UPD8

Free Radical

Intelligent design in science?

Marianne Cutler
22:35  |  02 October 2006

STOP PRESS: Our long-running debate has been re-ignited by news that the government will tell schools not to use the creationism teaching materials in science. Full story.

Should you start teaching the 'theory' of Intelligent Design in science? After all, isn't learning about 'different ways of interpreting evidence' part of How Science Works?

At least that's the line from the organisation 'Truth in Science', who've sent a pack to all science departments.

Are you going to use it? Should upd8 cover this topical story? Or is that just giving the 'ID' lobby a 'seat at the table' where they don't belong, as Richard Dawkins has said
See the full BBC news strory
Want to learn more? Watch Steve Jones' lecture: "Why creationism is wrong and evolution is right"

Reviews & Comments

Add your comments

Intelligent design

Nov 3rd, 2008

I have come late to this debate, having just discovered upd8. As a science teacher for 25 years, and someone who would probably describe themselves as C of E rather than atheist, I have great problems with so called "intelligent design". I received the DVDs and was immediately suspicious. Reading the small print, it was obvious that a financially secure backer had been found to promote some non-scientific material. I gave them to a teacher in school who runs the Christian Union, as they were obviously not suitable for science lessons. Science is based on discoveries, theories to explain those discoveries and evidence to corroborate those theories. If there was any evidence to back intelligent design, it would be an accepted scientific theory. As it is, it seems to be a faith based stance in search of evidence. The wonder and beauty of the universe at all levels inspires scientists and non-scientists alike, but it is only the scientists who seek explanations for phenomena. Darwin's theory of evolution has so much of the "wow factor" that enthuses children that surely, intelligent design seems a small minded, blinkered alternative. An intelligent design stance is doomed to become anti-science because it refuses to seek some of the explanations because they are dismissed as created by God. How far is this from becoming "we must accept this because it is the will of God". To refuse to accept overwhelming evidence is close to fundamentalism. Fundamentalism has much the same result in all religions. Good scientists accept that there are questions that science may never be able to answer, but also that we don't yet know all the questions. Intelligent design answers too many questions with a certainty based on faith to be included as a scientific theory.

Posted by: Michael Barton

Re: Raphael Preston

Nov 3rd, 2008

I no longer teach science, but I do still work closely with schools, for an LA, supporting secondary science education.

To be honest Raphael it is a moot point. Whether one says ‘outside agent’, ‘designer’, God, Thor or Allah is irrelevant to a science education. These concepts, by definition, require faith and not evidence. If Andrew can find evidence for a god that is not explained by evolution (as opposed to his ‘it looks designed so it must be’ argument) then we can teach it in schools.

‘Truth’ in Science is really the brainchild of some young earth creationists who want to chip away at evolution, not via actual research, but through school science education. I can think of no other scientific revolution that has worked in this way. Without wishing to sound like a conspiracy theorist, TiS and the Discovery Institute don’t like the fact that we are not all Christians and this is one of the ways they are trying to change that.

Posted by: Ben Littlewood

to Ben

Nov 3rd, 2008

Dear Ben

I would have been interested in your take on some of the comment I posted earlier to Andrew Rowell ?

What do you think of the terms "outside agent" for example ?
Or the self "contained explanation" idea ?

I take it that you teach Science ?

thanks .. best

Posted by: Raphael Preston

The Crazy World of Andrew Rowell

Nov 3rd, 2008

To be honest Andrew I am tired of the repetition of this debate. Nothing you have said is evidence FOR a designer, and I have answered all your points already. You merely keep repeating the notion that complexity equals design, and expect us to agree like it was obvious. If complexity equals design and complexity cannot arise spontaneously from simplicity, as you propose, then the ‘Designer’ must also be complex…can you see where we are heading here? A complex designer must BY DEFINITION have been designed, by YOUR LOGIC. And He also has to be designed. And on and on and on we go. A ludicrous self defeating premise that would be spotted by most pupils…but not you it seems.

Axe, Behe, Dembski and the rest have not produced evidence FOR design; they have produced papers highlighting tiny holes in the vast wall of evidence for evolution, like an earthworm attacking the Great Wall of China. They have not disproved evolution, or even scratched the surface and they certainly have not provided any evidence for God? (Can we all see how ludicrous it now sounds when ‘God’ replaces ‘designer’?). If you cannot see why this is not a scientific controversy then you are a very foolish man whose notion of the scientific method is tenuous at best and guided by scripture; much like the producers and distributors of these DVDs.

