Evolution News & Views

In the debate over intelligent design one of the more annoying problems is the media's predilection to misdefine ID, and to avoid reporting the positive case scientists make for the theory based on scientific evidence. Stephen Meyer, CSC Director, this weekend penned a clear and concise description of the theory that everyone --especially journalists-- should read and remember.

Over at ID The Future Meyer writes:

But lost in the controversy over the legality of teaching about intelligent design has been any serious discussion of the scientific merit of the theory itself. According to media reports and the judge in Pennsylvania, the theory is just a "faith-based" alternative to evolution, based solely on religion rather than scientific evidence.

But is this accurate? As one of the architects of the theory, I know it's not.

Contrary to media reports, intelligent design is not a religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins – one that challenges strictly materialistic views of evolution.

Meyer goes on to explain two critical pieces of scientific evidence for intelligent design that scientists point to -- the bacterial flagellum found in certain cells, and the digital information encoded in DNA.

Using these examples and explaining how based upon our experience of cause and effect, in every instance we know of the cause that produces irreducibly complex systems is intelligence. Meyer concludes:

Thus, contrary to media reports, the theory of intelligent design is not based on ignorance or religion, but instead on recent scientific discoveries and on our uniform experience of cause and effect, the basis of all scientific reasoning.

Read the entire piece at ID The Future.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 3:19 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

The Weekly Standard has run John West's response to Adam Wolfson's recent article about intelligent design (which we blogged about here and here.)

May I See Some ID?

Adam Wolfson's "Survival of the Evolution Debate" (Jan. 16) was generally insightful, but he seriously misstates the views of both the Discovery Institute and proponents of intelligent design on some key points.After asking if the intelligent design debate is really a scientific one, Wolfson claims that "it is the mantra of the Discovery Institute . . . that the controversy between intelligent design and natural selection should be a part of any science curriculum." Not so.

Although the Discovery Institute supports the right of teachers to discuss intelligent design (ID) voluntarily, it has vigorously opposed efforts to mandate ID's inclusion in public school science curricula, including the Dover, Pennsylvania, school district policy that Wolfson cites. The Discovery Institute opposed Dover's policy from the start. Instead, we favor the more modest goal of teaching students about some of the well-documented scientific problems of neo-Darwinism, an approach already adopted by states such as Ohio.

Second, Wolfson cites Leon Kass as faulting ID proponents for claiming that "the only possible answer" to the issues they raise "is a Designer-God." Leon Kass is an admirable and perceptive thinker on bioethics, but he is misinformed here. Leading ID proponents have long emphasized that scientific evidence cannot tell whether an intelligent cause detected in nature is God. Such a conclusion, if it is to be drawn, requires additional arguments from philosophy and metaphysics. Kass also seems to imply that ID proponents merely poke holes in neo-Darwinism and then default to intelligent design. In reality, though, they seek to offer negative evidence against all available materialist explanations (e.g., neo-Darwinism, self organizational models) as well as positive evidence for intelligent design.

John G. West
Discovery Institute
Washington, D.C.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 9:47 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

A Cambridge University ex has a trenchant review of Horizon's "War on Science," a program looking at the controversy between Darwinism and Intelligent Design. Paul writes:

They didn’t do a bad job, as far as mainstream media go, although they plumped heavily down on the side of the majority opinion in the end. William Dembski, Michael Behe, Steven Meyer and Phil Johnson at least had the opportunity to express their ideas fairly clearly, although they didn’t apparently get the chance to respond to the “refutations” that Kenneth Miller was able to present in the Dover trial and also on the programme. It was also made pretty clear that the analysis of ID proponents, unlike that of creationists, was based on scientific research and analysis, not on scripture, and this fact alone undermined about half the case made against ID in the programme.

The reviewer, Exiled from GROGGS, also commented that "Richard Dawkins made himself look stupid by saying nothing scientific at all – he is still holding the line that you can win a debate by not arguing (or rather, arguing against straw men, as he did in his own recent showcase programme)." And David Attenborough "failed to grasp the difference between being able to detect evidence for design (which is what ID proponents say they are doing) – which is a legitimate pursuit in many fields of science – and coming to a conclusion about the means of design."

Paul's review suggests that, without meaning to, the BBC gave Dawkins and Attenborough just enough rope to, if not hang themselves, then certainly make themselves look pretty tangled up. As the reviewer noted:

There were some choice quotes, which were delivered without a hint of apparent irony. For example, David Attenborough said something along the lines of: “The notion that we are masters of our destiny they [i.e. Theists] find abhorrent.” Well, Mr Attenborough, you might like to consider to what extent you are master of your destiny if you believe that you are a gene machine.

The reviewer also considered the documentary's religion vs. science trope:

The programme used the development of the Dover, PA trial as the framework for the programme. It was well structured, and the issues at stake in the trial were made generally clear. It also managed to avoid some of the mischaracterisations and clichés of the “religion versus science” debate – though it still argued that this was the fundamental dynamic of the debate. It is being made into that by those people opposing ID – but it is a matter of great frustration to people who wish ID to have a hearing that as soon as it is raised, all the anti-ID community put their fingers in their ears and say, “La, la, la. Religion! Religion! I can’t hear you! Religion. La, la, la.”

Paul has other good material on intelligent design at his website, including this two-part series (here and here) on the Avida program, which purports to model biological macroevolution in a computer environment.

Posted by Jonathan Witt at 12:10 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Notorious legal decisions often develop a common-man meaning. The public perception of the Kitzmiller decision is that Judge Jones supposedly settled the issue: intelligent design is not science. As a law student, I have been amazed that this most important of Kitzmiller holdings is unsupported by any legal reasoning.

The news coverage of Kitzmiller has encouraged this misperception. CNN.com simplified the entire decision as being about defining science: "U.S. District Judge John Jones concluded in a 139-page decision that intelligent design is not science." This is absurd to anyone who respects the law. Judges should only be deciding matters of law, not declaring as authoritative his opinion on matters of politics, or philosophy, or science.

Get yours today: the "Judge Jones Said It, I Believe It, That Settles It" bumper sticker!

It's hard to blame people for thinking that Judge Jones decided the bounds of science, since the opinion itself claims to have settled these non-legal issues. While much of the Kitzmiller opinion focuses in on the First Amendment challenge that the Dover School Board violated the establishment clause, Judge Jones used substantial space to offer an opinion about the definition of science, and even the scientific veracity on such questions as flagellum development and the complexity of blood clotting.

In this detailed analysis, I will take a close look at Judge Jones reasoning, and evaluate the potential legal basis for determining the scientific status of ID. Ultimately, I find that the Kitzmiller opinion has no legal basis to determine the scientific status of intelligent design, and as such, is merely the opinion of one man, not the law as proclaimed by a federal district court judge.

The Legal Framework
The legal question before Judge Jones in the Kizmiller case was whether the Dover School Board had violated the Constitution. The beginning of the case states this clearly: “It is contended that the ID Policy constitutes an establishment of religion prohibited by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. . .”(2) (All citations will be to the PDF version of the opinion.). To determine if the Dover School Board has violated the First Amendment, Judge Jones applied the well-known “Lemon test,” as well as the newer variant, the “endorsement test.”

Structurally, the bulk of the Kitzmiller decision addresses the endorsement test in “Section E” (14–90), and the Lemon test in “Section F” (90–134). It is not immediately obvious why the constitutional analysis would even consider the nature of science, since what is prohibited is establishing a religion. The Constitution does not mandate that only NCSE approved science be taught in public schools.

The Scientific Status of ID has Nothing to do with Endorsement of Religion
The bulk of Judge Jones’ analysis on why he thinks ID is not science appears in the endorsement test section of the opinion. However, there is virtually no legal reasoning given by Judge Jones to justify his vast dicta.

The endorsement test section of Kitzmiller had four sub-sections: 1) would an objective observer know that ID evolved from creationism, 2) would an objective student view the disclaimer as endorsing religion, 3) would an objective Dover citizen view the policy as endorsing religion, and 4) “Whether ID is Science.” One of these four sections is not like the others.

