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.

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.

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!

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).

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).

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).

“[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.

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.”

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.

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.

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)

The New York Times today has a story pitting Design against Darwinism and implying that Darwinism is being embraced by the Catholic church. While they acknowledge some differences of opinion the article clearly tries to lead readers to believing that the Church is endorsing Darwinian evolution, and renouncing intelligent design.

We knew yesterday that the story was in the works based on a call from Times science writer Cornelia Dean. We responded to her, and immediately posted that response publicly on this site. It seems that it had an impact since their article reports on previous statements by the Pope that were all but ignored by the Times.

The Times story leads off by reporting: “The official Vatican newspaper published an article this week labeling as ''correct'' the recent decision by a judge in Pennsylvania that intelligent design should not be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution.

''If the model proposed by Darwin is not considered sufficient, one should search for another,'' writes evolutionary biologist Fiorenzo Facchini …”

I’m not sure if Dr. Facchini understands that this is exactly what the Center for Science & Culture is doing in researching intelligent design and related science issues. We don’t think Darwin’s model is sufficient, and some of our scientists are advocating an alternative theory. They are not “pretending to do science,” they are doing science, and we certainly don’t think they are straying from the field of science.

Times reporters Cornelia Dean and Ian Fisher note that: “The article was not presented as an official church position.” Of course, they can hardly believe that the Church might not agree with Darwin wholeheartedly. So unbelievable is that in fact, that they try to make clear the subtlety and ambiguousness they see in the Vatican. “But in the subtle and purposely ambiguous world of the Vatican, the comments seemed notable, given their strength on a delicate question much debated under the new pope, Benedict XVI.” I’m no Church theologian but lots and lots of ‘official’ Church views are hardly subtle or ambiguous

In a surprising twist, what makes this New York Times article interesting is what IS in the article, not what was left out. Yesterday I posted my response to Dean’s inquiry for our comment about the L'Osservatore article writing in part:

Not surprisingly, The New York Times did not the cover the Pope’s approving mention of intelligent design in one of his Wednesday speeches last November, yet it seems to take seriously as Vatican policy an op-ed by a little known writer published in the L'Osservatore Romano. We reported about this at length ourselves at http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/11/in_evolution_debate_the_media.html.

But Robert L. Crowther, spokesman for the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle organization where researchers study and advocate intelligent design, dismissed the article and other recent statements from leading Catholics defending evolution. Drawing attention to them was little more than trying ''to put words in the Vatican's mouth,'' he said.

Suddenly the article shifts into editorial mode and explains that the views in L'Osservatore can only be seen as the official views of the Vatican. Says who? Who provided this opinion? Since no attribution is given it would seem to be that of Dean and Fisher.

L'Osservatore is the official newspaper of the Vatican and basically represents the Vatican's views. Not all its articles represent official church policy. At the same time, it would not be expected to present an article that dissented deeply from that policy.

Then it’s back into editorializing gear, though I’m sure they don’t see it that way.

“There is no credible scientific challenge to the idea that evolution explains the diversity of life on earth, but advocates for intelligent design posit that biological life is so complex that it must have been designed by an intelligent source.”

We’ve addressed these sorts of concerns, that there is no controversy over ‘the fact of evolution’, repeatedly:
This claim turns on a profound ambiguity. What does “evolution” mean when asserted to be a “fact”? If it simply means changes in species over long periods of time, there seems to be little doubt the claim is true. If it means universal common ancestry (UCA), the claim is more controversial; reasonable scientific evidence exists both in favor of and against it. But, if “evolution” means UCA plus the Darwinian mechanism of unguided natural selection acting on ran-dom mutation—together giving rise to all the complex-ity and diversity of the living world—then “evolution” is certainly not a “fact.” There is very limited scientific evidence supporting this view, and powerful evidence against it. (Six Myths About Evolution)

There is a wealth of information that challenges key aspects of Darwinian evolution. So much so that nearly 500 scientists have signed a statement that reads: “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.” And these are credible scientists including members of a number of National Academies of Science from around the world, scientists at renowned research institutions and over 80 in the biological sciences. And more are signing onto the statement all the time.

Second, the latter half of Dean’s and Fisher’s comment –the part seemingly defining what intelligent design is— simply throws up a strawman caricature of intelligent design that does not accurately represent the theory in part or in whole. Intelligent design theorists do not say “life is so complex that it must have been designed by an intelligent source” or a higher power, or a creator, or an alien, or god, or whatever you want to tack on to the end of that particular caricature. Intelligent design theory is not an argument based on what we don’t know, but rather an argument from what we do know.

Intelligent design theorists argue in favor of design theory based on the recognition of things like the digital information in DNA and the complex machines found cells. They do so because invariably we know from experience that complex systems possessing such features always arise from intelligent causes.

As the pioneering information theorist Henry Quastler observed, "Information habitually arises from conscious activity." A computer user who traces the information on a screen back to its source invariably comes to a mind, that of a software engineer or programmer. Similarly, the information in a book or newspaper column ultimately derives from a writer—from a mental, rather than a strictly material, cause. Thus, what we know about the present cause and effect structure of the world suggests intelligent design as an obvious explanation for the information necessary to build living systems.

There are also strong positive reasons for inferring design from the intricate machines and circuits now found in cells. Michael Behe has shown that these systems are irreducibly complex, that is, they need all of their parts in just the right place to function at all. This is significant, not only because (as Behe shows) natural selection cannot produce irreducibly complex structures such as the bacterial flagellar motor, but also because we know that irreducible complexity is a property of systems that are known to be intelligently designed. In fact, every time we know the causal history of an irreducibly complex system (like a car engine or an electronic circuit), it always turn out to have been the product of an intelligent cause.

Thus, the inference to design in biology is not based upon ignorance or religion, but instead upon our knowledge of the cause and effect structure of the world. In particular, it is based on our knowledge of what it takes to build information rich and irreducibly complex systems. Cells contain miniature machines, complex cir-cuits and sophisticated information processing systems, exquisite nanotechnology that in any other realm of experience would immediately, and properly, trigger recognition of prior intelligent activity. (Six Myths About Evolution)

The Times also reports that Dr. Facchini said “Catholic thought did not preclude a design fashioned through an evolutionary process.”

I would hope that Dr. Facchini doesn’t think that Catholic though precludes a design fashioned through an intelligent agent.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 3:09 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (3)

Discovery Institute's science education policy stance is often misconstrued, or just outright made up out of whole cloth in various articles, news reports and opinion pieces.

A recent Weekly Standard article covering the Darwin vs. design debate, which was the subject of recent post, warrants an important follow-up on the policy issues it raised. Additional misconceptions by the article’s author abound. Also, some thoughtful criticisms by three distinguished interviewees quoted in the article require a reply.

As noted, Adam Wolfson’s article was already the subject of Keith Pennock’s post from the other day. Pointing to an essay by Dr. Stephen Meyer, he corrected Wolfson’s misconceptions about the intellectual foundations of the theory of intelligent design.

Wolfson also mistakenly contends that it is the "mantra" of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture that instruction in the theory of intelligent design be included in any science curricula. On the contrary, it has never been the public policy position of the Discovery Institute that the theory of intelligent design be mandated in public school science curriculum. Hence Discovery Institute’s insistence that the Dover Area School District withdraw the quasi-ID disclaimer policy that was the subject of the recent lawsuit and court decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover. By placing this incorrect statement about Discovery Institute’s policy position on science education in the context of the Kitzmiller case, however, Wolfson insinuates that the Discovery Institute wants to see neo-Darwininan evolutionary theory replaced by the theory of intelligent design through school board fiat. This is entirely false.

To repeat in no uncertain terms: it is the long-standing policy of the Discovery Institute that students be required to learn both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of neo-Darwinian theory and chemical evolutionary scenarios for the origin of the first life. It is not the policy of Discovery Institute that schools mandate the teaching of the theory of intelligent design.

Alluded to above, Wolfson interviews three distinguished intellectuals for his article: Prof. Robert P. George, Dr. Stephen Barr and Dr. Leon Kass. Since the actual quotations of those respected scholars are small, it is difficult to discern their contentions in their entirety. Nonetheless, the three purport to provide critiques of "some" ID proponents.

They are cited as being critical of "some" IDers who are trying to shoehorn ID into science curriculum. We completely agree with their underlying concern. At the risk of sounding like a broken record: Discovery Institute has never advocated the mandating of the theory of intelligent design in public school science curriculum.

George, Barr and Kass all go on to provide their own philosophical critiques of the theory of intelligent design. Their respective, nuanced positions are more appropriately the subject of another, specific reply. Here, it suffices to say that critics of the theory of intelligent design are welcomed. The censors of intelligent design are not.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 9:48 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

New York Times science writer Cornelia Dean called and left a message today saying she's writing an article about another article. Specifically she was asking for Discovery Institute's response to an article that recently appeared in the Vatican's newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano. I sent her this brief reply in e-mail. It will be interesting to see if she quotes from it.