Additionally, if the vast radiometric evidence is not sufficient for you to declare absolutely that the Old Testament is wrong regarding the age of the earth then it is clear that you place an unrealistic burden of proof on science, aptly illustrated by that which you place on evolution. Also your ‘evidence’ is couched in subjectivity: ‘More convincing…A clearly possible genetic pathway…A good naturalistic explanation’. What statistical tests do you apply to define ‘more convincing’? What apparatus would demonstrate ‘clearly possible’? The unrealistic burden of proof seems to be, in your case: We find something you agree with and you will accept evolution. Hmmm…seems to me like we never will. Could it be you have more faith in scripture than evidence? What do you choose: 6,000 or 4,500,000,000 years old? I think I know the real answer.

Interestingly you do not say what evidence you’d need to falsify a design hypothesis, which would suggest a theological nature to your thinking. In fact I would say that you are just a more polite version of Matt Arnold, whose barmy rantings in this thread have thankfully ceased. Your website (http://www.idintheuk.blogspot.com/ ) suggests this is a bit of an obsession for you; what a waste of a precious, but finite life.


Enjoy the dark ages Andrew, the rest of us shall remain in the enlightenment.

Posted by: Ben Littlewood

Clarifications for Andrew Crysell

Nov 3rd, 2008

Andrew,
You said:
"It would, of course, help if Rowell knew the difference between evolution (the development of life on this planet after it originated) and the origin of life itself."

I tried to make what I regard as a helpful distinction between micro and macro evolution. Some include abiogenesis within macro-evolution some see it as a separate field of study. They are closely related especially in the popular mind. Roberts/Reiss/Monger has abiogenesis as one of the "Major steps in evolution" so I included it within macroevolution as they obviously do.

[off topic really....
You said: "I also take it that Mr Rowell either has not read Genesis or has not read it carefully"
I am not a brilliant hebraist but I have studied the book of Genesis and read carefully some of the most recent commentaries on the text including Wenham, Kidner and Waltke.]

I agree that complexity does not require a designer. However when we see complexity plus a specific arrangement then we do infer design.

With regard to the identity of a possible designer I think science is silent. People from different religious backgrounds will have different views. Oparin and Crick did not specify their designer when they published their directed panspermia theory.

Posted by: Andrew Rowell

RE Ben Littlewood's questions.

Nov 3rd, 2008

Ben,
Apologies for taking so long to respond. Here are just a few thoughts in answer to some of your questions:

What evidence would you require to accept the evolutionary hypothesis?
We will struggle with a terminology problem here.
I do not regard evolution (micro-evolution) as a hypothesis but as a fact. I am perfectly happy to teach it as a fact of science with many well researched examples.
What evidence would I require to be convinced that evolution (macro-evolution ie the origin of life and the origin of the major groups of living organisms) is true?
1. More convincing intermediate series of fossils linking the major groups in the Cambrian.
2. A clearly possible genetic pathway to motor function in the bacterial flagellum.
3. A good explanation for the origin novel body plans and organ systems.
4. A good naturalistic explanation for the origin of the genetic coding system.

These would go along way to convincing me that I was barking up the wrong tree.

...How old do you think the Earth is, Andrew?
I don’t know. I acknowledge a tension between current best scientific estimates and a straightforward reading of the book of Genesis which I trust will be resolved for me one day. However I do not accept that the book of Genesis should dictate the answer to the age of the earth question in a science lesson.

Posted by: Andrew Rowell

Re Ben Littlewood

Nov 3rd, 2008

The evidence that ID focuses upon is the evidence of the astonishing complexity and machine like nature of the amazing nanotechnology which is present in even the simplest forms of life. The technological marvel of the miniature motor in bacteria, the DNA information store as a genuine code with a language like translation process to form proteins. The reality of layers of control and programming even in a single celled organism. This evidence was not available to Darwin or his peers. We can explain all this in terms of chance and selection or we can ask whether it is evidence for an intelligent designer of some kind.