The Kitzmiller decision formulates the endorsement test as deciding what message the challenged government policy (Dover ID Policy) conveys to a reasonable, objective observer. (See pages 14–18). Thus, it makes perfect sense why Judge Jones examined the objective observer, objective student and objective Dover citizen, the first three sub-sections. What doesn’t make sense is why Judge Jones added his fourth sub-section, “Whether ID is Science.”

Judge Jones makes an awkward transition to get to his analysis of science:

”We have now found that both an objective student and an objective adult member of the Dover community would perceive Defendants’ conduct to be a strong endorsement of religion pursuant to the endorsement test. Having so concluded, we find it incumbent upon the Court to further address an additional issue raised by Plaintiffs, which is whether ID is science.” (62).

There is no attempt by Judge Jones to connect the science question with the religious endorsement legal analysis. Why is it “incumbent” on this court to “further address an additional issue raised by Plaintiffs”? It is not the role of the court to answer all issues raised by a party in litigation, and it is most certainly not answering a constitutional question. I cannot recall ever reading a case where the Judge candidly pronounces that it’s time to answer “an additional issue raised by the plaintiff’s,” at least not without some connection to the legal decision.

Judge Jones goes on to claim that the “conclusion on whether ID is science . . . is essential to our holding that an Establishment Clause violation has occurred in this case.” (62/3). However, why the science status of ID, or anything else for that matter, is necessary to answer the question of whether an observer would perceive actions as endorsing, or supporting religion is entirely unclear. The only thing we do know about the science question is that Judge Jones believes he is the best person to answer this question: “[T]he Court is confident that no other tribunal in the United States is in a better position than are we to traipse into this controversial area.” (62). Perhaps “traipse” is a signal that the judge intends to answer questions outside the law.

Lack of Legal Support
My purpose is not to evaluate the merits of Judge Jones arguments that (1) ID violates the ground rules of science, (2) irreducible complexity relies on “contrived dualism” or that (3) ID’s attacks on evolution have allegedly been refuted by the scientific community. Instead, I want to focus in on why Judge Jones tried to answer these questions, and furthermore, if there is any legal basis for his analysis. If Judge Jones was not determining law, as I will show, then his extended foray into what he considers science is nothing but one man’s opinion that other courts, and other school boards are entirely justified to agree with, or completely ignore.

In all of sub-section 4, Judge Jones only refers to case law three times. For a section that runs 25 pages (64–89), that is strikingly sparse. Just compare Judge Jones use of case law elsewhere in the endorsement test section where Judge Jones frequently cited cases and made repeated arguments about how the Dover situation worked with the legal norms of the establishment clause. However, the “Whether ID is Science” sub-section had virtually no legal analysis. This almost non-existent use of case law exposes the lacking legal basis for the extended “traipse.”

(1) Edwards v. Aguillard
Judge Jones references Edwards v. Aguillard, and McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (66/7) to support his claim that ID’s attempt to “to change the ground rules of science to allow supernatural causation of the natural world” is an “inherently religious concept.” (66). Even setting aside the difference in challenging methodological naturalism and supernatural causation, (and how ID does not advocate supernatural causation) the problem for Judge Jones is that the Supreme Court in Edwards did not discuss an “inherently religious” concept. Indeed the word “inherent” appears nowhere in the Edwards decision as cited by Judge Jones.

The Edwards Court stated that “[t]here is a historic and contemporaneous link between the teachings of certain religious denominations and the teaching of evolution.” (Edwards at 591). The Court was concerned only with the Louisiana balanced treatment law, not any general question of supernatural causation. “The preeminent purpose of the Louisiana Legislature was clearly to advance the religious viewpoint that a supernatural being created humankind.” (Edwards at 592) The case went on to examine “the legislature that adopted this Act” and the “legislative history.” This was clearly fact-specific to Louisiana and completely inapplicable to intelligent design two decades later in a different state.

Not only did Judge Jones wrongly rely on Edwards, but only a few pages later in the Edwards opinion the Court offers analysis that comes close to contradicting what Judge Jones claims in Kizmiller. The Edwards Court noted that, “As in Epperson, the legislature passed the Act to give preference to those religious groups which have as one of their tenets the creation of humankind by a divine creator.” The Court continued, “We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught.” (Edwards at 594) Much of the ID Policy that Kitzmiller ruled on can fairly be considered scientific critiques of the prevailing theory. Far from holding supernatural causation to be “inherently religious,” the Edwards decision seems to approve of teaching material critical of evolution.

(2) McLean v. Arkansas
In this same paragraph citing Edwards Judge Jones cited the famous District Court case McLean v. Arkansas. This case involved a 1982 Arkansas statute that required equal time for “creation science” and evolution – a strategy that McLean famously characterized as “contrived dualism.” (McLean at 1266). Judge Jones explicitly invoked the “contrived dualism” portion of McLean later in his science-defining traipse. (70). There are too many differences between the McLean case and the Kitzmiller case to analyze here. The McLean decision pronounced that creation science, as defined in the Arkansas law, “is simply not science.”(McLean at 1267). The decision also found no educational value in teaching creation science. What is most interesting for comparison is the Mclean statement that:

“The conclusion that creation science has no scientific merit or educational value as science has legal significance in light of the Court's previous conclusion that creation science has, as one major effect, the advancement of religion. The second part of the three-pronged test for establishment reaches only those statutes having as their primary effect the advancement of religion. Secondary effects which advance religion are not constitutionally fatal. Since creation science is not science, the conclusion is inescapable that the only real effect of Act 590 is the advancement of religion. The Act therefore fails both the first and second portions of the test in Lemon v. Kurtzman. (McLean at 1272).

This McLean analysis explains why that court found it necessary to weigh in on the pedagogical and scientific value of the mandated Creation Science teaching. The most generous reading of Judge Jones in Kitzmiller would claim that even though Judge Jones never explicitly makes the connection between a lack of scientific status and religious establishment, maybe the Judge was using the same logic that the McLean court used.

The McLean court reasons that teaching creation science can have only two effects, either advancing religion or adding educational value to science. Since McLean found the Arkansas creation science to lack any scientific benefit, it reasoned that its only remaining or effect was to advance religion. However, looking at Judge Jones’ reasoning in Kitzmiller, there is none of the without-science-only-religion analysis. Even the closest reading of Judge Jones pivotal conclusion to the science sub-section, page 89, shows no claim that a lack of scientific status creates a constitutional problem. Kitzmiller reads as a free-standing essay on the nature of science.

For example the Kitzmiller decision proclaims, “[W]e find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community.”(89). This would be a fine opinion for a philosopher of science to make in a political debate, or for someone to argue at a school board hearing, but why does Judge Jones need to “hold” anything about this “contentious” question? There is no legal requirement that schools must teach only true science. The law does prohibit wrongly establishing a religion, but that means nothing about defining the bounds of science.

Perhaps Judge Jones relies on a false dichotomy of his own (a contrived dualism?) that ID is either science, or religion. Indeed, immediately after Judge Jones expounds his philosophy of science, he adds, “ID, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science.” This is a bald assertion with no further support from Judge Jones. Surely ID is not theological just because it falls outside science? Kitzmiller never references a definition of theology that is watered down enough to encompass the ID position. Nowhere does ID rely on religious documents as the Scientific Creationism of the McLean case did. Be that as it may, the Kitzmiller decision goes on to attack the critical thinking benefits of teaching ID: “[I]t still has utterly no place in a science curriculum.”(89). This may be Judge Jones’ personal opinion about how science curriculum should be, but it is not a conclusion of law.

Another problem for Judge Jones’ hypothetical reliance on the McLean false-dichotomy is that it bears no connection to the endorsement test of the establishment clause. Lest anyone forget, all the Kitzmiller analysis of ID not being science is supposed to fit within an endorsement test constitutional analysis. McLean came several years before the Supreme Court started employing the endorsement test – so Judge Jones should have explained how that case remains relevant.