Not surprisingly, The New York Times did not the cover the Pope’s approving mention of intelligent design in one of his Wednesday speeches last November, yet it seems to take seriously as Vatican policy an op-ed by a little known writer published in the L'Osservatore Romano. We reported about this at length ourselves at http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/11/in_evolution_debate_the_media.html .

In similar fashion great attention has been paid to George Coyne whose opinions are at variance from other Vatican positions that have been taken. This stands in contrast to the comments from the most prestigious person besides the Pope who has written and spoken at length on this topic, Cardinal Schönborn of Austria (see here, here, and here). He’s in the midst of giving nine lectures on the topic that the Times has not covered.

It looks to us as if you are trying to put words in the Vatican’s mouth.

It's funny that the Times is reporting on an op-ed as if it were the official position of the Vatican. That would be like a reader assuming that Cardinal Schönborn's piece, published in the New York Times distancing the Church from Darwinism was the official view of the Times.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 12:49 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

Seattle – A California high school has agreed to withdraw an elective philosophy class titled “Philosophy of Design,” which Discovery Institute said was misrepresenting the theory.

“We are pleased that the school district followed our recommendation to withdraw this class,” said Casey Luskin, an attorney with the Institute. “From the very beginning this course was not formulated properly and was confusing students by including discussion of intelligent design with material that promoted young earth creationism as fact.” Luskin sent a letter to the El Tejon Unified School District last week urging that the district drop or reformulate the class, and he testified to the school board in person on Jan. 13 that the class should be scrapped.

The out of court settlement orders the district to cancel the class by Friday next week and forbids them from ever teaching this class “or any other course that promotes or endorses creationism, creation science, or intelligent design.”

“While we are pleased by the outcome in this case, we continue to believe that teaching objectively about intelligent design is permissible in public school science classes, and is certainly acceptable for philosophy or social studies courses,” said Luskin. “We offered to work with the district and with Americans United to create a philosophy course on origins which people on all sides agree would be acceptable and that they could re-teach next year.”

Luskin noted that Americans United and other Darwin-only lobbyists had previously expressed a willingness for intelligent design to be taught in social studies or philosophy courses rather than science classes.

Last year, for example, the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, was quoted by the New York Times claiming intelligent design is religion and that: "when it comes to matters of religion and philosophy, they can be discussed objectively in public schools, but not in biology class."

"If Americans United really believes that it's OK to teach about intelligent design in philosophy or social studies courses," said Luskin, "we challenge them to join with us to come up with an objective course that can be taught in the El Tejon district. Otherwise, it will become clear that their real goal is the suppression of any discussion of intelligent design in any classroom anywhere in the country."

Posted by Robert Crowther at 6:35 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

A California high school has settled out of court with Americans United for Separation of Church and State who had complained and sued over the school’s teaching of an elective philosophy class called “Philosophy of Design.” The settlement orders the district to cancel the class by Friday next week and says: “No school over which the School District has authority, including the High School, shall offer, presently or in the future, the course entitled "Philosophy of Design or "Philosophy of Intelligent Design" or any other course that promotes or endorses creationism, creation science, or intelligent design.”

Clearly, American’s United for Separation of Students from Science is singing a different tune now than they did last year during the Dover trial.

Then they wanted to outlaw mentioning intelligent design in science classes. Now they want to ban it from all classes.

Then, they said intelligent design was an okay topic for philosophy classes. Now, they claim intelligent design is not suited for any classes.

Then, the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, was saying specifically about intelligent design that: "when it comes to matters of religion and philosophy, they can be discussed objectively in public schools, but not in biology class."

Now, Ayesah Khan, legal director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State is saying: "This sends a strong signal to school districts across the country that they cannot promote creationism or intelligent design as an alternative to evolution, whether they do so in a science class or a humanities class.”

Back then,Rev. Lynn was saying: “And Dan, just one other point, you can, in fact, talk about creation stories from a multitude of religions. It ought to be to be in a social studies class, not in a biology class.”

Now, we have Lynn and other Darwinists on a crusade to make sure that students will never even know that a theory called intelligent design was ever discussed anywhere.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 1:29 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (2)

I'm not the only one commenting on "Those Defensive Darwinists." Many of the most vocal defenders of Darwinism aren't behaving like dispassionate scientists, secure in the truth of their theory and, therefore, unruffled when others put forward an opposing scientific theory of life's origin. They're behaving as if ID theorists have touched a nerve. Three recent essays treat the subject incisively. William Rusher of the Claremont Institute asks, "What are the scientists really afraid of?" At Human Events Online, Barney Brenner asks, "Why Are Darwinists So Afraid of Intelligent Design?" And Albert Mohler discusses "Why Darwinism Survives." (Note to Barbara Forrest: The latter essay appears at a Christian website, and Mohler is the president of a Christian seminary: you'll want to use this to mount an ad hominem attack on his argument, much as you did against leading design theorists in your book and at the Dover trial).

Posted by Jonathan Witt at 9:55 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

During the Dover intelligent design trial, Barbara Forrest and others insisted that intelligent design (ID) was just an attempt to smuggle fundamentalist Christianity into our science classrooms. Judge John Jones swallowed this claim despite the many scientists and scholars outside of Christianity who have embraced ID (like British philosopher Antony Flew). They illustrate the obvious: A theory (ID) that makes no appeals to Scriptural authority, but instead bases its arguments on scientific evidence, is a theory that anyone from a deist to Deepak Chopra could embrace.

More evidence that intelligent design is not disguised Christianity comes from this fine essay in The Jerusalem Post by Jonathan Rosenblum.

Not only does Rosenblum not fit Barbara Forrest's stereotype of the Darwin skeptic motivated by fundamentalist Christianity, his essay also makes the case that Darwinism itself possesses many of the qualities we associate with a religious dogma accepted in the face of contrary evidence:

By contrast, Darwinists proceed by assuming the truth of the theory and then seeking empirical support. Studies of the fossil record that fail to buttress the theory are deemed "failures" and never published. The search for Darwinian common "ancestors," according to Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History, proceeds on the assumption that those ancestors exist and then selecting the most likely candidates.

The full essay is here.

Posted by Jonathan Witt at 2:08 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This is a summary of the statement made by Discovery Institute attorney Casey Luskin during the period for public comment at the El Tejon School Board on Friday, January 13, 2006. This statement was made during their 2 pm session, just before they went into closed deliberation as to what action to take regarding the “Philosophy of design” course. As Casey did not type out a written statement before speaking to the board, this essentially represents his recollection of statements as made to the El Tejon School Board.

Summary of Statement to El Tejon School Board, January 13, 2006 By Casey Luskin, ESQ Program Officer, Public Policy and Legal Affairs, Discovery Institute

Greetings, thank you for letting me speak. My name is Casey Luskin and I am an attorney representing the Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute is a think tank based out of Seattle, Washington that represents a large number of scientists who do scientific research into intelligent design.

I am a California licensed attorney and you probably recall that I sent a letter to Superintendent Wight earlier this week regarding our position on the course. After speaking with some people and learning more information about this course, Discovery is very concerned about the legal standing of this course.

From what I can tell, this course was originally formulated as if it would promote young earth or Biblical creationism as scientific fact. Although I understand that the course has since been reformulated to remove the creationist material, a course description was sent out to students around December 1st which described this course as promoting young earth or Biblical creationism as scientific fact. This is very concerning because courts have made it clear—specifically the U.S. Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard—that young earth creationism is unconstitutional to teach as fact in public schools.

Intelligent design is very different from young earth creationism. We at the Discovery Institute believe that intelligent design is constitutional to teach as a science. I understand that Americans United probably disagrees with that. But the fact is that this course originally mixed up intelligent design with the young earth creationist viewpoint. I want you to know that we support your efforts to present different views about biological origins in this philosophy course. We also applaud your efforts to remove the legally problematic creationist materials from the course. But the fact of the matter is that even if this course has been changed and improved, its past history as originally having been formulated to promote Biblical creationism as scientific fact makes this case legally problematic. Unless you get a very sympathetic judge, this course will be struck down as unconstitutional because of its problematic history.

Discovery believes that the Dover case was wrongly decided, and that it is constitutional to teach about intelligent design in a science or a philosophy course. However, given the history of this course, this course threatens to become a dangerous legal precedent which could threaten the teaching of intelligent design on the national level. The young earth creationist history of this course places it on extremely shaky legal ground. I’m not here to tell you that you should like the law, but this is what the law is, and this course is extremely problematic and is on shaky ground.

There is a legal train coming at you and we can see it coming down the tracks. Unfortunately this course was not formulated properly in the beginning, and students were told it would promote young earth creationism as fact. Thus, the only remedy at this point to avoid creating a dangerous legal precedent is to simply cancel the course.

But I do not want you to think that you are without options. Cancel the course for this year, and then if you want to teach it again next year, take your time, and consult people from all sides to construct a course that everyone agrees on. You could consult people from Americans United, you could consult the Discovery Institute, you could consult other experts, and you could create a philosophy course which people on all sides agree would be acceptable. Then you could re-teach the philosophy course on origins next year.

