Having recently been named 2005's "most missed member" of the Magic Online Trading League (MOTL) discussion forums, I decided to peruse their general discussion (GD) forum last night and see what was being discussed. There was a thread on intelligent design (my favorite topic). The basic question being asked in the MOTL GD forum was "Is ID science? Does it belong in the science classroom?" So I posted a lengthy article on the subject last night...

I've cut and pasted the body of that post here to ULev since MOTL postings are not permanently archived. For those of you who are regular readers of my blog, there won't be much in this article that you haven't heard me say in other articles, but you might still get some enjoyment out of it. You can check the original thread if you want to read the responses it garners. Here's what I had to say...

Intelligent Design is not Science.

ID is fighting to wear the mantle of Science, but it is fighting in the wrong arena. Its core tenet, irreducible complexity, is inherently fallacious, doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and has no supporting evidence. Ultimately the case for ID is merely a case against evolution, and even if it succeeded in disproving evolution, ID still wouldn't be science. The testimony and judicial decision in the Dover case are particularly pertinent in making this clear. ID is not science, and as I will demonstrate in my conclusion, it isn't even necessary for either Faith or Science.

Wrong Arena:
We don't decide what is science by popular decree or by democratic processes. This should be your first inkling that there's something amiss with the whole ID movement (IDM for short). If ID was science, the IDM would be trying to convince the scientific community, instead of waging a cultural/political battle trying to convince people that aren't scientists.

That's the problem, it isn't science, and the idea that Evolution is controversial or "in crisis" exists only within the extremely tiny (not to mention vocal) circles that promote ID as science. If you ask just about any serious scientist about the controversy in evolution, she'll roll her eyes and say "THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY."

All theories in science are held up constantly for review, and if contradictory evidence comes forth, theories get altered or supplanted. Science does this quite well. Witness "cold fusion" which fell short upon scientific review. Where is the PR campaign to convince the public that there's something to "cold fusion"? Those who originally proposed it may still believe they are onto something and may be working on new experiments as we speak, but they aren't trying to get cold fusion into your science class because that is not how theories pass muster.

That evolutionary theory has some issues that haven't been resolved yet doesn't make it stand apart from countless other accepted scientific theories. Has anyone found a graviton yet? No, and yet we don't have a march on schools to teach intelligent gravitational theory alongside standard theories.

And why not? Because when Science pursues a phenomena and seeks to provide an explanation, it can (by definition) only provide a NATURAL ONE. And when it comes to the origin of species (and life), this attracts the attention of those who believe in biblical inerrancy (another belief, btw, which is demonstrably false). And this is why it is evolution, and ONLY evolution, which is being challenged in the public sector even though the challenge has already failed in the scientific community.

Making a pseudoscientific argument in the wrong arena to try and convince non-scientists that your hokum is bonafide science is disingenuous at best.

In order for ID to be science, you have to change the definition of science to include supernatural causes and effects. The moment you do that, it becomes untestable, unfalsifiable, and thereby unprovable. Which basically means it isn't science anymore. The Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture (the driving force behind ID) makes clear in their five year "Wedge Strategy" document that ID isn't about figuring out where we come from, it's about trying to alter science so we will stop exploring purely natural causes for our origin. Read it yourself.

What ID has got is pretty good PR. Scientists are generally not very good at PR. They're busy people and often not given to waging PR wars. Further, nonsense tends to make scientists irritable. Logic and observation are the coins of the realm for scientists, pseudoscience is a waste of time. One only need listen to Dr. Richard Dawkins hand out the smack down on people who challenge established theory with arguments based on pseudoscience and other claptrap. I recently heard him on NPR giving an interview. Somebody called into the show and said to him "You're seriously asking me to believe that humans came from monkeys? That's crazy! How can someone actually believe that?" Dr. Dawkin's response was "Someone can actually believe it because there is overwhelming evidence for it. Do read a book, I implore you, they're marvelous, you'll love them." There's a guy who isn't going to win any hearts from the other side.

Thus when a savvy ID PR argument says something like "Why not represent both theories in class? Provide the kids with all the info and let them decide for themselves?" It resonates strongly with the public. We like the idea of open discourse and teaching controversy. Too bad we're being lied to, for ID is not a scientific theory, and our kids are not scientists and are not equipped to differentiate well-dressed pseudoscience from science.