Even granting this, there is a logical disconnect between the legal analysis of an endorsement test and the technical science analysis of Kitzmiller. According to Judge Jones’ own view of the endorsement test, the essence of endorsement analysis looks to the objective public parties perception of state action as establishing or favoring a specific religion. Thus, endorsement analysis asks what the student, or some other objective party, perceives because of the Dover policy. The first three sub-sections of the Kitzmiller endorsement section, which look the objective party, the objective student, and the objective resident of Dover, all make sense legally.

However, throughout the entirety of sub-section four, “Whether ID is Science,” Judge Jones drops the analysis of objective parties’ perceptions. Instead, he delves into his own personal views on technical science topics such as the complexity of the bacterial flagellum (76), who is right, Miller or Behe (71–75), the merits of peer-review in determining what counts as science (88), blood clotting (77), and the views of the scientific community (69). Those are all interesting discussions, but none of them are connected to objective person’s perceptions of religion because of state action. The entire sub-section, in this regard, ceases to be legal analysis and is really just the personal opinion of the judge – an opinion that does not count for the endorsement test.

3. Selman v. Cobb County
The final case cited by Judge Jones is the 2005 District Court case out of Georgia about placing stickers in science textbooks regarding Evolution. Kitzmiller quotes the Selman decision where it states that “evolution is more than a theory of origin in the context of science. To the contrary, evolution is the dominant scientific theory of origin. . .” (Selman at 1309). This quotation has nothing to do with the scientific status of ID, and was merely used to support Judge Jones high view that most scientists support Evolution. This means nothing for whether ID is science, or more importantly, whether there is a legal bar to mentioning ID in schools. (Interestingly, the Selman decision has been appealed, and a Circuit Court decision which could overrule Selman is due in the near future.)

Conclusion – Jones as Philosopher, not Judge
Perhaps the most clear sign that Judge Jones traipse into defining the bounds of science has almost nothing to do with law comes from his overly-generous assessment of the Kitzmiller decision:

”[W]e commend to the attention of those who are inclined to superficially consider ID to be a true “scientific” alternative to evolution without a true understanding of the concept the foregoing detailed analysis. It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science.” (89).

Notice the overall tone of Judge Jones' advice column: ‘if you think ID is scientific, listen to me, I have figured out all the arguments.’ Thus Judge Jones preludes his discussion with an astounding passage where he attempts to dissuade all other courts from entering, and perhaps disagreeing, with his views:

“[W]e will offer our conclusion on whether ID is science not just because it is essential to our holding that an Establishment Clause violation has occurred in this case, but also in the hope that it may prevent the obvious waste of judicial and other resources which would be occasioned by a subsequent trial involving the precise question which is before us.” (63-64)

I can see it now on bumper stickers: “Judge Jones Said it. I Believe it. That settles it.” But this is not law, it is one man’s opinion, and it is one man who thinks no other court should bother tackling these issues because he thinks he has settled them. The establishment clause is not about the scientific veracity of ID’s claims. Even if it were, one does not have to agree or disagree with all Judge Jones analysis to know that his conclusions are far from “inescapable.” Just because there is a voluminous record does not mean that there must be some binding, final solution to all the disputed scientific questions. Yet the Kitzmiller opinion pronounces itself superior.

Judge Jones believes he reached “the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science.”

To that I say that Kitzmiller is an interesting personal argument, but it is not law.

The "Judge Jones Said it, I Believe it, That Settles It" Bumper Sticker

Posted by Michael Francisco at 11:45 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (2)

139 pages of judicial overreach, ignoring important facts, scientific error, and logical fallacy (but other than that, it's great!--why all the fuss?) have given the blogosphere much material to discuss. Richard Cleary has an extensive review of the Kitzmiller decision at Viewpoint. Cleary clearly highlights a fallacy in the argument ID is creationism repackaged:

"The first claim, that ID must be religious, even though it doesn't appear to be, because it evolved from (forgive me) creationism, is silly. Because one theory emerges from the embers of another doesn't entail that it necessarily bears all or even many of the traits of the other. Modern theories of the atom are all descendents of Democritus' belief that such entities exist, but the belief that there are atoms pretty much exhausts the similarities between the modern and the ancient views. Modern chemistry is directly descended from alchemy but chemistry is not alchemy. It is logically illicit to infer that because ID is a descendent of creationism it is therefore creationism in disguise."

(The Dover Decision I: Endorsing Religion?)

This seems especially applicable because although the authors of the textbook did use the term creationism in pre-publication versions, the Pandas textbook promotes a theory of ID which is conceptually distinct from creationism in some of the very characteristics which caused creationism to be declared unconstitutional: creationism postulates a "supernatural creator" while the theory intelligent design abstains from engaging in such religious discussions. (see FTE's amicus brief for details)

Though I'm don't agree 100% with how Cleary discusses this next issue, he makes a thought-provoking argument that ID is no more religious than Neo-Darwinism:

It's unfortunate that Judge Jones has never read Roy Clouser's The Myth of Religious Neutrality. Clouser demonstrates in the first part of his book that the only thing that all religions share in common, and which therefore distinguishes a religion as such, is a divinity belief. By this he means that every religion holds a belief that something is unconditionally, non-dependently real and is the ultimate source of everything else. Since everyone holds that something is the non-dependent source of everything else, everyone, even the naturalist who believes the ultimate, non-dependent source is nature, or the materialist who believes it is matter, holds a religious belief.

When the Darwinian therefore claims that all of life is the product purely of natural, blind, purposeless mechanisms he is advancing a religious belief. The effect of the Judge's ruling, though he is unaware of it, was not to ban religion from the science classroom because that's an impossible task, but rather to ban a certain kind of religious claim from the classroom - the claim that matter, or the cosmos, might not be the non-dependent source of everything else.

In an astonishing contortion of justice the judge has banned the claim that the cosmos is not divine and privileged the claim that it is divine against any and all official criticism.

(The Dover Decision V: Final Thoughts)

Read the rest at http://www.wscleary.com/pov/html/dover_decision.html and don't forget to pick up your Judge Jones bumper sticker (especially if you're a federal judge, so you don' t waste your judicial resources deciding issues Judge Jones already figured out).

Posted by Casey Luskin at 10:50 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

A recent NPR Morning Edition segment, "Kurt Vonnegut Judges Modern Society," took a surprising turn late in the interview. Vonnegut is, of course, a renowned postmodern novelist and self-described secular humanist, not somebody who fits easily into Barbara Forrest's conspiracy-haunted world wherein all Darwin skeptics are Bible-thumping fundamentalists. The conversation turns to Darwinism and design a little over four minutes into the interview:

Mr. VONNEGUT: Where you can see tribal behavior now is in this business about teaching evolution in a science class and intelligent design. It’s the scientists themselves are behaving tribally.

INSKEEP: How are the scientists behaving tribally?

Mr. VONNEGUT: They say, you know, about evolution, it surely happened because their fossil record shows that. But look, my body and your body are miracles of design. Scientists are pretending they have the answer as how we got this way when natural selection couldn’t possibly have produced such machines.

INSKEEP: Does that mean you would favor teaching intelligent design in the classroom?

Mr. VONNEGUT: Look, if it’s what we’re thinking about all the time; if I were a physics teacher or a science teacher, it’d be on my mind all the time as to how the hell we really got this way. It’s a perfectly natural human thought and, okay, if you go into the science class you can’t think this? Well, alright, as soon as you leave you can start thinking about it again without giving aid and comfort to the lunatic fringe of the Christian religion. Also, I think that, you know, it’s tribal behavior. I don’t think that Pat Robertson, for instance, doubts that we evolved. He is simply representing a tribe.

Finally, if you

INSKEEP: There are tribes on both sides here in your view?

Mr. VONNEGUT: Yes.

INSKEEP: May I ask what tribes, if any, you have belonged to over the years?