But if you do not cancel this course, and if you let this lawsuit go forward, you are going to lose and there will be a dangerous legal precedent set which could threaten the teaching of intelligent design on the national level. Such a decision would also threaten the scientific research of many scientists who support intelligent design.

Because of the young earth creationist history of this course, this course is not legally defensible and it should be cancelled. Thank you.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 7:09 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (2)

In the January 16 edition of the Weekly Standard in an article titled "Survival of the Evolution Debate”Adam Wolfson recites the long debunked mantra of Darwinists accusing ID of merely residing on Paleyian analogical reasoning and therefore being subject to Hume’s critique. In Wolfson's own words:

In making such claims the IDers are putting old wine in a new bottle. Some version of the design thesis is to be found in the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas and, perhaps most famously, in the writings of William Paley. The 18th-century English theologian argued that when we find a watch we infer a watchmaker; so too when we discover evidence of design in nature we properly infer a Maker or Creator.

Wolfson goes on to cite a Stephen Barr article in First Things,but had he dug a little deeper in that journal he would have found that this objection to ID was long ago debunked by Center Director Stephen Meyer in an April 2000 edition of First Things titled DNA and Other Designs. As Meyer wrote:

Of course, many scientists have argued that to infer design gives up on science. They say that inferring design constitutes an argument from scientific ignorance--a "God of the Gaps" fallacy. Since science doesn’t yet know how biological information could have arisen, design theorists invoke a mysterious notion--intelligent design--to fill a gap in scientific knowledge. Many philosophers, for their part, resist reconsidering design, because they assume that Hume’s objections to analogical reasoning in classical design arguments still have force.

Yet developments in philosophy of science and the information sciences provide the grounds for a decisive refutation of both these objections. First, contemporary design theory does not constitute an argument from ignorance. Design theorists infer design not just because natural processes cannot explain the origin of biological systems, but because these systems manifest the distinctive hallmarks of intelligently designed systems--that is, they possess features that in any other realm of experience would trigger the recognition of an intelligent cause. For example, in his book Darwin’s Black Box (1996), Michael Behe has inferred design not only because the gradualistic mechanism of natural selection cannot produce "irreducibly complex" systems, but also because in our experience "irreducible complexity" is a feature of systems known to have been intelligently designed. That is, whenever we see systems that have the feature of irreducible complexity and we know the causal story about how such systems originated, invariably "intelligent design" played a role in the origin of such systems. Thus, Behe infers intelligent design as the best explanation for the origin of irreducible complexity in cellular molecular motors, for example, based upon what we know, not what we don’t know, about the causal powers of nature and intelligent agents, respectively.

Similarly, the "sequence specificity" or "specificity and complexity" or "information content" of DNA suggests a prior intelligent cause, again because "specificity and complexity" or "high information content" constitutes a distinctive hallmark (or signature) of intelligence. Indeed, in all cases where we know the causal origin of "high information content," experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role.

Design theorists infer a past intelligent cause based upon present knowledge of cause and effect relationships. Inferences to design thus employ the standard uniformitarian method of reasoning used in all historical sciences, many of which routinely detect intelligent causes. We would not say, for example, that an archeologist had committed a "scribe of the gaps" fallacy simply because he inferred that an intelligent agent had produced an ancient hieroglyphic inscription. Instead, we recognize that the archeologist has made an inference based upon the presence of a feature (namely, "high information content") that invariably implicates an intelligent cause, not (solely) upon the absence of evidence for a suitably efficacious natural cause.

Second, contra the classical Humean objection to design, the "DNA to Design" argument does not depend upon an analogy between the features of human artifacts and living systems, still less upon a weak or illicit one. If, as Bill Gates has said, "DNA is similar to a software program" but more complex, it makes sense, on analogical grounds, to consider inferring that it too had an intelligent source.

Nevertheless, while DNA is similar to a computer program, the case for its design does not depend merely upon resemblance or analogical reasoning. Classical design arguments in biology typically sought to draw analogies between whole organisms and machines based upon certain similar features that each held in common. These arguments sought to reason from similar effects back to similar causes. The status of such design arguments thus turned on the degree of similarity that actually obtained between the effects in question. Yet since even advocates of these classical arguments admitted dissimilarities as well as similarities, the status of these arguments always appeared uncertain. Advocates would argue that the similarities between organisms and machines outweighed dissimilarities. Critics would claim the opposite.

The design argument from the information in DNA does not depend upon such analogical reasoning since it does not depend upon claims of similarity. As noted above, the coding regions of DNA have the very same property of "specified complexity" or "information content" that computer codes and linguistic texts do. Though DNA does not possess all the properties of natural languages or "semantic information"--i.e., information that is subjectively "meaningful" to human agents--it does have precisely those properties that jointly implicate an antecedent intelligence.

This piece has been listed on the Center website under "Essential Readings” for years. I would exhort Mr. Wolfson, and everyone else, to please read our works rather than tilt at the straw men that are foisted up by the Darwinists.

Posted by Keith Pennock at 2:48 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (2)

Seattle – A leading intelligent design group today sent a letter to the El Tejon School District in California requesting that the district either change the course materials or change the name of the its “Philosophy of design” elective philosophy class.

Earlier this week the district’s Frazier Mountain High School was sued by Americans United for Separation of Church and State for offering a philosophy course that purportedly teaches about the theory of intelligent design.

In the letter a Discovery Institute attorney writes: “The title and nature of this course are problematic and appear to misrepresent the content of the course and intelligent design.” The letter later urges the district to: “either reformulate the course by removing the young earth creationist materials or retitle the course as a course not focused on intelligent design.” The complete text is available for download here.

“In reviewing the course description and syllabus it’s clear that the course wrongly mixes intelligent design with young earth creationism or Biblical creationism,” said attorney Casey Luskin, program officer for public policy and legal affairs at Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture and author of the letter. “As far as we can tell more than half of the course content deals with young earth creationist materials, so the title “Philosophy of design” is misleading.”

In the letter Luskin explains why intelligent design is not the same as creationism: “Intelligent design is different from creationism because intelligent design is based upon empirical data, rather than religious scripture, and also because intelligent design is not a theory about the age of the earth. Moreover, unlike creationism, intelligent design does not try to inject itself into religious discussions about the identity of the intelligence responsible for life. Creationism, in contrast, always postulates a supernatural or divine creator.”

Discovery Institute is the nation’s leading think tank researching the scientific theory of intelligent design. In science education, it supports the "teach the controversy" approach to Darwinian evolution presenting both the strengths and weaknesses of the theory. Its Center for Science and Culture has over 40 biologists, biochemists, physicists, philosophers and historians of science, and public policy and legal experts, most of whom have positions with colleges and universities. For more information visit www.discovery.org/csc/.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 4:30 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

The Lawrence Journal-World covers the story here. Why won't the Darwinists at KU debate philosopher and mathematician William Dembski, who will be speaking at a campus forum Jan. 28?

Leonard Krishtalka, director of KU’s Biodiversity Institute, said he was one scientist who declined an invitation to debate Dembski.

“There is nothing to debate,” Krishtalka said. “Intelligent design is religion thinly disguised as science and does not belong in the science classroom.”

Find a passage anywhere in Dembski's Cambridge University Press monograph, The Design Inference, or in his follow-up academic book on the subject, No Free Lunch, that bases one of its arguments on a religious premise, that is, appeals to religious authority. Krishtalka can also peruse Michael Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box, and Stephen Meyer's peer-reviewed essay arguing that intelligent design best explains the Cambrian explosion.

One clarification on the ground rules. It won't do to uncover where one of these scholars (in an op-ed or interview, for instance) discusses the implications of intelligent design, or mentions his own personal religious beliefs, such as Michael Behe noting that he is Catholic. If this could be used to characterize a theory, then one could point to Catholic Darwinist Kenneth Miller's ruminations about Darwinism and religion to characterize the modern theory of evolution as a Catholic-based argument.

Posted by Jonathan Witt at 2:33 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Today some Darwinists pressed the State Board of Education in Ohio to stop teaching students about the many scientific criticisms of Neo-Darwinism. In the course of a discussion as to whether or not to dumb down the teaching of evolution in Ohio, it was revealed that some Darwinists are not tolerant of those with whom they disagree.

One Ohio State Board of Education member challenged Ohio State University Faculty Senate representative Jeffrey McKee with an e-mail he admitted writing. Writing about two university faculty members who are critical of Neo-Darwinism, McKee said:

"DiSilvestro, Needham have become viewed as parasitic ticks hiding in the university's scalp, who just got exposed by a close shave. I learned in Boy Scouts to twist the ticks when taking them out, so their heads don't get embedded in the skin. Others prefer burning them off. What fate awaits OSU's ticks remains to be seen."

