Tuesday, January 9, 2007 | Reason : Commentary | print version

Intelligent design is a science, not a faith

by Richard Buggs, Guardian

Reposted from:
http://www.guardian.co.uk

If Darwinists distinguished between science and their religious beliefs, we'd all be wiser, says Richard Buggs

'It is true that complex things in nature look as if they have been designed. Darwin knew this. But the sublime truth about his theory is that it explains how complex things can come about without design." That was James Randerson arguing that Darwin refuted intelligent design - which, he says, has no place in school science (Here endeth the lesson, December 13).

Darwin made a massive contribution to science, and his ideas still suggest hypotheses today. These provide the starting point for my own research, published in journals of evolution. But despite the brilliance of Darwin's work, it is overoptimistic to claim that his theory explains the origin of all living things.

If Darwin had known what we now know about molecular biology - gigabytes of coded information in DNA, cells rife with tiny machines, the highly specific structures of certain proteins - would he have found his own theory convincing? Randerson thinks that natural selection works fine to explain the origin of molecular machines. But the fact is that we are still unable even to guess Darwinian pathways for the origin of most complex biological structures.

Science has turned lots of corners since Darwin, and many of them have thrown up data quite unpredicted by his theory. Who, on Darwinian premises, would have expected that the patterns of distribution and abundance of species in tropical rainforests could be modelled without taking local adaptation into account? Or that whenever we sequence a new genome we find unique genes, unlike any found in other species? Or that bacteria gain pathogenicity (the ability to cause disease) by losing genes?

But, whatever the limitations of Darwinism, isn't the intelligent design alternative an "intellectual dead end"? No. If true, ID is a profound insight into the natural world and a motivator to scientific inquiry. The pioneers of modern science, who were convinced that nature is designed, consequently held that it could be understood by human intellects. This confidence helped to drive the scientific revolution. More recently, proponents of ID predicted that some "junk" DNA must have a function well before this view became mainstream among Darwinists.

But, according to Randerson, ID is not a science because "there is no evidence that could in principle disprove ID". Remind me, what is claimed of Darwinism? If, as an explanation for organised complexity, Darwinism had a more convincing evidential basis, then many of us would give up on ID.

Finally, Randerson claims that ID is "pure religion". In fact, ID is a logical inference, based on data gathered from the natural world, and hence it is firmly in the realm of science. It does not rely upon the Bible, the Qur'an, or any religious authority or tradition - only on scientific evidence. When a religious person advocates teaching ID in science without identification of the designer, there is no dishonesty or "Trojan horse", just realism about the limitations of the scientific method. If certain Darwinists also had the intellectual honesty to distinguish between science and their religious beliefs, the public understanding of science would be much enhanced.

� Richard Buggs sits on the scientific panel of Truth in Science richard.buggs@cantab.net

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Tuesday, January 9, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 73 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #16907 by Jack Rawlinson on January 9, 2007 at 2:47 pm

Yes, The Guardian was at it at again this morning; posting another piece of outrageous lunacy from the wacko end of the believer spectrum. If you go to Guardian Online you'll see that as usual it received a huge amount of scorn and debunking in the reader comments.

Why do they keep doing this?

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

2. Comment #16909 by Zaphod on January 9, 2007 at 2:50 pm

ID assumes a creator. In sceince you make a hypothesis based on the evidence, observations etc. You then test it and/or find more evidence. How can a creator be tested? It can't. All ID is saying is that the complex nature of things is beyond human understanding and that it was god who did.

It is cowardly and insufficient. All IDiots are incredibly arrrogant to think that just because they can't understand how something may have came about doesn't someone else can't or won't.

Other Comments by Zaphod

3. Comment #16913 by Michael on January 9, 2007 at 3:12 pm

Well well. Does Richard Buggs have faith? If so he starts with a false premise and tries to reason his way round the data.

The data supporting the Darwinian hypothesis is overwhelming compared to any for intelligent design. Why does the Guardian pub;ish this rubbish?