Mr. VONNEGUT: Well, it’s an ancestral tribe. These were immigrants from north of Germany who came here about the time of the Civil War, but anyway, these people called themselves free thinkers. They were impressed, incidentally, by Darwin. They’re called Humanists now: people who aren’t so sure that the Bible is the Word of God.

INSKEEP: Who are denounced by some religious people as secular humanists?

Mr. VONNEGUT: Well, that’s exactly what I am. The trouble with being a secular humanist is that we don’t have a congregation. We don’t meet, so it’s a very flimsy tribe, but there’s a wonderful quotation from Nietzsche. Nietzsche said, Only a person of deep faith can afford the luxury of skepticism. Something perfectly wonderful is going on. I do not doubt it, but the explanations I hear do not satisfy me.

There are many others like Vonnegut, people like Princeton-trained mathematician, agnostic, and award-winning science writer David Berlinski, geneticist Michael Denton, and leading British philosopher and former atheist Antony Flew. These and the more than 400 Ph.D. scientists on our dissent-from-Darwin list--those skeptics of the theory brave and tenured enough to speak out--are trying to tell us something: modern evolutionary theory is in crisis, and no amount of motive mongering about people's religious motivations will change that; no amount of denials from sincere evolutionists who have invested their careers in the theory will change that; and no amount of bullying designed to silence the controversy will change that. It's time for all of the Kurt Vonneguts and Antony Flews and Michael Dentons to calmly but clearly call a stop to the pretense that there is no scientific controversy.

And it's time for all of the academics and intellectuals and journalists who have largely trusted the Darwinists on blind faith to revisit the issue, thoroughly considering the arguments made by scientists like Michael Denton and Jonathan Wells. It simply doesn't work to entrust the process to the priesthood of Darwinists. Although most of them are both bright and sincere, they have a deep and long-vested interest in believing in their theory, and in shielding it from attack.

Some haven't attempted because they assume the debate is over their head. But the arguments that ultimately unravel the Darwinian synthesis aren't terribly difficult to grasp. Anyone who remembers the rudiments of logic they learned in freshman composition can follow the essentials of the argument. Below are three articles to get started:

Fact Sheet: Microevolution vs. Macroevolution

Fact Sheet: The Cambrian Explosion

The Survival of the Fakest

Finally, if you have a Ph.D. in engineering, mathematics, computer science, biology, chemistry, or one of the other natural sciences, and you agree with the following statement, "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged,” then please contact us here.

Posted by Jonathan Witt at 4:46 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

Viewpoint has a thoughtful, five-part series on Judge John Jones and his opinion in the Dover intelligent design trial:

It is our opinion that the judge was correct in finding that the defendents were motivated by their religious beliefs and that he was correct to find fault with the consistency of their testimony. He was therefore constrained by Supreme Court precedent to find in favor of the plaintiffs. Nevertheless, much of his reasoning seems to us to be flawed and his decision is much broader than is warranted by his written opinion.

The full analysis is here.

Posted by Jonathan Witt at 11:32 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Bob Murphy at LewRockwell.com, a prominent libertarian website, examines many of the common objections to ID and finds them unpersuasive in Typical Objections to Intelligent Design.

Murphy takes the role of argument analyzer and examines the common objections of credibility, lack of peer-reviewed publications, ID as not scientific, and accusations that ID is an argument from ignorance.

After analyzing these common arguments, Murphy finds that “the ID people are on to something, while the proponents of Darwinian evolution are missing the point.”

Credibility
Murphy tackles the oft-repeated argument that during the Dover trial Michael Behe “was forced to admit on the stand that Intelligent Design had the same scientific validity as astrology." He continues,

“If you heard that at the time, weren’t you surprised? I know I was. Funny thing is, if you go to the actual transcript (use your Find feature to look for "astrology" and then back up a few sentences to get the context), you’ll see that the typical description is very misleading indeed. . . . Behe was explaining why he thought ID was a scientific theory (and hence, why it could be taught in a public school while not violating the separation of church and state). To put it very loosely, Behe said that a scientific theory explains numerous observations about the natural world by reference to some unifying principle, and that this indeed is what ID does in biology. . . . Of course the lawyer pounced and asked Behe if astrology would count as a scientific theory under this definition, to which Behe replied "yes." Now, Behe isn’t an idiot, at least when it comes to publicity, right? He knew full well why that question was being asked, and he knew his admission would be splashed all over the newspapers. So if he were truly intellectually dishonest, why wouldn’t he dodge the question?”

No Peer-Reviewed Publications
Murphy looks at the argument that ID has no peer-reviewed publications as exactly what would be expected since most scientists are evolutionists. Furthermore, Murphy believes that ID is a young theory, and will develop peer-reviewed publications in the future.

“Anyway, I make the following, falsifiable prediction: Within ten years, there will be a journal dedicated to Intelligent Design, publishing articles in not only biochemistry but geology, mathematics, and physics. Outsiders may scoff at the pseudoscience hoodwinking the nation’s faithful, but it will be a journal with referees.”

Actually, Murphy’s prediction is already being fulfilled with publications like PCID (Progress in Complexity, Information and Design), which is the journal of ISCID (International Society of Complexity, Information and Design). This electronic journal “s a quarterly, cross-disciplinary, online journal that investigates complex systems apart from external programmatic constraints like materialism, naturalism, or reductionism,” according to the journal’s main page. PCID has an editorial board including William Dembski. Add to this the long list of ID related peer-reviewed work and Murphy’s point is even stronger.

ID is not Scientific
Murphy examines some of Dembski’s writings about forensics and how detecting design makes sense as science.

In my view, Dembski's methods for inferring design are very empirical. You observe that intelligent agents are the source of specified complexity in our common experience, and then you find specified complexity in nature to infer design. Some people might not like this argument, but there's no denying the fact that it isn't based on faith or some "spirituality." Detecting design is an empirical argument that uses observations, hypothesis, and experimentation, all tools that fit well in the scientific method.

Argument from Ignorance
This argument used to critique ID could be called the “god of the gaps” objection. Murphy makes a great analogy to mathematics:

“But let’s change the discussion to any field other than biology, and see how puny this defense now sounds. Mathematician A offers a conjecture, and Mathematician B says, "I don’t see how you can get that result." Mathematician A responds, "Your lack of imagination isn’t a strike against my theorem." What’s ironic is that the neo-Darwinists themselves use just this argument all the time, albeit to attack creationism. They will point to some odd quirk of biology and then demand, "Why in the world would an intelligent God design it that way??"

Murphy finds these common objections to ID un-persuasive. This is a good example of how ID fairs well when arguments are analyzed fairly from people who have not prejudged themselves against intelligent design.

Posted by Michael Francisco at 4:05 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Columbia South Carolina’s The State newspaper had a preview piece this morning about today's hearing held by the state’s Education Oversight Committee (EOC) to hear from experts about teaching evolution.

State reporter Bill Robinson spoke at length with CSC policy analyst Casey Luskin last week in order to get more information on the overall debate, and also to better understand Discovery’s position on the issue. Unfortunately his article doesn’t reflect that.

Robinson, through an error of omission, misrepresents Discovery’s science education policy position, which we’ve been consistently clear about. The article, which completely misses the point that the debate in SC has nothing to do with intelligent design, only mentions Discovery once, but like this:

“Casey Luskin said Keller and Sternberg are scientists known to the Institute, which he said takes the position that “intelligent design is a scientific theory that is a good explanation for many aspects of life.”

By not explaining that our position is that we’re opposed to mandating intelligent design Robinson leaves his readers with the impression that is what we’re supporting in SC. Of course, as we’ve made clear, that isn’t true. It remains to be see if The State will do the right thing and issue a clarification. I’ve contacted Robinson but as of yet have not received a reply.

As I mentioned, the article conflates teaching about intelligent design with teaching about scientific criticisms of evolutionary theory. In spite of the fact that members of the EOC have repeatedly stated they are not looking to include intelligent design in the curriculum Robinson focuses on ID and people’s views on whether or not it should be taught in the science classroom – even though that is clearly not the issue in South Carolina.