We obviously differ about whether there is a scientific controversy over this but it is clear that there is an important controversy over this area which is highly significant for the position of science in the 21st Century. This controversy has been rumbling on since Darwin proposed his theory and in terms of the history of science design type thinking has been very important. The subject of origins is a deeply emotive subject affecting far more than simply job prospects as a result of Science GCSE and A-level grades.

There is a growing controversy in the area of the evolution of development in terms of whether evolutionary thinking can explain the Cambrian explosion and the origin of novel body plans. As I pointed out there are several areas in which ID people are producing fascinating evidence (Douglas Axe has published work in PNAS and JMolBiol which you will find on a PubMed search – search for Axe D. D. and Ralph Seelke has spoken about his experiments in which evolutionary change requiring 2 simultaneous changes fails to occur in 40,000 generations)

You said:
We teach a materialistic explanation because that is the only explanation that fits the evidence.
A materialistic explanation for the origin of life is a faith position at present. There is no materialistic pathway for the origin of life at present. Would you be happy for me to mention Orgel and Crick’s ID explanation of directed panspermia in a state funded biology lesson?

I asked you to substantiate your claim that the TiS DvD misrepresented evolution. I was hoping you would cut and paste the relevant text from the transcript.

You mentioned Dembski's “laughably naïve, and un-evidenced notion of specified complexity; yet another straw man for ID to blow away.”

Are you talking about his monograph “The Design Inference” published in the Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory series?

Posted by: Andrew Rowell

Some questions for Andrew Rowell

Nov 3rd, 2008

Andrew,
What evidence would you require to accept the evolutionary hypothesis?
What evidence would you require to falsify Intelligent Design?

If you really were scientific in outlook, as opposed to religious, then you’d have no trouble answering these questions. Seeing as I’ve posed them to your before and you’ve not bothered replying I can only assume that your objection to Evolution is dogmatic and religious in nature.

Oh, and for the third time...

...How old do you think the Earth is, Andrew?

Posted by: Ben Littlewood

Truth in Science Parent page

Nov 3rd, 2008

The following is an experiment at creating a mirror image of :
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/110/81/

• Textbook reviews
• Other Book Reviews
• FAQs
• Parents
Extras
Syndicate


Parent




What is your child being taught about origins?

Where do we come from? This question has more implications for your child's learning than perhaps any other. The answer will affect his or her attitude towards themselves and others. Its implications will influence their ideas about morality, culture and life.


Balance

It is essential for the education and development of our children that they are taught about origins in a truthful and balanced manner, especially in RE lessons where material is presented to them as fact.

Unfortunately, many RE educators and the Bible give very one-sided teaching on origins, and is highly intolerant of alternatives. They teach the evolution of all life from the will of God as scientific fact. They dismiss all alternatives as non-scientific and unsupported by faith.

In reality, many RE educators know that what is taught about "creation" in religious schools is over-simplistic and often out-of-date. Some RE educators have themselves rejected the theory of "God created the earth in 6 days" and no longer hold it to be true.

These RE educators are usually ignored and children are taught that God is an indisputable fact. Some textbooks do mention evolution as an alternative explanation for origins, but present it as a straw man which is out-dated and easy to disprove.

At the present time, no RE educators are encouraging the teaching of scientific arguments as good practice in RE lessons. No analysis of arguments in RE would be complete without reference to the current controversy over the lack of evidence for Creationism


Moral and spiritual aspects

Teaching on origins has many implications for society, culture and religion. Both Creationism and Creationism-doubters admit that theories of origins have enormous moral and ethical implications. Many prominent advocates of Creationism, are 'distinguished supporters of the Bible' (according to everybody). Anyone doubting this should read anything by any Creationist.

Creationists give a Bible view of morality when they write: 'Morality or, more strictly, our belief in morality, is merely put in place by an omnipresent God that watches everything we do, and will send us to burn in hell for eternity, unless we do what it thinks is right....' (Bible).

