Wednesday, December 29, 2004
Intelligent design is a theory built on unknown data
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
±
Miles, of Roanoke, is retired from Virginia Western Community College, where he was professor of geology.
Linda Whitlock recently wrote a commentary headlined "Intelligent design merits equal time with evolution" (Dec. 17). It would take more than an entire issue of The Roanoke Times to present the vast amount of evidence for evolution, which ranges across biology, biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, paleontology and even physics.
Evolution is a theory (in the scientific sense) based on more than a century and a half of accumulated evidence - evidence that continues to grow and be detailed by myriad modern researchers. The hypothesis of intelligent design is a hopeful belief in search of evidence. Books written by proponents such as William Dembski are full of complex explanations, abstruse statistics and impressive sounding terms like "irreducible complexity."
However, if one seriously examines the argument for intelligent design, it boils down to this: Ignore all the positive evidence for evolution. Focus only on any biological aspects that have not yet been explained. If the origin and/or development of a biological process has not yet been explained by science, (e.g., certain molecular biological processes) then it must have been created by someone or something.
For example, it is said that 14 factors are required for the clotting of blood. Science apparently has not yet been able to explain how these factors evolved. Therefore, according to the creationists, because all 14 of these have to be present they could not have evolved gradually. Voila! They had to be created - all at the same time.
Let's be rational. Much of the evidence of evolution is preserved in the fossil record. Almost all fossils consist of hard parts (shells, bones) or impressions in soft sediments. Is it likely that there would be a fossil record of blood? Changes involving soft tissue, let alone fluids, are most unlikely to be preserved.
Whitlock states that "the scientific community now insists that legitimate scientific inquiry must begin with the premise that the natural world is all that exists," perhaps implying that scientists don't believe in God - a common misconception of creationists. Many scientists are very religious, but the point is that the exclusion of the supernatural is a necessity of scientific investigation.
For example, suppose that a suspect's blood has been found at the scene of a murder. Would a jury believe the argument that some of the victim's DNA was magically transformed into that of the suspect? Scientific investigations must exclude supernatural effects. How could a new cancer drug be developed if magic or the supernatural were invoked to explain certain observations? I would emphasize that this does not mean that scientists exclude God in their personal lives, but that science rests on the observable, the facts.
I would like to make clear that many specifics of the theory of evolution have not yet been explained, and this gives rise to differences of opinion among scientists. But they all believe in the basic concept of natural selection; they are only arguing details.
Reasonable refutation or explanation could be given to many other comments of Whitlock's, but I will quote just one more. She says, "Regardless of which faith scientists start from, however, they should, as Antony Flew has done, '[f]ollow the evidence, wherever it leads.'"
I couldn't agree more, because there is no evidence for intelligent design. It is based solely on gaps in the record or as yet unexplained aspects of evolution, human physiology, molecular biology, etc. No experiments are done using the hypothesis of intelligent design. No drugs or other products have been developed from application of the concept.
The accumulation of countless observations and facts has resulted in the development and confirmation of the theory of evolution. Intelligent design is the reverse. It is based on a belief in search of evidence. It is not science and therefore should not be taught as part of a science class.