No one there is asking that ID be included or mentioned in any way. Neither of the scientists that today recommended inclusion of language that would call for students to critically analyze evolution is calling for including ID. It just isn’t on the table. However, Robinson’s article leads the reader to believe that’s what’s going on with statements like these:

“A six-member panel of the Education Oversight Committee will search for a resolution to a dispute over language that teachers look to as a guide when discussing the theory of evolution.

Opponents of such language want to allow public schoolteachers to introduce alternatives to evolution — which could include creationism.”

This simply isn’t true. Later Robinson reports:

“The Education Oversight Committee, in an 8-7 vote last month, rejected some of the wording for how to approach the topic of evolution — the theory that life is a product of and adapts to the environment.

The decision gave Sen. Mike Fair, R-Greenville, a committee member, a victory in a campaign to pressure education policymakers into approving guidelines that would allow teachers to talk about competing theories.”

Again, this is not true. Sen. Fair himself has repeatedly made it clear that he does not want to include ID or any other alternatives.

How clear has Fair been? Pretty clear.

"The lawmaker who started the debate, Greenville Senator Mike Fair, says the discussion is --not-- about inserting intelligent design. But he says it's about critical analysis of evolution in the state's biology curriculum." ( Senator says effort not a backdoor to teaching intelligent design, Jan. 23)

“Our kids need to be better critical thinkers. If you’re going to teach evolution, teach all of it,” Sen. Mike Fair said. “Let’s teach evolution; let’s teach Darwin’s theory. Let’s read what he said, believed. … Fair said he isn’t promoting the intelligent design theory, which suggests life is too complex not to have been made by a designer. Instead, he said he wants clarity in the way evolution is currently taught." ( The Times and Democrat, Jan. 23)

“Fair said he wanted the standards to encourage students to critically analyze evolution, instead of just learning it as fact.” ( Charlotte Observer, Jan. 20)

Darwinists often try and make the debate over how to teach evolution out to be a debate over teaching ID. It is not. It wasn’t in Kansas, It isn’t in Ohio. It isn’t here in South Carolina either.

What is being debated in SC? Here are the current indicators which the EOC has indicated they would like to see reworked:

B-5.2 Explain how genetic processes result in the continuity of life-forms over time.
B-5.4 Explain how genetic variability and environmental factors lead to biological evolution.
B-5.5 Exemplify the various lines of scientific evidence that underlie our understanding of evolution and the diversification of life.
B-5.7 Use a phylogenetic tree to identify the evolutionary relationships.

What did the EOC subcommittee indicate they would find more acceptable, (and ultimately voted to meet with the state's Dept. of Education to craft such language):

B-5.2 revised --Critically analyze the ability of genetic processes to affect the result of the continuity of life forms over time.
B-5.4 revised -- Critically analyze the ability of genetic variability and environmental factors to cause microevolutionary changes and also to cause macroevolutionary changes.
B-5.5 revised -- Exemplify the various lines of scientific evidence that support or challenge our understanding of evolution and the diversification of life.
B-5.7 revised -- Critically analyze the methods and assumptions used to construct phylogenetic trees and identify evolutionary relationships.

That’s it. That’s what’s being debated. There is just nothing in there about intelligent design. Hopefully, the media in South Carolina will be more accurate in their reporting going forward.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 2:56 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

Dr. Phil Skell, a member of the National Academy of Sciences** and a professor emeritus of chemistry at Pennsylvania State University, has just sent an open letter to the South Carolina Education Oversight Committee encouraging them to recommend to the state board of education science standards calling for students to learn the scientific evidence both for and against biological and chemical evolution.

Writes Dr. Skell:

"I am writing—as a member of the National Academy of Sciences—to voice my strong support for the idea that students should be able to study scientific criticisms of the evidence for modern evolutionary theory along with the evidence favoring the theory. Scientific journals now document many scientific problems and criticisms of evolutionary theory and students need to know about these as well. … Many of the scientific criticisms of which I speak are well known by scientists in various disciplines, including the disciplines of chemistry and biochemistry, in which I have done my work. … South Carolina students would be well served to learn about these scientific criticisms as they do their own critical analysis of the evidence that both supports and challenges neo-Darwinian evolution.”

The South Carolina Education Oversight Committee is hearing testimony from scientists this week regarding whether it should recommend language for the state’s science standards that calls for students to critically analyze certain aspects of evolutionary theory. Five other states, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kansas, New Mexico, and Minnesota, have adopted science standards that require learning about some of the scientific controversies relating to evolution.

“Like Dr. Skell, we believe evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned,” said Casey Luskin, Program Officer for Public Policy & Legal Affairs at the Discovery Institute.

As a matter of policy, Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, the nation’s leading think tank dealing with scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution, seeks to increase the teaching of evolution. It believes that evolution should be fully and completely presented to students, and they should learn more about evolutionary theory, including its unresolved issues. The Institute opposes any effort to mandate or require the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education.

**Members and foreign associates of the National Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 2:06 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (2)

The South Carolina Education Oversight Committee will hear testimony from two scientists today who will advise them to recommend language for the state’s science standards that calls for students to critically analyze certain aspects of evolutionary theory.

“We believe evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned,” said Casey Luskin, Program Officer for Public Policy & Legal Affairs at the Discovery Institute. “We’re encouraged that South Carolina is examining this and we’re hopeful that the state will strengthen its science standards by calling for students to critically analyze certain aspects of Darwinian evolution”

Five other states, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kansas, New Mexico, and Minnesota, have adopted science standards that require learning about some of the scientific controversies relating to evolution.

A science curriculum that provides students with an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of neo-Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories is a common ground approach that all reasonable people can agree on,” added Luskin.

The two scientists scheduled to testify in support of strengthening the science standards are Dr. Richard Sternberg, and Dr. Rebecca Keller. Dr. Sternberg holds two PhDs in evolutionary biology, and Dr. Keller holds a PhD in molecular biology and is an expert on science curriculum development.

As a matter of policy, Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, the nation’s leading think tank dealing with scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution, seeks to increase the teaching of evolution. It believes that evolution should be fully and completely presented to students, and they should learn more about evolutionary theory, including its unresolved issues. The Institute opposes any effort to mandate or require the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education.

To schedule an interview with a Discovery Institute representative contact Robert Crowther at 206-292-0401 x107, or e-mail rob@discovery.org.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 3:30 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Nick Matzke and Kevin Padian have posted a celebratory rant at the NCSE website against ID and the Discovery Institute. But their rant is so extreme that it gives me reason to leap for joy. If there were any doubts that some people get over emotionally involved with this issue, Padian and Matzke's gloat-parade makes it clear.

With the lights shining brightly this rainy afternoon in Seattle, I offer the following comments:

Thanks for Your Support!
I'll start with a short e-mail I received recently from a professor at a large state university, and also a movie quote.

Recently a profesor responded to question about why he recently chose to join the Discovery Institute:

"Actually, if you must know, after reading Judge John E. Jones III’s decision in the Pennsylvania case I became so angry that I thought I’d do something about it and join the Institute. That 139-page diatribe was so full of logical fallacies and non sequiturs it should have prompted others to do the same. I hope so anyway . . ."

The good news is that it has!

In the "infamous" and supremely classic movie "The Three Amigos," Steve Martin gives an inspiring speech to the town of Santa Poco:

In a way, all of us have an El Guapo to face someday. For some, shyness might be their El Guapo. For others, a lack of education might be their El Guapo. For us El Guapo is a big dangerous guy who wants to kill us But as sure as my name is Lucky Day the people of Santa Poco can conquer their own personal El Guapo who also happens to be the actual El Guapo.

The problem with the Dover decision is that it doesn't conquer the NCSE's actual El Guapo: The version of ID "denigrated and disparaged" in the Dover the decision doesn't represent the actual version of ID. Many people like my friend above have recognized that. This is one reason that I am confident that those who understand ID will realize why the Kitzmiller decision doesn't threaten the actual version of ID.