Other Comments by Michael

4. Comment #16919 by alovrin on January 9, 2007 at 3:39 pm

Mr Buggs hangs this whole article and his argument around one point, that of IDers saying "junk" DNA has a purpose before it became accepted in the "mainstream".
OK, but what was the basis for this assertion, was it founded in a belief that an Intelligent Designer doesnt make junk?
Im just curious.
I could do some research but this article smacks of nitpicking small mindedness and doesnt inspire me to do so.
Maybe one day when Im bored.
But anyone else is welcome to get to the bottom of the claim if they wish. Was it ID's depth of knowledge that made them claim such or just a way of shoring up their dodgy ideas?

Other Comments by alovrin

5. Comment #16920 by CitizenPaine on January 9, 2007 at 3:52 pm

Here's Ken Miller, a Roman Catholic no less, making the point that scientists have to put forward hypotheses, carry out research, have peer reviews and get consensus before being allowed into classrooms and textbooks, while the ID brigade expects to get academic acceptance by going no further than the hypothesis stage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

CitizenPaine

Other Comments by CitizenPaine

6. Comment #16922 by Kimpatsu on January 9, 2007 at 3:54 pm

Jack Rawlinson, as you'll see, I'm one of those heaping scorn upon Buggs.
Cheers,

Other Comments by Kimpatsu

7. Comment #16923 by Damien White on January 9, 2007 at 3:57 pm

Well done Richard Buggs. Evolutionary research has moved forward since Darwin. Perhaps you would care to address some modern findings?

Other Comments by Damien White

8. Comment #16925 by MIND_REBEL on January 9, 2007 at 3:58 pm

Another disgusting example of Evolution Denial.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

9. Comment #16927 by Duncan1349 on January 9, 2007 at 4:04 pm

I would like to see the figures for the number of atheists/agnostics compared to theists that follow or give credence to ID. If... Irreducible Complexity was found and accepted to be so by evolutionary biologists, Dawkins included, how many ID followers would look for further answers as to the identity of the 'designer/s' and say no more, and how many would use it as proof for God and in particular the God of their religion?

Other Comments by Duncan1349

10. Comment #16929 by MaxWeiss on January 9, 2007 at 4:20 pm

Has anybody actually looked at the "Truth in Science" website?? Flipping hilarious. They make sure to debunk all the biology textbooks put out by the Cambridge and Oxford Press but thankfully give star reviews to the likes of Michael Behe and others who show all the flaws with evolution. And our dear Richard Buggs is the most credible of the lot--take a look at the credentials and histories of the people who are on the board and run the thing.

-----------------

"Richard Buggs sits on the scientific panel of Truth in Science"

Maybe they should have left that credit out when they published the article....

Other Comments by MaxWeiss

11. Comment #16930 by Quine on January 9, 2007 at 4:20 pm

Here we go with another case of Irrefutable Perplexity: What I say is true because you can't show it isn't, and what you say is false because I don't understand it.

We cannot prove ID is false because we cannot go back in time and watch all of evolution happen. At the same time, the lack of understanding of the vast depth of evidence for evolution allows people to keep making these same uninformed arguments.

Other Comments by Quine

12. Comment #16931 by ephemeron on January 9, 2007 at 4:21 pm

'Intelligent Design', by it's definition - by it's very NAME - assumes a conclusion and works backwards from there, which is the complete opposite of everything science represents. Any high school kid could tell you that.

Other Comments by ephemeron

13. Comment #16932 by DV82XL on January 9, 2007 at 4:22 pm

We have to see this flood of attacks as a sign that we are winning. Atheism was never, up until now perceived as a threat. The fact that they are now fighting like cornered rats, is a good indication that they feel cornered.

They have depended on the unwritten rule that one must not attack faith, and the habit of most to identify them selves as Christians (or Jews or whatever) even when they were not devout, to claim a majority position.

The popularity of RD's book and others like has hit them hard. Most importantly as these arm the agnostic and Sunday-only faithfull against the sort of rhetorical tactics the theists have honed to get and keep converts and the sheep (er.. flock) from leaving.

