Radical Noesis - Thinking outside the box

If you didn't read my earlier article on this subject, go ahead and do that if you want. It might give you some background on my position. It's not necessary, but might give you some good information.

Though it may not seem to fit in an environmentally-oriented website such as Radical Noesis, the fact that these people are trying to alter science in general should be very important to anyone who wants to protect our environment. These people, with almost 100% overlap, are the same people who are trying to say global warming doesn't exist and that drilling for oil in a national wildlife refuge is somehow good for the environment.

Either ironically or because of some sick, twisted sense of revenge, the hearings convened 80 years, to the day, after John Scopes was arrested for teaching Darwin's theory to his Dayton, Tenn., high school class. Intelligent design, of course, is nothing more than an attempt to promote creationism as some sort of science, but the attempt, in my mind, fails terrifically. This isn't because intelligent design is a ridiculous notion or even that I necessarily disagree with it; in fact I do see some sort of intelligence in the universe's design. I don't even see a problem with schools mentioning all of the evidence for some sort of intelligence in the universe's design. However, the proponents of what they call "intelligent design" are actually trying to force down the throats of children in a multi-faith environment the ideals and beliefs of one particular faith, namely Judeo-Christian.

My problem is the idea that the intelligent design theory, as it stands now (a front for backwards ideals from 2 millenia ago), is a pseudo scientific theory. It is not a scientific theory, it does not use the scientific method, it does not work within the confines of modern science, and it therefore has no place in science classes. Every single instance of an argument for intelligent design contains contradictions and logical fallacies, and therefore, again, has no place in science classrooms. The article I just linked to has a good, concise introduction to the theory of evolution.

To understand the problems with Intelligent Design, first it is important to understand the theory it is attempting to oppose, evolution by natural selection. The theory is this: If organisms reproduce, offspring inherit traits from their progenitor(s), a variability of traits exists, and the environment cannot sustain all the members of an increasingly large population, then those members of the population that have poorly-adapted traits (to their environment) will die out, and those with well-adapted traits (to their environment) will prosper (Darwin 459). Over a long period of time, this process leads to extreme complexity, and adaptedness.

The article mentions several arguments put forth by intelligent design proponents, such as irreducible complexity, originated by Michael Behe in his book Darwin's Black Box. The term "irreducible complexity" is defined by Behe as: "a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." One example of this is the vertebrate eye, which Behe and others argue is nonfunctional if incomplete, and therefore could not have evolved. This is, of course, ridiculous. They completely ignore the fact that evolution doesn't work like this; you don't start out with a pupil, then the nerve endings, irises, lenses, etc evolving later. The eye likely started out as a photo sensor - a way to detect light - then evolved from there. This argument is apparently never mentioned by Behe, and his theory is therefore scientifically invalid.

A related but even less defensible theory is specified complexity, whose existence isn't even assured by the author who proposes it, so I don't see any reason to really talk about it except to tell you that the idea is this: Dembsky argues that for something to be complex, it must have "multiple possible outcomes." He says that if something can be predicted to happen with certainty, it is not Specified Complexity. In this way he precludes any deterministic explanation of Specified Complexity, thus making it require some external designer by definition.

One of the more convincing theories, though easily shrugged off, is that of the "fine-tuned universe." Basically, there are several constants in our universe that allow life to exist, for physics to work in such a way that the universe can actually continue, and so on. If the strong nuclear force were to have been as little as 2% stronger (relative to the other forces), all hydrogen would have been converted into helium. If it were 5% weaker, no helium at all would have formed and there would be nothing but hydrogen. If the weak nuclear force were a little stronger, supernovas could not occur, and heavy elements could not have formed. If it were slightly weaker, only helium might have formed.

If the electromagnetic forces were stronger, all stars would be red dwarfs, and there would be no planets. If it were a little weaker, all stars would be very hot and short-lived. If the electron charge were ever so slightly different, there would be no chemistry as we know it. Carbon (12C) only just managed to form in the primal nucleosynthesis. And so on." The argument against this theory is closely related to the saying "I think, therefore I am." Namely, since the universe does exist as it does, and we are alive, and physics does work the way it does, that predetermines the universe being "fine tuned." The fact that it's fine tuned doesn't have anything to do with whether or not someone tuned it beforehand or whether this happened out of complete chance.

There is a concept of falsifiability in science, which says that scientific theories must be able to be proven true or false. By the very definition of a scientific theory, there has to be evidence for or against a theory, and if it cannot be proven true or false, it is not a valid theory. A theory that cannot ever be proven false or true is 100% a pseudo scientific theory. These theories are often created this way on purpose, in order to allow the arguments for them to continue indefinitely. We can never prove that there is a creator unless when we die we do indeed go to heaven and meet god and sit on fluffly clouds with wings and harps, but there is no way *on Earth* to prove the idea of intelligent design true or false. It is therefore not scientific, should not be taught in schools, and certainly is not a valid argument against evolution. Evolution, on the other hand, can someday be proven true or false. All a valid scientific theory needs is one piece of evidence that contradicts the theory, and it is proven false. This has yet to happen with evolution.

UPDATES:
A pretty funny biology professor with some thoughts

The blog of a Kansas biologist who is attending the hearings

Also, if you sign up for a free audible.com account, you can download the hearings.