Sadly, Judge Jones fell prey to the misrepresentations of the plaintiffs during the Dover trial, which is why he predicated his entire decision upon the false claim that ID must be a "supernatural explanation." It went downhill from there. But let's look at the way the decision has caused some leading Darwinists to respond.

May your rant go marching on
To demonstrate the degree to which Matzke and Padian are interested in using emotional language, invectives, and gloating to prove their evidence-less points, just take a quick look at the diction they use in their conclusion:

It’s over for the Discovery Institute. Turn out the lights. The fat lady has sung. The emperor of ID has no clothes. The bluff is over. Oh sure, they’ll continue to pump out the blather. They’ll find more funding, at least for a while, from some committed ideologue or another. But no one with any objectivity will take them seriously any longer as scientists. They had their fair chance, and they blew it.

Such kind words from Matzke and Padian might make them feel good. But they continually use invectives and twist what really happened and ignore the facts. Like kids should one day be able to do in all science classrooms, you should look at the evidence and decide for yourself.

Rewriting History
Was Judge Jones’ decision activist? Matzke and Padian wrote:

In the DI’s lexicon, “activist” means someone who says or does things you don’t like: the ACLU, the NCSE, Americans United, and … oh. A Republican judge from central Pennsylvania.

Actually, John West has already dealt with this claim regarding Judge Jones' alleged perfect vision. He wrote:

Regarding the fact that he is a Republican appointed by a Republican President: So what? The most liberal activist member of the current United States Supreme Court (John Paul Stevens) was appointed not by Bill Clinton but by Republican President Gerald Ford. President Ronald Reagan, meanwhile, appointed a number of judges (at all levels) who turned out to be just as liberal as any Democratic appointees. Only someone with scant knowledge of judicial appointments over the past few decades would claim that the fact that a Republican president appointed a judge would mean that the judge could not be a judicial liberal or an activist.

(Dover in Review: An Analysis of Judge Jones' Flawed Ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District)

For me, personally, I'm not very interested in debating over whether or not Jones was "activist," which could turn on how you define the term. The bottom line for me is this: he got a lot wrong about the nature of ID in his decision. More on this to come in future days...

Matzke and Padian then wrote:

Apparently it’s not “activist” for the Discovery Institute to send their own “Icons of Evolution” video to the Dover Area School Board (a video that DASB member William Buckingham apparently bullied teachers to watch – twice – and was clearly an inspiration to Buckingham in his various efforts to squelch the teaching of evolution in Dover. Apparently it’s not “activist” to send DI staff to Dover to counsel the school board on how to promote ID in science classes.

Ignoring that Matzke and Padian have twisted the meaning of "activist," here, this is an odd accusation coming from the NCSE, given that they regularly organize public opposition to efforts to teach evolution objectively in schools.

Regardless, this represents the rewriting of history to insinuate that the Dover policy was the result of the Discovery Institute's suggestion. They tried to pull off this false claim at the trial as well, as I noted at Closing arguments: Dover Plaintiffs’ Counsel Speaks Loudly, Carries Small Stick, plaintiffs' attorneys planted the false notion in Judge Jones' head that Discovery advised Dover to pass its policy. As Seth Cooper notes, the truth is quite different from their fiction:

Further, I never advised members of the Dover Board to mandate the teaching of the theory of intelligent design or to adopt the ID policy at issue in the case. Rather, I strongly urged members of the Dover Board to either drop entirely the issue of alternatives to the teaching of evolution, or to only present scientific arguments both supporting and challenging the contemporary version of Darwin's theory and the chemical evolutionary theories for the origin of the first life. The Dover Board had their own legal counsel in their Solicitor and the public-interest law firm that they later hired. Members of the Dover Board who adopted the ID policy acted completely contrary to my strongest suggestions.

Furthermore, many might think that giving them the "Icons of Evolution" video represents telling them to teach ID. Matzke and Padian should go re-watch that video. The Icons video (like the book) isn't about ID. It's about teaching critical analysis of evolution and says nothing about getting into "replacement theories" for evolution like ID. So the video Dover received was not about ID.

This is something that puzzles me about Darwinists: they claim that teaching criticisms is just a guise for teaching ID. But that’s not true. And the proof is in their own behavior: Ohio, which has a “teach the controversy over evolution” policy has stood without a lawsuit for over 3 years. It took the ACLU less than 2 months to sue when Dover explicitly started teaching ID. So there is much difference between simply teaching criticisms of evolution and going so far as to offer a “replacement theory” of intelligent design. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court already recognized this approach as a separate category of teaching origins, and declared legal the teaching of scientific criticisms of prevailing scientific theories in Edwards v. Aguillard:

“We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught.” (Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) at 593.)

Some Darwinists just don't get that teaching students that Neo-Darwinism has scientific weaknesses is very different from getting into "replacment theories" like ID. It's not really all that complicated folks.

Matzke and Padian wrote:

The DI staunchly maintains that it never said that ID should be taught as science.

Where did they get that quote from? Again, that's a rewrite of history (or, if you prefer, a lie). Notice, there is no evidence, or even quotation, supporting the Matzke and Padian misrepresentation about Discovery’s position. In fact, the Discovery Institute urged Dover not to mandate the teaching of ID for all biology classes. But we never said that ID shouldn't be taught as science. Of course ID is science and is appropriate for the science classroom. We defended this extensively to the Court in our amicus brief. I suggest that Matzke and Padian should retract their claim in light of the following conclusion from our amicus brief:

"Because the inclusion of intelligent design in the science curriculum can serve a variety of important secular purposes, and because it has a primary effect of improving science education and even promoting religious neutrality, the plaintiffs’ request for broad and precedent-setting relief should be denied.

Since the Discovery Institute amicus brief openly defends the teaching of ID as science I have no idea where Matzke and Padian got their claim that Discovery “staunchly” refused to defend the teaching of ID as science.

Matzke and Padian also wrote:

"Apparently it’s not “activist” to send DI staff to Dover to counsel the school board on how to promote ID in science classes."

Again, that's a falsehood. My friend Seth Cooper, who was then an attorney with the Discovery Institute, did indeed go to Dover, but he counseled them not to mandate the teaching of ID. This is discussed here. Again, I strongly encourage Matzke and Padian to retract this false claim.

Who is really promoting the sectarian viewpoint?
Matzke and Padian wrote:

"don’t bother to tell anyone you’re teaching a sectarian religious view;"

In response, I provide an important quote from the Of Pandas and People Textbook which makes it clear that ID is not a sectarian view, and that it is compatible with many different religious viewpoints.

"The idea that life had an intelligent source is hardly unique to Christian fundamentalism. Advocates of design have included not only Christians and other religious theists, but pantheists, Greek and Enlightenment philosophers and now include many modern scientists who describe themselves as religiously agnostic. Moreover, the concept of design implies absolutely nothing about beliefs and normally associated with Christian fundamentalism, such as a young earth, a global flood, or even the existence of the Christian God. All it implies is that life had an intelligent source." (Of Pandas and People, pg. 161)

You'd think the Judge would have dealt with this quote in his decision. Unfortunately, this passage was completely ignored by the Judge in the ruling. A more objective ruling would at least cite to this passage and deal with it. But Judge Jones didn’t.