This reveals the mindset of so many Darwinists: they are not tolerant of those who dissent from their views. So dogmatic are they that they not only oppose the teaching of the views of scientists who dissent from Neo-Darwinism, but they refuse to co-exist with them in the university setting. So much for academic freedom and collegiality. If there were any doubts about Darwinist dogmatism, this lays them to rest.

In 2002 Ohio adopted sound, reasonable science standards:

Life Sciences Benchmark H
Describe a foundation of biological evolution as the change in gene frequency of a population over time. Explain the historical and current scientific developments, mechanisms and processes of biological evolution. Describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory. (The intent of this benchmark does not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design.)

Another indicator in the standards requires students to:

“Recognize that science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, based on observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, and theory building, which leads to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.”

In 2004 Ohio adopted the Critical Analysis of Evolution lesson plan.

Lesson Summary:
This lesson allows students to critically analyze five different aspects of evolutionary theory. As new scientific data emerge, scientists’ understandings of the natural world may become enhanced, modified or even changed all together. Using library and Internet sources, groups of students will conduct background research for one of the aspects of evolution in preparation for a critical analysis discussion. Students also will listen to, and take notes on, their classmates' critical analyses of evolution theory. Again, one wonders how anyone could object to students being subjected to a critical discussion of important scientific concepts?

Thankfully, the Ohio board did not give in to pressure to dumb down the teaching of evolution. The Critical Analysis of Evolution model plan remains in place and students in Ohio will continue to learn about evolution in a non-dogmatic, and objective manner which helps them form the critical thinking skills necessary to train as good scientists in the United States.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 5:17 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State today sued a school district in El Tejon, California, because they have a philosophy course entitled "Philosophy of design." While the course is misnamed (it's teaching about many non-ID things like young earth creationism or Genesis), this new trick represents the true heart of these Darwinists: they don't care about keeping religion out of the science classroom, their goal is to censor any non-evolutionary views in ANY venue regardless of whether or not it is religion or science!!

The course is misnamed:
The course is misnamed--it actually advocates for young earth creationism and teaches out of the Bible. Such a course would have been more aptly titled something like "Philosophy of Origins" -- but not "Philosophy of design" because intelligent design has nothing to do with young earth creationism or Biblical views. Eugenie Scott of the NCSE acknowledges that “Most ID proponents accept an ancient age of the universe and Earth … most ID proponents do not embrace the Young Earth, Flood Geology, and sudden creation tenets associated with [young earth creationism].” (Eugenie Scott, Evolution vs. Creationism, pg. 126, 128).

Darwinist Inconsistency:
Darwinists have stated that ID is religion. Thus they have said that ID was just fine in a philosophy, or non-science course, as long as it stayed out of science courses. This is because even the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that "education is not complete without a study of comparative religion." (Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 42 (1980) (citing Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 225 (1963))

While of course we think that ID is not religion, a bona fide scientific theory which could be taught in science classrooms, we won't oppose non-science teachers that want to present this material to their students. Virtually any topic could be game for a non-scientific philosophy survey course like this one, where no material is being taught as science. We thought the Darwinists were willing to see non-evolutionary ideas considered in non-science courses. Turns out they were lying.

Rev. Barry Lynn, who leads Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, apparently doesn't want ID even in a philosophy course, because it's too dangerous for young minds to learn about regardless of the venue.

But consider what Lynn said earlier last year:

"The Rev. Barry Lynn, the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, called the president's comments irresponsible and said that "when it comes to evolution, there is only one school of scientific thought, and that is evolution occurred and is still occurring." Lynn added that "when it comes to matters of religion and philosophy, they can be discussed objectively in public schools, but not in biology class."" (Furor erupts over Bush's remarks on intelligent design, by Elisabeth Bumiller, Wednesday, August 3, 2005, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/08/03/MNGFOE1VHN1.DTL)

This is a philosophy class where it's implicit that this material isn't being endorsed by the district as science. What objection could one possibly have to having students learn about material some people consider religious in a philosophy course? The answer is simple: Darwinists aren't interested in keeping non-evolutionary views just out of the science classroom, they want non-evolutionary views out of students minds completely. If anyone ever doubted the full measure of Darwinist dogmatism, this lawsuit should dispell those doubts.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 3:42 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

SEATTLE – “Ohio critics of intelligent design now want to dumb down the teaching of evolution by censoring out scientific evidence challenging Darwinism and that is bad for students and bad for science education,” said Casey Luskin, program officer for public policy and legal affairs with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture. “A lot of evidence surrounding evolution isn’t typically covered in biology courses. Students need to learn more about evolution, not less.”

In the wake of a judge’s ruling banning intelligent design from the Dover, Pennsylvania school district, special interest groups opposed to teaching the controversy about Darwinian evolution are trying to pressure the Ohio State Board of Education to repeal an Ohio state science standard which requires students to be able to "describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." The standards clearly state that they “do not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design.”

“The Dover ruling clearly has no relevance for Ohio,” said Luskin. “Ohio is not teaching intelligent design, making this a completely different issue.”

“The sad truth is that there are some Darwinists out there who want to impose dogmatism in the curriculum, and don’t want students to know all there is to know about Darwinian evolution,” Luskin added. "It is critically important that students learn about all the most current scientific evidence both for and against the theory.”

The state board of education unanimously adopted the current science standards in 2002, after hearing testimony and input from teachers, science educators, and scientists from across Ohio.

Discovery Institute is the nation’s leading think tank researching the scientific theory of intelligent design. In science education, it supports the "teach the controversy" approach to Darwinian evolution. Its Center for Science and Culture has over 40 biologists, biochemists, physicists, philosophers and historians of science, and public policy and legal experts, most of whom have positions with colleges and universities.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 7:33 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

Darwin's defenders don't want intelligent design just forced out of the science classroom, they want it banned from all classrooms. I predicted some months ago that the claims of Darwinists that intelligent design should be relegated to philosophy, social studies or compartive religion courses (when was the last time you heard of a public high school with a comparitive religion course??) would not stand the test of time. I knew that as soon as some school opted to play by the Darwinists' new rules those rules quickly would be changed. And here it is.

Frazier Mountain High School outside of Bakersfield, CA has decided to offer an elective philosophy course about intelligent design. You would think that the dogmatists at the ACLU or American's United for Separation of Church and State would be patting themselves on the back at this point. But no.

Instead, the school district is issued with an ultimatum according to the Bakersfield Calfiornian which reports that the districts superintendent received a nasty letter from Americans United for Separation of Church State saying in part:

“Pull the intelligent design class at Frazier Mountain High School,” was the letter’s ominous message, “or we file an injunction.”

Darwinists have long argued that intelligent design should only be taught in social studies, history, or philosophy courses. But, now that some schools are doing exactly that they apparently think that the theory is too dangerous to be taugh in any classes. This is censorship, pure and simple. If there is one lesson that the Darwinists would be smart to learn, its that the forbidden fruit always taste sweetest.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 11:30 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The journal Science has a large piece on "Evolution in Action" (see the cool video at http://www.biocompare.com/science/btoy2005) or read the article at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/310/5756/1878). While the pieces did indeed cite examples of evolution, these did not present evidence that Neo-Darwinism can account for things like new body plans, novel biological functions, and real biological novelty. I found the examples interesting, but unimpressive as data supporting the grander claims of Darwin’s theory. Here’s the evidence they cited.

1) Genetic similarities between humans and chimps:

This isn’t a new “breakthrough”—we’ve known about close genetic similarities between humans and chimps for over a decade. Sure, they just finished decoding the chimp genome but it actually lessened our knowledge of human/chimp similarities rather than upping it. Similarities could easily be the result of “common design” rather than common descent—where a designer wanted to design organisms on a similar blueprint and thus used similar genes in both organisms. This doesn’t challenge ID.

But it turns out that similarities depend on how you measure them. One study which considered insertions and deletions realized that "our perceived sequence divergence of only 1% between these two species [humans and chimps] appears to be erroneous, because this work […] puts both species much further apart.” (see “Driving man and chimp apart” by Cathy Holding in The Scientist, June 26, 2003; "Comparative sequencing of human and chimpanzee MHC class I regions unveils insertions/deletions as the major path to genomic divergence" by T. Anzai et al. in PNAS 100:7708-7713 (June 24, 2003)). Those interested in an analysis of the many differences between humans and chimps from a pro-ID perspective should read Reflections on Human Origins by William Dembski. (PCID, Volume 4.1, July 2005)

2) Evidence of speciation for birds:

In college I learned quite a bit about speciation in various evolutionary biology courses. The problem is, as this indicates, speciation just means reproductive isolation (“a population stop mating with others”). This doesn’t mean you have observed the origin of something truly new. All they observed was that two bird populations migrated at different times so they didn’t mate anymore. No big deal. They also observed that fish populations can be split up into different lakes and grow different over time. I did a paper on cichlid speciation for an evolutionary biology course in college and was struck at how these small scale changes, even after long periods of time, wrongly excite evolutionists into thinking they can extrapolate to believe that new body plans and functions can arise due to Neo-Darwinian processes. These are very small changes in fish populations, and extended reproductive isolation often results merely in different coloring patterns and feeding habits.