The worse these attacks get the more we are getting under their skin. As to those that swallow this trash; they are beyond hope at this point anyway.

Other Comments by DV82XL

14. Comment #16933 by Jonathan Ross on January 9, 2007 at 4:24 pm

Too be fair to the paper, the article was in the "Response" section below the letters for people to comment on articles they have been mentioned in. The original article Buggs was commenting on was actually written by a science correspondent:

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/comment/story/0,,1970912,00.html

People are allowed to express their views, however wrong they are. Such an extensive right to reply feature is quite unusual in newspapers. The fact that so many religious apologists appear in this feature probably points to the actual paper taking a view we would mostly agree with.

Other Comments by Jonathan Ross

15. Comment #16934 by Mel Z on January 9, 2007 at 4:29 pm

"Richard Buggs sits on the scientific panel of Truth in Science"

Well, guess we cant expect more from someone who sits in the "Pulling things out of our sleeves" panel

Other Comments by Mel Z

16. Comment #16935 by Duff on January 9, 2007 at 4:30 pm

Somehow, I have an amazingly comforting feeling that this kind of creationist/ID nonsense is in fact, what can I say, nonsense. Is it a mystery that this person offers this kind of mystical nonsense rather than any kind of scientific fact??? Would it be because it is based on hope and deeply felt longing? Would it be because it is based on faith instead of falsifiable propositions? I am so fed up with this kind of bull, I want to put my size thirteens (large by American standards) on the apex of this ninny's no doubt miniscule derrier. I know it is miniscule because that is obviously also where his brain is).

Other Comments by Duff

17. Comment #16941 by Aussie on January 9, 2007 at 5:07 pm

Comment #16927 by Duncan1349 on January 9, 2007 at 4:04 pm

I would like to see the figures for the number of atheists/agnostics compared to theists that follow or give credence to ID.

Quite!

I have been trying to ascertain the same figures with regard to "Young Earth Atheists" on the Forum.

Does anyone know of even one impartial and non-religious scientific authority who advocates the Young Earth Creationist hypothesis:

"I am an atheist/agnostic/non-believer and I am convinced that the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that life on earth was created in its full diversity over a period of seven days less than 10,000 years ago."

Or is religious faith a sine qua non for such advocacy.

What does that then tell us about the hypothesis?

What does that then tell us about the advocates?

Nobody has been able to come up with a single name - even if you restrict it to Young Earth only and leave out the Creationist bit. I wonder why!

This says it all.

You would have to have some rigid belief into which you are forced to shoehorn all the remainder of your world view.

Other Comments by Aussie

18. Comment #16942 by Pilot22A on January 9, 2007 at 5:30 pm

I quote the author ...

"it is overoptimistic to claim that his theory explains the origin of all living things."

So sir, give us an example or two of "living things" not explained by Darwin but clearly part of ID.

An aside ...(Why do we respond to these nitwits?)

I do wonder what the ID and creationist folks will say when ultimately all of the god gaps are filled in the evolutionary theory.

Other Comments by Pilot22A

19. Comment #16945 by Joadist on January 9, 2007 at 5:45 pm

Design requires intent.
What is the intent of an Intelligent Designer?

Whatever it is, it IS NOT our intent.

It can hardly be considered intelligent to design something that does not conform to the intent of the Designer.

Why would we design a car that went where it wanted to go?

If ID was proven absolutely true, then I would be compelled to destroy all evidence of it.

It would be far better that we have a false sense of being alive than to submit to the absolute nihilism of being a manufactured object.

If ID is true, we have no reason to exist.

Other Comments by Joadist

20. Comment #16951 by scooternyc on January 9, 2007 at 6:11 pm

Letter from Buggs to the world:

"So with my new thoughts on Intelligent Design, Congratulations, we're all entitled now to be stupid.

No, no, pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. Only listen to me.