It's a historical fact that design proponents have represented a wide range of religious viewpoints. How does Pandas therefore supposedly advocate a sectarian view? For that matter, just what “sect” is it that promotes ID? Matzke and Padian don’t say. If one wants to talk about sectarian views, why doesn't the ACLU consider biology textbooks that exclusively promote philosophical materialism:

"Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless--a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit.” "Suddenly , humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us." [emphasis added] (Joseph S. Levine and Kenneth R. Miller, Biology: Discovering Life (D.C. Heath and Co., 1st ed. 1992, pg. 152; this language was not removed for the 2nd ed. in 1994, p. 161))

"Darwin showed that material causes are a sufficient explanation not only for physical phenomena, as Descartes and Newton had shown, but also for biological phenomena with all their seeming evidence of design and purpose. By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. Together with Marx's materialistic theory of history and society and Freud's attribution of human behavior to influences over which we have little control, Darwin's theory of evolution was a crucial plank in the platform of mechanism and materialism…"
(Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (1998, 3rd Ed., Sinauer Associates), pg. 5)

Pandas notes that their ID theory is compatible with "not only Christians and other religious theists, but pantheists, Greek and Enlightenment philosophers and now include many modern scientists who describe themselves as religiously agnostic," whereas Miller (plaintiffs leadoff expert witness) and Levine wrote that believing in Darwin's theory "required believing in philosophical materialism" and Futuyma says "Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous."

Who is really presenting the sectarian viewpoint?

Go back and reread the book.

Matzke and Padian say that because David DeWolf and Steve Meyer wrote: “school boards have the authority to permit, and even encourage, teaching about design theory as an alternative to Darwinian evolution -- and this includes the use of textbooks such as Of Pandas and People that present evidence for the theory of intelligent design.” that therefore Discovery counseled Dover to include ID. We made our position very clear to Dover: don't mandate ID. That document does say that it is constitutional to teach ID, but it doesn't recommend mandating ID. Again, this is rewriting of history.

Matzke and Padian then quote something from the so-called Wedge document:

"Once our research and writing have had time to mature, and the public prepared for the reception of design theory, we will move toward direct confrontation with the advocates of materialist science through challenge conferences in significant academic settings. We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula."

I was taking GE's in college when this was first written, but I find something striking about this quote: It refutes their insinuation that ID was being forced into the curriculum by Discovery because it notes that ID should only be taught when backed by research. Indeed, there is much prestigiously published and peer reviewed work supporting ID (see this link).

Matzke and Padian wrote:

"And yet, when this event finally occurred – in Dover, Pennsylvania, in 2004, exactly five years after the 1999 Wedge Strategy – the Discovery Institute claimed that they did not support putting ID into science curricula, and furthermore they had never suggested such a thing."

Again, this is a twisting of the truth. Discovery never claimed that we do not "support putting ID into science curricula"-- we simply claim that ID shouldn't be mandated in science classrooms. But we do support the academic freedom of individual teachers to teach ID in science classrooms at their own discretion. So Matzke and Padian seem to be twisting the facts.

Repaving History's Road
Matzke and Padian wrote:

"They acknowledged under oath that ID cannot qualify as science unless the definition of science is completely changed to admit the supernatural."

I have no idea where Behe said anything like that. But what did Minnich say? When asked if science had to be redefined, he said:

"A. Correct, if intelligent causes can be considered. I won't necessarily -- you know, you're extrapolating to the supernatural. And that is one possibility." (Day 21 testimony, am, pg. 97)

Thus, it only has to be redefined if ID is directly postulating a supernatural cause. But Minnich isn't saying ID postulates a supernatural cause--nor is he extrapolating to the supernatural--that is what the plaintiffs are doing. Judge Jones clearly misunderstood Minnich's testimony on page 30 of his opinion. Matzke and Padian's claim is highly dubious.

Matzke and Padian also claim:

”Behe acknowledged that under his definition, astrology would equally qualify as science.”

Again, let's look at the context of what Behe really said. Behe wasn't endorsing astrology. He rather said that astrology may have been scientific, but it wasn't true:

"Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A. Yes, that is correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can t go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories."

The difference between ID and astrology is that ID is true. Yet even the NAS has a definition which would have admitted "astrology" during the heydey of the theory. The NAS defines "theory" as:

"In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, and tested hypotheses. The contention that evolution should be taught as "theory, not as fact" confuses the common use of these words through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences." (Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, 2nd Ed. (1999), pg. 2)

500 years ago, many scientists would have put "astrology" under the NAS definition of theory (note: we find this incredible today, but in his time, it was not scandalous that Newton was an astrologer!). Today we know astrology is totally wrong, and so nobody wants them taught as science in school. So this is nothing but a red herring being raised by Padian and Matzke.

Padian and Matzke wrote:

"They admitted that ID is more plausible to those that believe in God – a rather peculiar feature of an allegedly scientific theory."

Here is what really happened. Behe's statements were taken from an article he wrote in "Reply to my critics: A response to reviews of Darwin's Black Box: The biochemical challenge to evolution," a peer-reviewed article published in Biology and Philosophy (Vol 16 (5): 685-709, Nov. 2001). Let's read a more complete version of the text of what Behe wrote:

"As a matter of my own experience the answer is clearly yes, the argument is less plausible to those for whom God’s existence is in question, and is much less plausible for those who deny God’s existence. People I speak with who already believe in God generally agree with the idea of design in biology (although there are certainly exceptions), those who are in doubt are interested in the argument but often are skeptical, and as a rule those who actively deny God’s existence are either very skeptical or wholly disbelieving (Apparently, the idea of a natural intelligent designer of terrestrial life is not entertained by a large percentage of people)." Michael J. Behe, "Reply to my critics: A response to reviews of Darwin's Black Box: The biochemical challenge to evolution," published in Biology and Philosophy (Vol 16 (5): 685-709, Nov. 2001)

Behe was talking about the general psychology of how people deal with accepting intelligent design theory. This is appropriate for a philosophy journal, which looks at how people accept the philosophical implications of various scientific theories. All Behe is saying is that for those who already believe in God, it's often easier for them to accept intelligent design. And Behe qualifies his statements by noting that there are "exceptions" to his experience--showing that he's not talking about hard-and-fast conclusions from ID theory, but the general psychology and philosophical implications that people often find from it. This does not mean that the scientific theory of ID mandates that the designer is God.

If this is the best that can be dredged up to try to claim that Behe believes that ID theory identifies the designer, then the NCSE's case is indeed very weak.

They insisted that the “Designer” does not have to be supernatural, but were unable to come up with any credible account or hypothesis of what such a “natural Designer” would be, or how to test for its existence."

This claim is false. Minnich testified that ID theory permits the possibility that the design resulted from a Crick-ian version of directed panspermia (see Day 20 testimony, pg. 136). Moreover, Matzke and Padian are misrepresenting the focus of ID theory. ID isn't in the business of determining if the designer was natural or supernatural--it doesn't search for designers, it studies natural objects searching for signs that natural objects were designed. William Dembski writes:

“Intelligent design is the science that studies signs of intelligence. Note that a sign is not the thing signified. … As a scientific research program, intelligent design investigates the effects of intelligence, not intelligence as such.” (William Dembski, The Design Revolution, pg. 33)

Similarly, Michael Behe explains that we can detect design without knowing anything about the designer:

"The conclusion that something was designed can be made quite independently of knowledge of the designer. As a matter of procedure, the design must first be apprehended before there can be any further question about the designer. The inference to design can be held with all the firmness that is possible in this world, without knowing anything about the designer." (Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, pg. 197 (Free Press, 1996).)

Behe even goes so far as to suggest that “[i]ntelligent design does not require a candidate for the role of the designer.” (Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, pg. 193 (Free Press, 1996).) Thus intelligent design does not attempt to study the actual intelligent designer, but simply studies objects in nature to determine if they were designed by intelligence. The focus is upon studying the natural object to see if it bears signs of intelligent design.

The gloat parade goes marching on...

Padian and Matzke write:

"Not a single peer reviewed paper proposes any concrete test or advances any solid testable evidence regarding a Designer.”

This is the world that Padian and Matzke would like to live in. But it exists only in their own minds. Sure, ID proponents haven’t published nearly the mountain of literature by evolutionist scientists. But to say that design proponent have published “not a single” paper or to insinuate that we aren’t putting forth research is a Darwinist myth. Meyer's paper proposes to test for ID by finding it as the best explanation for the origin of specified complex biological information. Lönnig explains that you can test for ID by searching for irreducible complexity, and gives 5 criteria for detecting design. And there's plenty of technical literature dealing with how ID is detected.