Incidentally, one part of this article notes that noncoding DNA in fruit flies probably has a function—something which is a prediction of intelligent design, not evolution!

3) Avian flu evolution:

I previsouly wrote a post explaining why viral evolution doesn’t entail the origin of any new genetic information, and why it really isn’t an impressive example of evolution! The feared evolution of the Avian flu essentially entails the swapping of pre-existing genes to produce a new virus composed of pre-existing genes. This is not the origin of new genetic material but simply genetic "reassortment." This is evolution, but not a very impressive example of such. Also, a response to some critics of the original post is found here.

In the end, this evidence reminds me of an insightful comment from Ernst Mayr when he noted that examples of changing gene frequencies or reproductive isolation causing speciation do little to explain the origin of true biological novelty. It's all about how you define "evolution":

"The definition widely adopted in recent decades-"Evolution is the change of gene frequencies in populations"-refers only to the transformational component. It tells us nothing about the multiplication of species nor, more broadly, about the origin of organic diversity. A broader definition is needed which would include both transformation and diversification."

(Mayr, Ernst, "The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance," Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1982, p400)

In conclusion, the evidence presented in this article supports microevolution—a process denied by no design theorist. My college biology text, Campbell's Biology defines macroevolution as, "Evolutionary change on a grand scale, encompassing the origin of novel designs, evolutionary trends, adaptive radiation, and mass extinction." (Campbell, N. A., Reece, J. B., Mitchell, L. G., Biology 4th Ed, 1999) To extrapolate this evidence to such grand claims of macroevolution is highly questionable.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 1:20 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

During the Christmas break, I posted a four-part series analyzing various issues surrounding the Dover intelligent design ruling. In case you missed it, I am reposting the first three parts of the series here in one place. The analysis addresses the following questions:

I. Is Judge Jones an activist judge?

II. Did Judge Jones read the evidence submitted to him in the Dover trial?

III. Did Judge Jones accurately describe the content and early versions of the ID textbook Of Pandas and People?

The fourth part of the series can still be accessed here.

I. Is Judge Jones an activist judge?

I would like to start my analysis of the Dover decision by revisiting the question of whether Judge Jones is an "activist" judge. Some Darwinists are livid that I've applied this label to the Judge. Although I've explained my reasons for regarding Jones as an activist in detail to many reporters, my full views haven't really been reported. So I thought I would explain them here.

I regard Judge Jones as a judicial activist not because I disagree with the outcome of his decision (although I do), but because I disagree with the injudicious and overreaching manner in which he framed his decision.

It is a standard principle in good constitutional jurisprudence that a judge should only go as far as necessary to answer the issue before him. So if a judge can decide a case on narrow grounds, that's what he ought to do. He shouldn't try to to use his opinion to answer all possible questions. In the present case, Judge Jones found that the Dover board did not act for a legitimate secular purpose. Instead, he determined that board members acted for clearly religious reasons. Having made this determination, the specific policy adopted by the Dover board was plainly unconstitutional under existing Supreme Court precedents. End of story. There was no need for the Judge to launch an expansive discussion of whether intelligent design is science, whether there is scientific evidence for the concept, whether it is inherently religious, whether Darwinism has flaws, or whether Darwinian evolution is compatible with faith. A judge who actually adheres to the idea of judicial restraint would not have ventured into these other areas, because they were completely unnecessary for the disposition of the case.

Why, then, did Judge Jones venture so far afield from what was necessary to determine the case? From the comments he made to the newsmedia, it seems that he wanted his place in judicial history. He relished the idea that he could be the first judge to give a definitive pronouncement on ID, and he didn't want to let go of that oppportunity just because good judicial craftsmanship wouldn't allow it. Judge Jones also had no small estimate of his own importance in the scheme of things. Take the following remarkable passage from his opinion:

the 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. Finally, we 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. [p. 63] (emphasis added)

This passage exhibits the height of presumption, and it's why in my initial statement after the trial I referred to Judge Jones as having "delusions of grandeur." First, and contrary to the Judge's claim, a determination of whether ID is science was plainly NOT essential to the disposition of the case, as pointed out above. Even more troubling, however, is the Judge's suggestion that he wanted to determine whether ID is science so that no other judge need investigate the facts for himself. Judge Jones is a federal district court judge in one particular district court in Pennsylvania. But he's speaking as if he is more powerful than a majority on the United States Supreme Court! He is staking out the claim to have the right and duty to decide the question of whether inteligent design is science for all other judges in the entire United States in the future. Lower federal court judges are bound by Supreme Court precedents, but they certainly aren't bound by the rulings of other lower court judges at the same level. Although other federal judges certainly can refer to Judge Jones' decision (especially to his legal reasoning), every judge has a duty to reach an impartial and independent determination of the facts and law in the cases before him. Another federal district court judge can't simply say, "Well, Judge Jones has already decided the matter, so there is no need for me to do anything in this case before me." Nor can the judge tell the parties to a new case: "I've decided not to allow you to present any evidence, because Judge Jones already heard the evidence three years ago." Judge Jones, no matter what he thinks, is not the entire federal judiciary. Nor does he have the right to speak for the entire federal judiciary.

Another thing: Judges who truly believe in judicial restraint are careful not to try to use judicial power to decide divisive cultural controversies unless it is legally necessary to do so. In this case, as pointed out previously, Judge Jones had narrow grounds on which to base his decision. But he chose not to do so because he wanted to issue a definitive ruling on the disputed questions of whether intelligent design is science and whether it could ever be taught constitutionally in science classes. He wanted to decide the larger public controversy for all future legislators, school boards, and judges. That is judicial activism with a vengeance. It's the same type of activism that led the federal courts to try to decide the issue of slavery before the Civil War by judicial fiat in the case of Dred Scott. And it's the same type of judicial activism that led the federal courts to inject themselves into a host of social conflicts (such as abortion) during the past few decades. Far from resolving controversial issues, such activism betrays the democratic process and often leads to further polarization. By giving everyone a stake in the discussion, the democratic process tends to promote incremental solutions and compromise, which cools tensions over the long term. That's why judges who believe in judicial restraint are careful not to intervene on one side of a controversial debate unless absolutely necessary. It is the hallmark of activism for a judge to try to impose his view on a controversy when such a course of action is not absolutely necessary as a matter of law.

The main responses I've heard to the charge that Judge Jones is an activist are these: (1) he insists he's not an activist; and (2) he's a lifelong Republican.

Well, of course Judge Jones says he's not an activist. But methinks he protests too much. In his decision he goes out of his way to announce that his opinion will surely be attacked as an activist one. Far from indicating that he isn't an activist, I think that this self-serving disclaimer indicated that he plainly knew he was being an activist and wanted to cover himself.

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.

Of course, the newsmedia are now fast spinning the tale that Judge Jones is not only a Republican, but he's supposed to be a conservative and devoutly religious Republican. As I have blogged about here, those claims seem to be as mythical as the view that Judge Jones isn't an activist.

II. Did Judge Jones read the evidence submitted to him in the Dover trial?

It has become apparent that Judge Jones was incredibly sloppy with the purported findings of "fact" in his lengthy 139-page judicial opinion. Time and again, Jones made assertions in his opinion that were unambiguously factually wrong--even though the correct information was a part of the official record before him. It is beginning to look like he didn't even bother to read or consider the information and arguments submitted by the side he disagreed with.

Here are some of the more egregious examples.

1. Judge Jones wrongly claims there are NO peer-reviewed scientific articles favoring ID.

Judge Jones writes that "a final indicator of how ID has failed is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory." (p. 87, emphasis added) Again, he claims that "ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications." (p. 87, emphasis added) In a footnote, he glancingly mentions one peer-reviewed article in the journal Protein Science by Michael Behe, but complains that this article does not explicitly reference ID. (footnote 17, p. 88).

Judge Jones shows no awareness of several other peer-reviewed and peer-edited publications explicitly supporting both intelligent design and Behe's idea of irreducible complexity, even though a list of these publications was submitted as part of the record in the case. See appendix D of the amicus brief filed by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE) here. This appendix lists such articles as Stephen Meyer's peer-reviewed technical article on the Cambrian explosion and intelligent design in The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, and a more recent technical article on irreducible complexity and intelligent design in the scientific publication Dynamical Genetics. Judge Jones did not deny that these articles were peer-reviewed. He simply ignored them. He also ignored the peer-reviewed academic books like William Dembski's The Design Inference (Cambridge University Press) and Campbell and Meyer's Darwinism, Design and Public Education (Michigan State University Press). A number of the peer-reviewed articles supportive of design were referenced by biologist Scott Minnich during his testimony at trial. Was Judge Jones asleep during that part of Dr. Minnich's testimony?

