell

  • RickK

    Fortunately the vast majority of Christians accept the truth of evolution, and most would find Comfort’s deceitful and false introduction abhorrent.

    This is a statement signed by over 12,000 Christian CLERGY. These are people that, unlike Comfort, don’t feel they must lie about science to validate their faith:

    “We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children.”

    The full text and names of all signers can be found if you Google “Butler College Clergy Letter”.

  • Tyler

    Cool subject, good article…

  • CCL

    Mr. Francke, I admire how you continue to challenge yourself, and (us) readers, in this forum, when it would be easy to keep it safe. Good luck on your honors thesis.

  • Bill Crenshaw

    So, Mr. Gambrell, could you clarify? I’m not making the connection between what you say and what the article says. Probably my fault, but a little help?

  • mynym

    “Furthermore, evolution fits perfectly into the findings of every other discipline, from geology to psychology.”

    Not only that but evolution seems to fit perfectly with every possible biological observation. Here’s an interesting question, what type of biological observation would falsify the theory of evolution?

  • RickK

    mynym, that’s incredibly easy.

    There are many many ways to arrange molecules to get the same protein shape. Now, if we found an organism that had all the same DNA and proteins as its fellow species, but those proteins were all (or most, or even a significant minority) encoded differently – using different molecular arrangements, that would challenge the existing evidence for “common descent”.

    Or, just one instance of a completely new form arising without any pre-cursors. Or, just one tiny instance of supernatural creation. Or… well, here’s a bunch of ways to falsify evolution:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

    Evolution can be falsified. It just hasn’t – because evolution is not false.

  • mynym

    “Now, if we found an organism that had all the same DNA and proteins as its fellow species, but those proteins were all (or most, or even a significant minority) encoded differently….”

    Finding an organism that had the same DNA with proteins that were encoded differently would not falsify evolution, evolutionary change and convergence could account for the observation. After all, it already accounts for the convergence seen in the eyes of a sandlance and the eyes of a chameleon perfectly well. That’s the way change is. It happens.

    “Or, just one tiny instance of supernatural creation.”

    Given the naturalistic and mechanistic philosophy that gave rise to hypotheses of evolution we cannot allow for a tiny instance of the supernatural or even intelligent design based on sentience of any sort. So it would seem that everything you think that you’re writing is actually caused by brain events shaped by genes which came about as a result of natural selection operating on the excretory organs of ancient ape-like creatures. Indeed, it seems that your thoughts on this subject may as well be excrement. It seems to emerge naturally from some.

    “Evolution can be falsified. It just hasn’t – because evolution is not false.”

    Evolutionary is true like excrement is true, it happens. Given that you cited the charlatans of talk.origins I would assume that by “evolution” you mean orthodox Darwinism. But if Darwinian theory is correct and evolution as we know it comes about mainly by natural selection then why do people use condoms, have abortions and engage in celibacy and altruism? I’m sure that evolution explains it all. Change happens.

    The original poster said that “evolution,” whatever it is, comports perfectly with psychology. It would seem to explain why men are promiscuous, yet also explains why they are monogamous. It explains why people are selfish, yet some imagine that it explains why they are altruistic. And so on. The mental illusion of evidence (e.g. Men are observed to be promiscuous and this verifies evolution.) that hypothetical goo of this sort creates is often said to be overwhelming.

    Talk.origins says: “…it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment.”

    Assuming that you’re specifying the theory of evolution based on Darwinian theory exactly what trajectory of adaptation is predicted by the theory and how has it been verified experimentally in groups of organisms? Those charlatans say that biology is similar to physics and that the “theory” of evolution is similar to the theory of gravity, so it would seem to be a reasonable question. And do the trajectories of adaptation that are supposedly predicted by the “theory” and which have been verified comport with the sort of evolution promoted to the public in textbooks, on PBS, etc.? It would seem that all that the theory of natural selection would predict is preservation and destruction, not the progressive construction typical to evolutionary creation myths.

  • Lee

    “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

    - Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species

    I surely hope that it would not be too burdensome to read that which you attempt to refute…

    If you would be so kind, pray tell me, sir, from whence has the complexity that we observe today arisen?

  • mynym

    Could “not possibly” have been formed? That standard of evidence allows one to cite imaginary evidence. It is similar to arguing: “If I could be shown an organism which I cannot imagine coming about gradually then my theory absolutely breaks down. I can always imagine things about the past, therefore my theory is verified. In fact, it’s overwhelming!”

    Verification of the theory of natural selection refutes this “reasoning,” such as it is. If the reasonable assumption is made that natural selection operated in the past as it operates now then it has always been generally preservative or destructive. It preserves or destroys forms and functions which have already arisen for some other reason and it does not create or originate anything. This is what is observed now and what comports with the fossil record. The constructive creation myths and hypotheses of origins which Darwin imagined in spite of the theory of natural selection are refuted by it.