Matzke and Padian then write:

”Every major scientific organization in the nation has come out against ID, saying that it has no business masquerading as science.”

I could end discussion right here and just say "enough said,"--this is clearly politics at work! Against what other theory do science organizations release condemning press edicts? This is completely political and unscientific behavior for these "scientific" organizations. In particular, what business does the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, or Soil Science Society of America have in threshing ID? See Dirty Politics.

”This week, Science magazine, the premier journal of American science, named Evolution as the Scientific Breakthrough of 2005 and specifically lambasted ID as non-scientific.”

The microevolution highlighted in that piece was utterly unimpressive. Moreover, the "lambasting" of ID was predicated upon the false notion that Jones decision, in which he wrongly claims ID is a supernatural theory, got it right.

“Dr. Donald Kennedy, editor of Science, said in an interview with Reuters, ‘I think what arouses the ire of scientists (about intelligent design) is ... the notion that it belongs in the same universe as scientific analysis. -- It's a hypothesis that's not testable, and one of the important recognition factors for science and scientific ideas is the notion of testability, that you can go out and do an experiment and learn from it and change your idea.’”

Again, this is a false assertion with no discussion of the evidence. ID is eminently testable. Witt and Richards just wrote about this recently.

Matzke and Padian then write:

"That's just not possible with a notion that's as much a belief in spirituality as intelligent design is. For over a decade, the DI has claimed that their notion of ID deserves pride of place alongside conventional evolutionary theory."

What do the following leading pro-ID publications have to do with belief in spirituality? Just look at some of the work Discovery Institute ID advocates have put out.

Stephen Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117(2004):213-239.

Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119

Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force? Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004).

W.A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).

W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.

These references treat ID as a scientific theory which says we can find biological structures with the same informational properties we commonly find in objects we know were designed. This is not “spirituality.” (See What is intelligent design? for a brief summary of the empirical basis for inferring design.)

Padian and Matzke don’t have to agree with the arguments of ID proponents. But there’s no denying that its basis is in scientific observations and empirical data -- not belief in spirituality, faith, revelation, or religious texts. Intelligent design is a bona fide scientific approach to studying biological origins. Matzke and Padian misrepresent (dare I say “denigrate and disparage”) intelligent design to simply call it a form of “spirituality.”

“But they have refused to publish the peer-reviewed papers, to present their “research” at scientific conferences, to be held accountable in the scientific community on any terms whatsoever."

Again, this is the NCSEist false version of history. ID proponents have published peer-reviewed papers. And sometimes they've tried and got rejected simply because ID was outside of orthodoxy. And they have published research at scientific conference. Jonathan Wells recently presented a poster at a Society for Cell Biology Meeting based upon his explicitly ID-based research in Rivista de Biologia.

Matzke and Padian wrote:

"The plaintiffs showed that Behe, who was on the stand for three days, was unaware of published, peer-reviewed evidence that demolished his favorite ‘irreducibly complex’ notions such as the bacterial flagellum..."

Here Padian and Matzke use mimicry to adopt a bait-and-switch tactic common in Jones' opinion. It goes like this: if Minnich made the point that supported ID, then cite to Behe's lack of testimony and ignore Minnich's statements. Minnich's research helped predict the existence of the Type III Secretory System (TTSS), extensively rebutted all of Miller's allegations that the TTSS refutes irreducible complexity (see Day 21 am testimony), but this is another case Judge ignored this testimony completely. For a good summary of why Miller's arguments fail, see Rebuttal to Reports by Opposing Expert Witnesses by William Dembski.

Padian and Matzke wrote:

"The plaintiffs’ testimony about macroevolution, exaptation, natural selection, the fossil record, classification, and homology went completely unrebutted. Moreover, the Judge added (opinion, page 84), “the Court has been presented with no evidence” that either Defendants’ testifying experts or any other ID proponents have any expertise in these areas. Which we knew all along."

These are false misrepresentations of what Jones wrote in the opinion. Clearly the decision shows that the Judge specifically was only commenting on paleontology on page 84. Since Padian and Matzke extend their arguments not just to experts that testified but all ID proponents, it's worth noting that ID proponents have expertise in this area--Jonathan Wells and Paul Nelson have critiqued homology arguments for evolution extensively; Behe and Dembski have discussed and rebutted exaptation and natural selection extensively, Paul Nelson has done much work on systematics. Again, Padian and Matzke are doing their dance of joy in a different world.

Come Join our Party!

Matzke and Padian trumped the fact that Dembski said:

"I think the big lesson is, let's go to work and really develop this theory and not try to win this in the court of public opinion . . .. The burden is on us to produce."

But wait--this is precisely what the evil Wedge Strategy ordered in the first place--research! Discovery continues to support scientific research into intelligent design.

There is one statement that Matzke and Padian certainly get right:

Their amicus briefs were ignored by the Judge

The Judge ignored extensive arguments and evidence in our amicus briefs, which rebutted much of the reasoning upon which his decision was based.

I'll just end with the words of some Discovery geek who was recently quoted saying in Nature, "You cannot change the facts of biology through a judicial ruling.” (Nature, Jan 5, 2006, pg. 7)

That's why this debate not over. At least not until the NCSE goes to court and fights against the actual version of intelligent design.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 2:33 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Ohio’s science standards are not going to be downgraded by an education foundation as was mistakenly reported in the Dayton Daily News and elsewhere in Ohio this week.

Chester Finn, President of the Fordham Foundation, released a statement saying: “Just to clarify, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute has no plans to revisit or alter Ohio’s (or any other state’s) grade on science standards anytime soon.”

Comments critical of Ohio’s “Critical Analysis of Evolution” lesson plan by a researcher who helped write Fordham’s report grading the state’s science standards sparked the rumors that the grade was to be lowered unless the lesson plan was withdrawn. But Fordham's president clarified that researcher Paul Gross’ comments were made in his private capacity, not as a spokesman for the Foundation and stressed that they do "NOT mean Fordham is changing the grade we gave Ohio’s generally good statewide science standards."

“Clearly this was an attempt by dogmatic Darwinists to try and scare the Ohio public into thinking the lesson plan promoting critical thinking about evolution was somehow detrimental to the state’s education standing,” said Dr. John West, associate director of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture.

West added that Darwinists and some journalists were engaging in a "campaign of misinformation" to convince Ohioans that the state board of education has tried to insert intelligent design in Ohio schools.

“These claims about intelligent design being in Ohio’s science standards and model curriculum are science fiction,” said West. “In fact Ohio’s standards clearly state that they do not endorse teaching intelligent design.”

West pointed out that the voluntary Ohio lesson plan denounced by Darwinists does not discuss religion or alternative scientific theories such as intelligent design, but simply presents for students’ consideration some mainstream scientific evidence that challenges parts of Darwinian evolution. Moreover, the lesson plan is only one of ten biology lessons available.

Ohio's lesson plan on the critical analysis of evolution was created with input from a science advisory committee that included teachers, science educators, and scientists from across the state, and it was defended by a number of scientists in public testimony before the state board of education adopted it in 2004.

However, in the wake of a decision in federal district court in Pennsylvania saying intelligent design could not be required, Darwinists are now moving to censor Ohio's teaching of scientific evidence which challenges Darwinian evolution, even though Ohio has not proposed teaching anything about intelligent design in its model curriculum or science standards.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 10:39 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I'm pleased to announce a new member of the Evolution News and Views blogger team!

Michael Francisco is a second year law student at Cornell Law School. Raised in the science town of Los Alamos, New Mexico, he has been interested in the intelligent design movement since the 1990s. Michael is happily married to his wife, Christina, who is also from Los Alamos. Before attending Cornell Law School, Michael earned a B.A. in History & Philosophy from Hillsdale College, where he was manager of the debate team, a freelance journalist, and the founder of an IDEA club chapter. Michael currently serves at president of the Cornell Federalist Society chapter.

He'll be a semi-regular contributor to ENV over the coming months.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 10:20 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)