2. Judge Jones wrongly treats theologian/philosopher Thomas Aquinas as the ultimate source of the argument to design.

Drawing on theologian John Haught, Judge Jones treats Thomas Aquinas as the originator of the ID of intelligent design, writing that "ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He [Haught] traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century...." (p. 24) In fact, discussions about the design of nature date back to Plato and Aristotle and significantly predate medieval theology. Judge Jones would have known this fact had he read the Foundation for Thought and Ethics amicus brief, which pointed out (with documentation):

Ancient philosophers began formulating arguments about design long before they had exposure to the Bible, and indeed without basing their arguments on sacred scriptures of any kind.The Greek philosophers Heraclitus, Empedocles, Democritus, and Anaximander believed that life could originate without any intelligent guidance, while Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle advocated that mind was required.33 During the Roman era, Cicero cited the orderly operation of the stars as well as biological adaptations in animals as empirical evidence that nature was the product of “rational design.” [pp. 12-13]

Judge Jones either didn't read the brief, which is part of the official record of the case, or he again ignored the evidence simply because it didn't fit his predetermined conclusions.

3. Judge Jones wrongly claims that intelligent design "requires supernatural creation." (p. 30, emphasis added)

Contrary to Judge Jones, there was extensive evidence in the trial record and documents submitted in briefs that intelligent design does NOT "require supernatural creation." Indeed, Judge Jones seems to willfully misrepresent the claims of intelligent design scientists, who consistently have made clear from the very start that empirical evidence cannot tell one whether the intelligent causes detected through modern science are inside or outside of nature. For extensive documentation of this fact, see Appendix A to the Discovery Institute amicus brief submitted in the case, available here.

As a scientific theory, all ID claims is that there is empirical evidence that key features of the universe and living things are the products of an intelligent cause. Whether the intelligent cause involved is inside or outside of nature cannot be decided by empirical evidence alone. That larger question involves philosophy and metaphysics.

To justify his false claim that ID requires a supernatural cause, Judge Jones also completely misrepresents the content of the textbook Of Pandas and People. He claims at one point that "Pandas indicates that there are two kinds of causes, natural and intelligent, which demonstrate that intelligent causes are beyond nature." (p. 30) In fact, Pandas explicitly and repeatedly makes the opposite claim: Intelligent causes may be either inside or outside of nature, and empirical evidence alone can't determine which option is correct. Pandas made this distinction even in its early drafts, one of which emphatically stated that "in science, the proper contrary to natural cause is not supernatural cause, but intelligent cause." (FTE Amicus Brief, Appendix B, Document B; emphasis added.) Also consider the following passages from the edition of Pandas actually used in Dover (both of these passages were highlighted for Judge Jones in Appendix A of the FTE amicus brief):

“If science is based upon experience, then science tells us the message encoded in DNA must have originated from an intelligent cause. But what kind of intelligent agent was it? On its own, science cannot answer this question; it must leave it to religion and philosophy. But that should not prevent science from acknowledging evidences for an intelligent cause origin wherever they may exist.”(Of Pandas and People, 2nd ed., 1993, pg. 7; emphasis added)

“Today we recognize that appeals to intelligent design may be considered in science, as illustrated by current NASA search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). Archaeology has pioneered the development of methods for distinguishing the effects of natural and intelligent causes. We should recognize, however, that if we go further, and conclude that the intelligence responsible for biological origins is outside the universe (supernatural) or within it, we do so without the help of science.” (Of Pandas and People, 2nd ed., 1993, pg. 126-127; emphasis added)

Again, the intelligent causes detected through empirical evidence may be either inside or outside of nature; and contrary to Judge Jones, this point is made in the very book he cites to justify his position. Incredibly, Judge Jones at another point in his opinion (p. 25) misinterprets the Pandas' quote on p. 7 as further proof that ID requires a belief in a supernatural cause, claiming:

In fact, an explicit concession that the intelligent designer works outside the laws of nature and science and a direct reference to religion is Pandas’ rhetorical statement, “what kind of intelligent agent was it [the designer]” and answer: “On its own science cannot answer this question. It must leave it to religion and philosophy.”

Contrary to Judge Jones, the above statement clearly does NOT concede that "the intelligent designer works outside the laws of nature and science." Instead, it merely reaffirms that empirical science cannot determine whether the intelligent cause detected resides inside or outside of nature. That further determination requires more than empirical science. Far from being merely "rhetorical," this claim is central to the definition of intelligent design as a scientific theory, and it is reaffirmed and further explained in other passages in Pandas that the Judge ignores (such as the passage on pp. 126-127 cited above).

4. Judge Jones wrongly claims that intelligent design grew out of Christian fundamentalism.

According to Judge Jones, intelligent design is not just "religious," it is the outgrowth of twentieth-century American Christian "fundamentalism." He makes this claim notwithstanding the fact that the debate over design in nature reaches back to the ancient Greeks (as pointed out above), and that the debate remained an important dispute among scientists from Darwin onward. As explained in the FTE amicus brief:

Design was also an important part of the contemporary scientific debate at the time Darwin’s theory was developed. Indeed, the term “intelligent design” as an alternative to blind evolution was employed by Oxford scholar F.C.S. Schiller as early as 1897. Schiller wrote that “it will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of Evolution may be guided by an intelligent design.” Schiller, like modern design theorist Michael Behe, argued for intelligent design without rejecting all forms of evolution or even common descent.

It's important to stress that Judge Jones can't point to even a single doctrine unique to Christian fundamentalism that is incorporated by ID. Indeed, he effectively concedes that ID proponents distinguish their theory from fundamentalism by pointing out that it does NOT involve arguments based on "the Book of Genesis", "a young earth," or "a catastrophic Noaich flood." (p. 35) So where's the fundamentalism?

In wrongly trying to conflate ID with fundamentalism, Judge Jones simply ignored the testimony in his court of two of the most prominent ID scientists, biologists Michael Behe and Scott Minnich. Neither Minnich nor Behe were shown by the ACLU to be fundamentalists (they aren't), neither were shown to believe in a literal reading of Genesis (they don't), neither were shown to come to their beliefs in ID from fundamentalism (they didn't), and both reject neo-Darwinism on scientific grounds. Indeed, Behe has made clear that he had no problem with the modern theory of evolution until he discovered that what he was seeing in the lab did not fit with what he was being told in standard textbook accounts. Behe's skepticism of neo-Darwinism was not driven by a change in religion, but by scientific evidence. So again, where's the fundamentalism?

To conclude, Judge Jones' repeated mistatements of fact and his one-sided recitation of the "evidence" reveal not only a judicial activist, but an incredibly sloppy judge who selects the facts to fit the result he wants.

III. Did Judge Jones accurately describe the content and early versions of the ID textbook Of Pandas and People?

In his decision, Judge Jones placed great weight on the early intelligent design textbook Of Pandas and People published by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE). According to Judge Jones, early drafts of this textbook supposedly show that intelligent design is merely repackaged creationism. However, Judge Jones seriously misrepresented the facts about Of Pandas and People, and he also misapplied the relevant legal standards.

Earlier this year when it became evident that the ACLU was trying to put Pandas on trial just as much as the Dover School Board, the Foundation for Thought and Ethics sought to intervene in the case so that it could defend itself. FTE wanted to cross-examine the ACLU's witnesses as well as present its own experts, evidence, and arguments during the trial. Yet Judge Jones rejected FTE's motion for intervention. FTE was eventually allowed to submit a "friend of the court" brief to Judge Jones, but such briefs do not have the same status as evidence and arguments presented at trial, and the brief was limited to no more than 5,000 words (including footnotes). That's right, Judge Jones allowed FTE a mere 5,000 words to rebut literally hundreds of pages of testimony and allegations made by the ACLU. How is that for fair and impartial justice? Given Judge Jones' explicit refusal to allow FTE to present a defense in the Dover case, his condemnation of FTE's textbook was grotesque.

Regarding the substance of Judge Jones' critique of Pandas, one would do well to read the amicus brief filed by FTE in the case. The FTE brief clearly demonstrates (1) that the published versions of Pandas do not promote creationism; (2) that the early drafts of Pandas did not promote "creationism" as it has been defined by the Supreme Court; and (3) that even if early drafts of Pandas did promote creationism in the eyes of Judge Jones, those drafts should be legally irrelevant. FTE's full brief (including footnotes and appendices with supporting documentation) can be downloaded here and here.

AMICUS BRIEF FILED BY THE FOUNDATION FOR THOUGHT AND ETHICS (excerpts)

I. INTELLIGENT DESIGN, AS DESCRIBED IN PANDAS, DIFFERS FROM CREATIONISM IN BOTH METHODOLOGY AND
PROPOSITIONAL CONTENT.

A. Intelligent Design, As Described In Pandas, Bases Its Claims On Empirical Evidence And Scientific Methods Rather Than Upon Faith, Doctrine, Or Scripture.