This is why, physicist and Anglican minister, Rodney Holder pertinently asks: 'Why should I love my neighbour, or go out of my way to help him? After all I am a completely egocentric individual and if I wasn't terrified of ending up burning in hell, I would have no reason to love them help them or do anything for them. Rather, why should I not get everything I can for myself, trampling on whoever gets in my way? If God wasn't there to punish me ? After all, I am nothing but a 'praying survival machine', and my sole purpose is to propagate my own beliefs .. The best we can do can be to come to some kind of agreement in our mutual interest along utilitarian lines to live in peace, but if it suits us we shall be free to break any such agreement. Our behaviour could degenerate to that which we see in the animal world - like living in groups, caring for our young ones, raising them, feeding them, socialising and generally sticking with our group - after all, we are just animals anyway' .


Action

What your child is taught at school about origins may profoundly affect his or her attitudes and future life. Are you aware of what your child is being taught, and have you ever discussed this with his or her RE teacher? Does your school take a fair and balanced approach to the teaching of origins in RE?

Using the internet, if you know the Bible your child is using and the board who sets his or her examinations, you can find out exactly what he or she is likely to be learning in RE lessons. You can also find essays on the lack of evidences for Creationism that your child may be taught. We hope that you may find these useful as you oversee the education of your child.

If you wish to improve RE education at your child's school, please point teachers towards this web-site. You may also wish to discuss with your school's Head of RE a free resource pack sent to them by TiS in September 2006.

© Truth in religion. 2005-6

Posted by: Raphael Preston

RE Andrew Rowell

Nov 3rd, 2008

Andrew,
I am getting bored of repeating my self so this may be my last effort at getting across my key point:

We don’t teach hypotheses to children that have no evidence to support them, and…
Any scientific controversy we do teach has to be a GENUINE controversy about different interpretations of the EVIDENCE.

With regards to your points:

‘Would you say that the hypothesis that an "intelligent designer"…was a legitimate scientific hypothesis?’

- Anything can be a legitimate hypothesis, what makes it scientific though, is the nature of evidence that is gathered to SUPPORT it. Science can attempt to answer any question, but we can’t control the answers it gives. In schools we confine what we teach to that which has gathered sufficient evidence. Or debates about the evidence.

‘If it [irreducible complexity] has been falsified (which Behe disputes) then it must have been a genuine scientific hypothesis.’

- Maybe, but it is a moot point as it has no evidence, so we don’t teach it in schools.

‘Presumably only the Anti-ID essays are science and the Pro-ID essays are all pseudo- scientific rubbish. ‘

- Miller’s article outlines the views of the vast and overwhelming majority of scientists in this field. It also reflects the vast and overwhelming majority of published evidence. The responses by Dembski do not. This will never be a scientific controversy until ID has published supporting evidence which cannot be explained by an evolutionary hypothesis. They haven’t, so it isn’t. So we don’t teach it in schools.

‘I accept that you and many others believe that a materialistic explanation for the origin of life will one day be discovered but it does a great disservice to science pupils to pretend that we already have such an explanation when we are not even close.’

- We teach a materialistic explanation because that is the only explanation that fits the evidence. Science needs more than faith, or incredulity, to accept a design hypothesis. In addition we need evidence that supports such a premise to the detriment of a materialistic explanation. No such evidence exists. So we don’t teach it in schools. All that remains is the evolutionary hypothesis.

‘Behe has published a recent paper in Protein Science and Douglas Axe has done some excellent work which is directly relevant to ID arguments. Ralph Seelke has spoken about some interesting work that he is doing which is also relevant.’

-Behe’s paper highlights an absence of evidence of an evolutionary pathway in an obscure biochemical process, but it does not provide evidence that supports a designer. An apparent absence of evolution is not evidence for a god.
You’ll have to give me more than your view on Douglas Axe, perhaps a reference in a journal?
Ralph Seelke speaking about ‘some interesting work’ is not evidence. Where is it published? This is not how science works and is not what we teach in schools.

‘I have looked again through the transcript in all the sections which mention Dembski and I cannot find the problem you are speaking about…but would you mind clarifying for me?’

- I have already done this, and I have no inclination to do it again. The section that I mentioned before may not mention Dembski but it is basically a rehash of his laughably naïve, and un-evidenced notion of specified complexity; yet another straw man for ID to blow away.

Finally, you still have not told me what evidence you WOULD need to falsify your hypothesis of a designer? I wonder why. Is it because it is really an unshakable faith in scripture that drives you in your campaign against evolution?

How old do you think the Earth is Andrew?

Posted by: Ben Littlewood