You are now entitled to enter the world without having to explain anything. You have no responsibility and you are accountable for nothing. Enjoy your mental retardation, send me letters of inspiration so that I may print them for the world to see.

Good luck and enjoy!

In god,
R.Buggs"

Dear Mr. Buggs,

I gave that ID stuff a try, I did what you said, I gave myself to jesus and that bastard never called me and what's worse, he gave me the crabs!

I know god was watching jesus and I so I hope he enjoyed the show!

bill-ray bob

Yes, just splendid. I'll have more of that, please.

Other Comments by scooternyc

21. Comment #16955 by MelM on January 9, 2007 at 6:50 pm

ID is an argument for religion even if the word God is not mentioned.

Have I got this right?

ID concisely boils down to this:
"Since natural living things--to explain their design--require a designer, there must exist a non-natural undesigned designer."

A non-natural undesigned designer is needed to stop an infinite regress of natural or non-natural designers. Surely such a non-natural (supernatural?) designer would qualify as a god. So, that leaves us with a challege to figure out whether the designer is the Christian god or some other god: perhaps Zeus or some yet unknown god! (Wow, just think of the possibilities here!) The ID supporters, however, "know" by means of faith that their god is the only god. So, surprise, surprise, the designer is the one and only...God. QED

----------------
Faith is a vice!

Other Comments by MelM

22. Comment #16960 by ferfuracious on January 9, 2007 at 7:17 pm

"Who, on Darwinian premises, would have expected that... that bacteria gain pathogenicity (the ability to cause disease) by losing genes?"

I don't know, perhaps someone who knows that virulence is secondary to reproduction when it comes to the success of bacteria, for whom a living contagious host is more beneficial than a dead one?

MeIM:

I saw an even more effective dismissal of ID on another site. Instead of bothering with religion at all just demolish ID's claim to being scientific by pointing out that there is no possible control for design. For example, in an experiment where fruit flies or bread mold successfully adapted to some stressful condition, it would be impossible to rule out interference by a designer because no one knows what methods such an agent would use. How are you going to know if what you are seeing is ID in action if you can't set up a control group who won't be aided by a designer?

It is this kind of unfalsifiability in principle that makes ID unscientific beyond doubt.

Other Comments by ferfuracious

23. Comment #16963 by JohnC on January 9, 2007 at 9:09 pm

Buggs actually writes better than he presents. There's some footage of him somewhere here, and he looked for all the world like some overgrown Catholic schoolboy trying to convince the priest he had never masturbated. I was quite encouraged that he was the best the Brit IDers could field for the cameras.

It's a shame though that The Guardian thinks running this sort of drivel actually represents legitimate debate. It's like giving comment space to Holocaust deniers.

Other Comments by JohnC

24. Comment #16966 by Al A. on January 9, 2007 at 10:15 pm

Why don't we start making ID theorists seem preposterous. If ID theory is correct it undeniably suggest a Designer. Where is the Designer who constantly replaces organisms? Where are His artifacts (labratories, prototypes, factories, bludprints, CAD software, etc.)? Certaninly they can't believe that the Designer designed without edifice? Do they know the meaning of the word? When did the Designer act? Was He hiding out somewhere in Noah's Arc? Perhaps the Designer had a shop in a remote place in Eden or a spaceship of gigantic proportions within the "firmament" somewhere. I just don't get it, can't these folks see that they are just resurrecting Natural Theism.
I have an idea for a project. Let's create a cartoon parody of their ideas w/ a splash old testament panache. We can have the Designer running around in a lab coat whipping up a variety of testube creations, throwing temper tantrums and bolts of lightning as they fail to meet his standards. It could be quite entertaining! Throw in some aliens, Krishna, angels, and of course pink little talking unicorns...what a blast, what a party!

Other Comments by Al A.

25. Comment #16967 by Roy_H on January 9, 2007 at 10:27 pm

"Or that bacteria gain pathogenicity (the ability to cause disease) by losing genes?"
Does that mean the almighty and merciful father is on the side of harmful bacteria? Thanks God, I will bear that in mind.