Creationism is identified by its reliance upon religious scripture and doctrine, rather than empirical evidence. By contrast, the theory of intelligent design, as developed in Pandas, relies upon scientific data and does not address religious or doctrinal questions. Pandas infers design using observations, uniform experience, and empirical experimental evidence: "If experience has shown that a certain class of phenomena results from intelligent causes and then we encounter something new but similar, we conclude its origin also to be from an intelligent cause." Pandas consistently takes this empirical approach and nowhere relies upon faith, doctrine, or religious scripture.

B. Intelligent Design, As Described In Pandas, Is Distinct From Creationism Because It Does Not Use Science To Postulate A “Supernatural Creator,” Nor Does It Attempt To Validate The Biblical Account In Genesis.

Plaintiffs contend that teaching intelligent design endorses religion. The endorsement test, as adopted by the Supreme Court, employs an objective component where a statement cannot be taken in isolation but must be read in its entire context: "The meaning of a statement to its audience depends both on the intention of the speaker and on the "objective" meaning of the statement in the community. Some listeners need not rely solely on the words themselves in discerning the speaker's intent: they can judge the intent by, for example, examining the context of the statement or asking questions of the speaker." Plaintiffs ignore the context in Pandas explaining how intelligent design cannot identify the designer as well as Pandas’ emphasis on empirical data.

1. Pandas Demonstrates That Intelligent Design Takes A Scientific Approach Which Cannot Identify The Designer.

In Edwards, the Supreme Court held that creation science entailed the “religious viewpoint” that “a supernatural creator was responsible for the creation of humankind.” Plaintiffs try to force the square peg of design into the round hole carved by Edwards, falsely asserting that Pandas postulates a “supernatural entity.” Yet Pandas clearly states that the scientific theory of intelligent design cannot address questions about the ultimate nature of the intelligent cause: "But what kind of intelligent agent was it? On its own, science cannot answer this question; it must leave it to religion and philosophy." "We should recognize, however, that if we go further, and conclude that the intelligence responsible for biological origins is outside the universe (supernatural) or within it, we do so without the help of science." Because it does not delve into questions surrounding the supernatural, Pandas does not violate methodological naturalism (as espoused by plaintiffs).

Moreover, the Pandas edition used in Dover explicitly disclaims endorsement of Christianity: "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 normally associated with Christian fundamentalism, such as a young earth, a global flood, or even the existence of the Christian God." This context makes it clear that Pandas does not endorse any particular religious belief, including Christianity. All design implies is “life had an intelligent source.”

2. Plaintiffs Mistakenly Contrast Natural Causes With Supernatural Causes, Rather Than With Intelligent Causes.

In an attempt to attack the scientific basis of the theory of intelligent design, plaintiffs claim that the only alternative to explanation by natural causes is an appeal to supernatural causes. Pandas offers two distinct categories of scientific explanation: natural and intelligent. Pandas carefully distinguishes between “supernatural” causes and “intelligent” causes, for intelligent causes are amenable to scientific investigation, whereas it is impossible to detect whether a cause is “supernatural.” The distinction between intelligent and supernatural causes is a critical one, and it was adopted by FTE before the decision in Edwards, as reflected in early drafts of Pandas. If plaintiffs were correct, Pandas should not explain design using examples of intelligent, yet non-supernatural causes. But Pandas offers many such examples, including human writers, artists, skywriters, car manufacturers, carpenters, tribespeople, and engineers. In short, the intelligent aspect of a cause is detectable, while supernatural identity is not: if an intelligent cause is indeed supernatural, its identity as such cannot be determined via science. Pandas explains that we have everyday experience with detecting intelligence; thus, intelligent design is not an untestable supernatural concept.

3. Statements About A “Master Intellect” Do Not Endorse Religion.

Plaintiffs argue that appealing to a “master intellect” entails a deity. Yet the appropriate dictionary definition of “master” has no religious overtones: "being a master of some occupation, art, etc.; eminently skilled a master diplomat; a master pianist." Pandas refers to the “master intellect” in terms of the designer’s ability to design sophisticated biological molecules. An early draft of Pandas observes: "Some master intellect is the creator of life. But such observable instances of information cannot tell us if the intellect behind them is natural or supernatural. This is not a question that science can answer."

The claim that the complex information in biological organisms is best explained by an intelligent source is no more “ultimate” in its reach than the claim of Neo-Darwinism that all life results from random mutation and natural selection. What matters is not the degree of “ultimacy” but whether the claim is one that science can address. “Thus the so-called ‘Big Bang’ theory, an astronomical interpretation of the creation of the universe, may be said to answer an ‘ultimate’ question, but it is not, by itself, a ‘religious’ idea.” Similarly, intelligent design interprets biological data as sharing the same informational content found in human language and machines. Like Big Bang cosmology or Neo-Darwinism, the theory of intelligent design in biology is not religious because it lacks “comprehensiveness” and is “generally confined to one question.”

Posted by John West at 12:05 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (9)

Arizona Republica columnist Robert Robb hit the nail on the head in his examination yesterday of Judge Jones' decision to declare intelligent design unscientific. Robb is right to note, as have many others, that the courtroom is not where science should be, or will be, decided.

"Moreover, based upon the extensive expertise he professes to have acquired in the course of a six-week trial, he defined science and determined that the scientific claims of intelligent design were invalid, neither of which are exactly legal questions best decided by a single lawyer."

In a rare occurence, Robb manages to both understand the basic nature of intelligent design theory, and Discovery Institute's education policy position. That's something Judge Jones obviously can't claim.

"Intelligent design accepts that the Earth and life are billions of years old, and that life has evolved through adaptation, mutation and natural selection. It even accepts some degree of common ancestry among species.

It simply finds the claim that all life evolved from a single organism not to best fit the available evidence.

Far from wanting to ban the teaching of evolution in public schools, the ID movement advocates that it be taught. Moreover, it does not support the mandatory teaching of intelligent design as an alternative. Instead, it wants a more circumspect presentation of evolutionary theory as well as acknowledgement of its scientific critiques.

Those critiques, such as that some of life exhibits irreducible complexity that cannot be explained by evolution, are fiercely rebutted by evolutionists. But the notion of circumspection shouldn't be controversial."

Posted by Robert Crowther at 11:29 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

By Jay Richards and Jonathan Witt
Among the many, many errors in Judge John Jones’ Dover vs. Kitzmiller opinion is the charge that intelligent design (ID) makes no empirically testable claims (see pp. 66 ff.). Similarly, other ID critics assert that intelligent design makes no testable predictions.1 In fact, intelligent design fulfills both criteria since it makes numerous empirically testable predictions.

It’s true that there’s no way to falsify the bare assertion that a cosmic designer exists. Nevertheless, the specific design arguments currently in play are empirically testable, even falsifiable,2 and involve testable predictions.

Consider the argument that Michael Behe makes in his book Darwin’s Black Box. There he proposes that design is detectable in many “molecular machines,” including the bacterial flagellum. Behe argues that this tiny flagellar motor needs all of its parts to function—is “irreducibly complex.” Such systems in our experience are a hallmark of designed systems, because they require the foresight that is the exclusive jurisdiction of intelligent agents. Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection and random variations, in contrast, requires a functional system at each transition along the way. Natural selection can select for present but not for future function.

Notice that Behe’s argument, contra the assertions of Judge Jones and the ACLU’s expert witnesses, rests not on ignorance or on a purely negative argument against Neo-Darwinism, but on what we know about designed systems, the causal powers of intelligent agents, and on our growing knowledge of the cellular world and its many mechanisms.

Behe predicts that scientists will not uncover a continuously functional Darwinian pathway from a simple precursor to the bacterial flagellum and, moreover, any detailed evolutionary pathway that is articulated will presuppose other irreducibly complex systems. How does one test and discredit Behe’s claims? Describe a realistic, continuously functional Darwinian pathway from simple ancestor to present motor. The flagellum might still be designed, but Behe’s means of detecting such design would have been falsified.

Darwinists like Kenneth Miller point to the hope of future discoveries, and to the type III secretory system as a machine possibly co-opted on the evolutionary path to the flagellum. The argument is riddled with problems, but it shows that Miller, at least, understands perfectly well that Behe’s argument is testable.

Miller tried to sidestep this obvious point in his expert testimony at the Dover trial by conceding that Behe’s argument was testable but insisting that it was a purely negative argument against Neo-Darwinism, not a positive case for intelligent design. This is mere wishful thinking on Miller’s part. Behe’s argument is also based on positive evidence for design. Behe points to strongly positive grounds for inferring design from the presence of irreducibly complex machines and circuits. This testable evidence is so powerful, so nearly ubiquitous, that it is often overlooked. Go out and find irreducibly complex machines, then find out, where possible, their causal history. Again and again one will find that the irreducibly complex machines (mousetraps, motors, etc.) were designed by intelligent agents. Indeed, every time we know the causal history of an irreducibly complex system, it always turns out to have been the product of an intelligent cause.