(BTW, I love listening to right wingers argue that we should present both theories and let youngsters make their own choices. How quickly does the give-them-all-the-info argument evaporate when the subject switches to prevention of pregnancy and STD's? Let's give the kids all the info and let them decide right? NO! NO! Abstinence only! ABSTINENCE ONLY!!!)

Irreducible Complexity:
The idea of irreducible complexity is key to intelligent design, put simply it holds that some biological processes and apparati are so complicated that they require multiple independent mechanisms to exist all at the same time in order for them to operate. The prime example used by the IDM these days is the flagellum of the E. coli bacterium. This helical filament sticks out of the bacterium and rotates like a screw, imparting a spin to whatever fluid the bacterium is in, and thereby allowing the bacterium to propel itself around.

The argument goes that if you remove any particular component of the flagellum, the entire system ceases to function, remove this bit and it can't spin, remove that bit and it will spin but not propel the bacterium, etc. Therefore, any one of the components of the flagellum by itself are useless to the bacterium, but that is exactly how evolution predicts that the bacterium species would come to have a flagellum--by slight modifications over a great period of time. The ID'ers cry foul here and say that the flagellum would need to come into existence exactly as it is for it add any advantage to an individual bacterium so that it would fare better and be more likely to pass on its genetic material to future generations. This, according to the IDM, implies the existence of a designer.

Like most of ID, this argument is inherently fallacious. It (a) ignores the oft demonstrated phenomenon that the primary function of systems change over time and (b) commits the fallacy of arguing from incredulity.

With regard to (a), there are examples of biological systems which changed their primary function. What was once a digestive organ could become a sensory organ, what was once a sensory or a secretory organ could become a motor organ. Since this is known to happen, the argument that a bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex falls apart. Yes, if you take away this bit or that bit, it no longer operates... as a flagellum.

But that doesn't mean that at some earlier time the flagellum wasn't an altogether different organ, say a sensory organ used for "feeling about". Through genetic mutation, a bacterium is born with a feeler that is more mobile than other bacteria, and it turns out that twitching it around moves the bacterium a little faster... it can get to the food quicker, it can get away from "predators" quicker. In fact the advantage of the feeler as a motor organ may outweigh its advantage as a sensory organ, and so bacteria with really good "sensing abilities" in their feeler, are no longer most favored to survive. Eventually it becomes a contest where the most mobile bacterium is the most likely to reproduce and as a result eventually you evolve extremely intricate flagella.

With regard to (b), arguing from incredulity is not science. The argument from incredulity goes something along the lines of "evolution (and/or I) cannot explain how this particularly complicated system came into being, therefore, a higher power must have been involved." This is the same sort of thinking that made people think lightning was a supernatural occurrence wrought by an angry god. Like the unexplored areas of the map labeled "Here Be Dragons", if we can't explain something, it must be the work of God. The fallacy of argument from incredulity ignores the fact that the inexplicable becomes explicable in time. Science doesn't ignore that fact. Faced with something that evolution can't explain, the scientific response is "evolution (and/or I) cannot explain how this particularly complicated system came into being yet, therefore, more research and investigation is required."

To be blunt, Science doesn't believe in irreducible complexity, only irreducible simplicity. What an ID'er might call "irreducibly complex" is what a scientist would likely describe as "not yet explained".

In fact at present all of the best known examples of "irreducibly complex" systems have been shown to be reducible. In the last couple years it was the chemical cascade involved in blood clotting which breaks down if you remove any single step. Except whoops, it's been demonstrated that the blood clotting process happens in other species even with multiple steps missing, it just happens differently. Both the bacterial flagellum and adaptive immune system examples haven't held up under scrutiny.

A few years earlier than that, when Intelligent Design was called Creation Science, the argument was that the eye was irreducibly complex. That argument too fell apart, rather easily.

In point of fact, to date, there is no system or biological process that has been demonstrated to be irreducibly complex where the assertion has held up under scrutiny. Like the rest of ID, this is yet another conclusion that the IDM is trying to find evidence to support.

The Case for ID:
When boiled down to its core elements, all ID amounts to is a bunch of challenges to the theory of evolution, many of which (as detailed above) are demonstrably false or simply not testable.