    “If you would be so kind, pray tell me, sir, from whence has the complexity that we observe today arisen?”

    I do not know but I suspect that the sentience typical to organisms may have something to do with it. That is to say that you can see, know and think and it does little good to deny basic facts of that sort or to imagine that they are an illusion that reduces to blind, unthinking, unknowing processes. Sentience is a basic fact of our experience which must be admitted to. You can see and sight has a causal impact on matter. And it’s likely that other organisms are sentient as well. Imagine that!

    When they’re not busy promoting evolutionary creation myths to the public biologists themselves have sometimes noticed the difference between imaginary evidence and empirical evidence. Away from gullible people like the writers posting here and in disagreements among themselves suddenly merely imagining things about the past is not a good standard of evidence.

    E.g.
    “The viewpoint of Coyne et al. (1988) is one in which past events are argued to explain, in a causal sense, the world around us. Such explanations cannot be verified or tested, and the only biological observations they require are that variation and differential reproduction occur. This is not a caricature, as a reading of Coyne et al. will verify. In keeping with this general viewpoint, proponents claim that species are explained with reference to history. Important characters are hence “mechanisms” that have established and maintained the separation between diverged lineages of an ancestral population. According to Coyne et al., even the adaptive purpose of the changes that resulted in these mechanisms is irrelevant.
    We would ask where biology enters into this schema. The answer is that it does not. Rather, biology is interpreted in terms of a range of historical processes, including selection of variation over time. This could, with equal relevance, be used to understand any nonbiological phenomenon such as the development of the automobile, agricultural methods, culture, or men’s suits (Lewontin, 1976).”
    (Points of View
    Species and Neo-Darwinism
    by C. S. White; B. Michaux; D. M. Lambert
    Systematic Zoology, Vol. 39, No. 4. (Dec., 1990), :400-401)

    Tyler Francke said originally:
    “Furthermore, evolution fits perfectly into the findings of every other discipline, from geology to psychology. ”

    Statements like this are so credulous and gullible that it’s hard to believe that they’re advanced in the name of “science” and skepticism. It’s like he read the writings of the charlatans at talk.origins and actually believed it all.

  • mynym

    “….if the evidence truly didn’t support evolution, it would have been debunked long ago by ambitious insiders eager to make their name as household as Darwin’s.”

    The naivete of that statement almost brought a tear to my eye. The professionalization of science took place around the same time that the mechanistic and gradual/”natural” philosophy upon which Darwin imagined and built his creation myths. This is the philosophy that has been fused to people’s professional identity as scientists. That’s often the real issue.

  • Cheesethis!!

    Reading these posts, makes me wonder about a very simple question that may or may not be answered by evolution and the “stunning” 43% of Americans that believe in creationism,

    Why are we here in the first place?

  • mynym

    Evolution doesn’t answer your question anymore than natural selection/culling results in the origins of anything. Evolution in a broad sense merely means change, any change at all and it has little to do with a static point of origins from which change can be judged. It merely assumes that point. But note that if everything is explained by evolution and no definite point of origins is admitted to then one has no way of defining evolution because it is evolving. It is merely hypothetical goo which will comport with all possible observations. Even “evolution” in a more specified and Darwinian sense suffers from the problem of a lack of origins. Darwin himself noted that natural selection could more aptly be called natural preservation (and it would not imply sentient selection) which has little to do with origins, yet he titled his book the origins of species anyway.

    It’s not surprising that 43% of people are creationists, they probably sense intuitively that most biologists are charlatans. Many biologists claim that the “theory” of evolution is like the theory of gravity or the fact that the earth revolves around the sun, yet many people can still tell the epistemic difference between “natural” creation myths and scientific observations and theories. Indeed, if imagining things about the past and creation myths which seem “natural” (a questionable term when multiple universes are sometimes imagined) were actually science then arguments of association (i.e. propaganda) would not be necessary.

  • Big Papa

    A funny thing that always gets swept under the rug; Charles Darwin was a theologian. Yep, just like the other genetic pioneer, Gregor Mendel, he believed in God and in the literal truth of The Bible until sometime after he wrote Origins, at which point he adopted the stance that religion was more or less a tribal thing, but he still believed that God was the ultimate lawmaker.

    Anyone who has actually read On The Origin of Species would recognize the theological viewpoints of Darwin scattered throughout the book.

    Since religious extremists seem to twist The Bible to fit their own sick agendas, it seems clear that they pick and choose from Origin as well the parts that support their idiotic claims.

    Society would be a better place if people actually read.