Miller has conceded that Behe's irreducible complexity argument is testable. And we see that Miller's assertion that scientists have tested and falsified Behe's argument is itself false. Finally, Behe and other design theorists like Scott Minnich and Stephen Meyer have offered positive evidence for the design of the flagellum based on standard uniformitarian reasoning, reasoning well established in science.

To move from biology to astronomy and cosmology, in The Privileged Planet, Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards describe how to falsify their design argument. They suggest that there is a correlation between the conditions needed for life and the conditions needed for diverse types of scientific discovery, and suggest that such a correlation, if true, points to intelligent design. They write:

The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment, which, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment. The opposite of this would have the same effect—finding an extremely habitable and inhabited place that was a lousy platform for observation.

Less devastating but still relevant would be discoveries that contradict individual parts of our argument. Most such discoveries would also show that the conditions for habitability of complex life are much wider and more diverse than we claim. For instance, discovering intelligent life inside a gas giant with an opaque atmosphere, near an X-ray emitting star in the Galactic center, or on a planet without a dark night would do it serious damage. Or take a less extreme example. We suggested in Chapter 1 that conditions that produce perfect solar eclipses also contribute to the habitability of a planetary environment. Thus, if intelligent extraterrestrial beings exist, they probably enjoy good to perfect solar eclipses. However, if we find complex, intelligent, indigenous life on a planet without a largish natural satellite, this plank in our argument would collapse.

Our argument presupposes that all complex life, at least in this universe, will almost certainly be based on carbon. Find a non-carbon based life form, and one of our presuppositions collapses. It’s clear that a number of discoveries would either directly or indirectly contradict our argument.

Similarly, there are future discoveries that would count in favor of it. Virtually any discovery in astrobiology is likely to bear on our argument one way or the other. If we find still more strict conditions that are important for habitability, this will strengthen our case.

So contemporary arguments for intelligent design in both biology and the physical sciences are not only testable; they make predictions and are falsifiable in principle. Of course, if the arguments are true, then they are falsifiable only in principle, but not in fact (hardly a weakness in a scientific theory). We have given only two examples here. There are many other design arguments in biology, origin-of-life studies, and paleontology that are also empirically testable and that make predictions. Therefore, honest commentators should stop claiming that ID is empirically untestable, or that it makes no predictions. The claim itself has been tested and falsified. It’s time to move on to other and more pertinent aspects of the debate over intelligent design.

NOTES:
1. Philosophers of science now know that "prediction" is too narrow a criterion to describe all scientific theorizing. Empirical testability is the more appropriate criterion.

2. "Empirical testability," "falsifiability," and "confirmability" aren't synonyms. "Empirical testability" is the genus, of which falsification and confirmation are species. Something is empirically testable when it is either falsifiable, confirmable, or both. Moreover, something can be confirmable but not falsifiable, as with the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) or the existence of a cosmic designer. Both of these claims are still empirically testable. Further, recent work in the philosophy of science has revealed the degree to which high level scientific theories tend to resist simple refutation. As a result, Karl Popper’s criterion of “falsifiability,” which most commentators seem to presuppose, was rejected by most philosophers of science decades ago as a litmus test for science. Nevertheless, it’s certainly a virtue of scientific proposals to be able to say what evidence would count against it.

Posted by Jonathan Witt at 8:10 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (2)

Evolution News & Views (ENV) started out to do exactly what The New York Times’ Kit Seelye reports that some in the media are not happy is happening:

“Subjects of newspaper articles and news broadcasts now fight back with the same methods reporters use to generate articles and broadcasts - taping interviews, gathering e-mail exchanges, taking notes on phone conversations - and publish them on their own Web sites.”

When we launched this website almost exactly one year ago, it was because we were tired of the mainstream media ignoring, mischaracterizing and otherwise misreporting the views of scientists and scholars who dissent from Darwinism, as well as those scientists who also advocate for the theory of intelligent design. The mainstream media has noticed. It is becoming more and more the case that non-journalists are using the internet to hold reporters accountable, as well as using it as an additional tool for delivering their own message to the general public.

Seelye leads her story with an example from ENV last August. ABC Nightline reporter Chris Bury interviewed Dr. Stephen Meyer at length for a Nightline episode about intelligent design. Following the Nightline episode we immediately posted the entire transcript of the interview so that readers could get the entire, unedited, picture of what was discussed. With that context the final program is exposed for its obvious bias.

As we noted then:

Fortunately, viewers don't need to depend on Nightline to determine whether there is a scientific controversy over Darwin. While the Nightline "journalists" simply parrot the Darwinists' party-line, the number of peer-reviewed articles and books by intelligent design scholars continue to grow, as do the number of doctoral scientists who are skeptical of the core claim of Darwin's theory on scientific grounds.

Rather than depend on Nightline, people can read for themselves about the scientific debate in academic books published by Cambridge University Press and Michigan State University Press. Or they can watch one of the "high-gloss video productions" dismissively alluded to by Nightline such as Unlocking the Mystery of Life. There they can see and hear for themselves scientists like University of Idaho microbiologist Scott Minnich and Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe who support intelligent design. These are the scientists Nightline insists don't actually exist. Hint to Nightline's staff: Maybe you should watch one of these videos. You might learn something.

In the end Nightline edited the interview with Meyer to manipulate viewers, and used a quote from Meyer out of context, in which he said that he thinks the designer is God. What they cut out was his comment explaining that this was not his basis for advocating intelligent design, and that his personal view doesn’t have any bearing on the scientific questions being debated. Meyer said:

The media commonly says, in fact recently it was said that we’re so clever that we don’t say the designer is God. Well, the reason we’re not saying the identity of the designer is not because we’re trying to be clever or get around Supreme Court rulings, or anything of the sort. We’re just trying to be careful about what the scientific evidence does and does not support. It supports the conclusion that there was an intelligence; the second order question of the identity of the intelligence is something that is for philosophical deliberation. ... I think the designer is God, but, look, it’s not like we are trying to make a scandal of where the evidence might lead. We think that the evidence leads first to intelligence, and then from there, there is a second question, which is the identity of the designer, and there are some people who think it’s God, and there are some people, like Fred Hoyle, who think that maybe it is some sort of imminent intelligence within the universe. Francis Crick speculated that some other intelligence may have been involved. But we are insisting that from the scientific evidence, from the presence of digital code in the cell, you can tell that an intelligence played a role in the origin of life."

Nightline's Bury is very candid in explaining exactly how the mainstream media controls the message it wants the public to receive:

"But readers and viewers need to realize that one interview is only one part of the story, that there are other interviews and other research and that this is just a sliver of what goes into a complete report."

We have often criticized CNN,like we did ABC, for its blatantly biased coverage of this issue. But they don’t seem to care, and are even quite up front about the fact that they’re going to editorialize the news for you rather than report it straight. Seelye reports CNN correspondent Jamie McIntyre admitting:

"I don't worry so much anymore about finding out every little detail five minutes before someone else. It's more important that we take that information and tell you what it means."

Posted by Robert Crowther at 4:29 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Professor Joseph Knippenberg of Oglethorpe Univerity has followed up his fine analysis of the Selman case with an equally insightful analysis of the Dover decision. According to Knippenberg,

Judge Jones’s conclusions about the law depend upon a rather unsophisticated understanding of philosophy and theology. If ever there were need for a case study to demonstrate how the practice of law ought to rest on a foundation of liberal learning, Judge Jones’s opinion here would provide it.

Posted by John West at 11:20 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

Lawyer Phyllis Schlafly, head of Eagle Forum, has written an article blasting Judge Jones in the Dover case for judicial activism.

Schlafly observes:

Jones exhibited his bias for judicial activism with public remarks that should have caused his recusal. Signaling that he would exploit the dispute, Jones boasted, "It certainly is one of the most significant cases in United States history. ... Even Charles Darwin's great grandson is attending the trial."

Former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge described Jones as a close friend and future candidate for governor. When questioned, Jones did not rule this out. Playing up to the New York Times in an article published days before his opinion was released, Jones made the silly boast that he reads five newspapers a day.

The New York Times reported that Jones was awe-struck that his case appeared on the cover of Rolling Stone, and that he even bragged to his wife about it before buying a copy.

All that Jones told the New York Times is not yet publicly known, or what it told him, during his private interview with that newspaper during the trial. Jones' pursuit of the spotlight illustrates what is wrong with our judiciary today. He smeared "fundamentalists," impugned the integrity of those who disagree with him by accusing them of lying and issued an unnecessary permanent injunction.

She concludes:

As the reader of five newspapers, Jones was surely aware that the Dover school board had already changed hands, indicating it would be dropping mention of intelligent design. Rather than admit that the case was largely moot, as a judge should, he resorted to judicial activism to make the case a cause celebre.

In an era of judicial supremacy, Judge Jones' biased and religiously bigoted decision is way over the top. His decision will ultimately hurt the evolutionist cause because it shows that the evolutionists cannot defend their beliefs on the merits; they can only survive by censoring alternate views.

Posted by John West at 11:07 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)