ID will never prove itself by poking holes in a different theory. Assume for a moment that someone actually discovered evidence that was verifiable and utterly contradicted the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution would have been proven false. If that ever happened, ID would not become the theory of the day, because there is still no evidence for ID.

The argument for ID in its present form, is completely built upon the bedrock of the fallacy of the excluded middle. This is a common tactic employed with weak arguments which appeal to emotion but not to reason. Basically, the IDM would have you believe that because evolution has some gaps, ID must be true. This ignores the possibility that there could be hundreds or thousands of different theories explaining of the origin of species of which evolution is only one. ID isn't even a "theory" (there is no forum in which ID is on equal footing with evolution because it has no evidence, makes no predictions, and is not testable), but even if it were, the end of evolution would not be "a lock" for ID.

In short, disproving evolution does not equal proving ID. If evolution disappeared tomorrow, ID would still be poppycock, and whatever theory replaced evolution would likely bear no resemblance to ID.

You can't prove your idea by disproving another.

If ID'ers want their religious belief to be accepted as a scientific theory, they're going to need to build a case for ID, instead of trying to build a case against evolution. Right now that's what the "Case for ID" is... a (poor) case against evolution... which proves not one iota of ID.

Dover:
The "idea center" (put forth earlier, presumably as some sort of validation of ID as a science) exists specifically to promote intelligent design in the public sector.

Regardless of whatever you read there, ID is demonstrably untestable, makes no predictions, and is therefore unfalsifiable. The testimony of the court case in Dover should make that abundantly clear for anybody who has only been following this at the "glossed over" level. Many of the principal founding architects of ID took the stand and their arguments did not hold up.

I recommend you read Judge Jones' decision from the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District case before voicing an opinion on whether or not ID belongs in the Science column or the Mythology column. The decision goes to great length (139 pages) and does an excellent job of summarizing the testimony. Judge Jones will undoubtedly be labeled an "activist" (the right's latest buzzword for a judge that delivers a verdict they don't like) but it is clear from his lengthy decision that he is not. He makes no case against ID as a belief, he argues (rightly) that whether ID is true or not doesn't enter into the question of whether or not ID is science, and whether or not it espouses religion. Ultimately his argument is based solely on the testimony and the constitution, and not by any stretch of either.

I strongly urge you to read this decision. Of particular interest is section 4 "Whether ID is Science" (pp 64-89). Here's the first paragraph of section 4:

quote:

---

After a searching review of the record and applicable case law, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.

---

Conclusion:
Intelligent Design is not Science. Therefore it has no place in science class. It is also an inherently religious belief system, and therefore has no place in public schools given our current interpretation of the constitution.

From my perspective, ID is simply another attempt by those with weak faiths to shore up their beliefs. If you have faith, evidence doesn't matter. Science is belief based on evidence. Faith is belief in the absence of or even in spite of evidence. What science proves or disproves has no bearing on your faith, if your faith is strong. Therefore you shouldn't be looking to science to affirm your faith.

If your faith says the world is 10,000 years old, the fact that science proves otherwise is irrelevant not "a cause for alarm". The dilemma facing most modern religions is that they "evolved" from a time when faith was science. Hence before science became what it is today, people looked to their faith or philosophy to answer the questions that science can now answer authoritatively. Hence, modern faith still has vestigial organs--attempted answers to questions which faith no longer needs to answer.

In the future these vestigial organs will likely disappear altogether and faiths will retreat to the realms of the metaphysical and the unfalsifiable and leave the physical world to science. Doubtless this will not happen without growing pains (like ID).

But clearly, Science does not disprove that God exists, Science does not disprove that he created the universe, Science does not disprove that he loves you, and so forth. The God hypothesis is untestable--Science cannot take it away from you. Science doesn't address metaphysics or the supernatural, nor does it seek to. Your moral code, and the essence of your faith-based belief systems need not change in the light of science. And it is likewise true that Science need not change in the light of faith. Heck there's no reason why you can't believe in God, and also believe in evolution. There are plenty of evolutionists in church.

So let's keep the antiscientific mumbo jumbo out of the science class, and leave it in the home, the church, the Sunday school, the private school, and the countless other venues where it is appropriate.

Intelligent Design is not Science.

For those of you interested in keeping up to date on the movement to inject religiousity into science and reasoned arguments to the contrary, I heartily recommend reading the wonderful blog The Panda's Thumb.