Other Comments by Roy_H

26. Comment #16969 by Macho Nachos on January 9, 2007 at 10:52 pm

"But, according to Randerson, ID is not a science because "there is no evidence that could in principle disprove ID". Remind me, what is claimed of Darwinism? If, as an explanation for organised complexity, Darwinism had a more convincing evidential basis, then many of us would give up on ID."

I think this sums up his whole mindset, basically. Point out a criticism of ID. Then, level the same criticism at Evolution, without having refuted it for ID in the slightest, or any justification for why it works for evolution.

If we found a compelling case of a spontaneously designed organism, or an organism arising out of a completely different organism, then evolution would have some serious re-thinking to keep afloat. We haven't.

Other Comments by Macho Nachos

27. Comment #16970 by Simmons on January 9, 2007 at 10:56 pm

1. Generate hypothesis based on dubious ancient text.
2. Apply argument from personal incredulity to existing theories.
3. Attempt to fabricate evidence.
4. Fail step 3, start firing off propaganda in every direction.

Doesn't look like the scientific method to me.

Other Comments by Simmons

28. Comment #16971 by MelM on January 9, 2007 at 10:59 pm

Interestingly, there's no entry for "reason" in the index to TGD. I expected to find something there and I'am a bit puzzled by not seeing an entry.

How does Dawkins handle "the supernatural"?
Anyway, on my list of what to look for in the book, as I continue reading it, is how Dawkins defines and disposes of "the supernatural". My current working def. is that it's that part of reality populated by all of the things that don't and can't make any sense and thus require protection from reason--most particularly, "spirits." The finishing touch to the scam is the claim that these things are "knowable" only by faith. See how it all works out? Beautiful!

Scraping the supernatural to get rid of religion.
If this whole rotten procedure could be concisely articulated and outed, I think religion would take a serious hit--this approach seems much more robust than using only the "can't prove a negative" route that doesn't seem to accomplish much. The whole scam needs to be exposed in one integrated package. So, this is why I'm interested in how Dawkins sees reason.

Ethics?
The other critcal issue that must be dealt with is ethics. Some will go for "use what you've got now" but I think lots of folks will see that as completely subjective (which it is) and will want something better. From what I've seen so far, Dawkins is in trouble on this point. But, he's not attempting to supply (explicitly) an entire philosophy of reason, he's just trying to get the supernatural duality nonsense ended in metaphysics. If his work only serves to get atheists to stand up and be counted, he will have accomplished something really good!

Not fair I say!
Scientists work for years to experiment and build concepts but the holymen only have to tweak their fantasies so as to be undetectable by reason and thus safely in the supernatural. And, let's face it, non-existence gives one a great deal of latitude for assigning characterists and for building theory. Add to that the habit of not asking these guys to prove anything or even to put an idea into an intelligible form, and they've got it made--and get paid for it too!

Other Comments by MelM

29. Comment #16972 by MelM on January 9, 2007 at 11:05 pm

Simmons #27.

Very good! But, please don't write a methodological guide to holy science! Let them fumble about.

Other Comments by MelM

30. Comment #16974 by GoodbyeGodNZ on January 9, 2007 at 11:29 pm

Theodrivel!

Other Comments by GoodbyeGodNZ

31. Comment #16979 by Joadist on January 10, 2007 at 12:16 am

Al A,

You are correct. Just tone down the parody. Within a few years you will be their foremost expert.

Then declare it a hoax. Meanwhile, you will get $millions in funding from the Religious Right.

Other Comments by Joadist

32. Comment #16983 by wundergeist on January 10, 2007 at 12:44 am

I TEACH A CLASS ON INTELLIGENT DESIGN

I do. We try to be intelligent in the design of shopping malls, car interiors, medical computer interfaces, management information displays, child-safe medicine bottles, and self-heating precooked meals to go.

As a lark, in the last class sessions I always ask the students to play God and design the human being. Within ten minutes God's engineering and design credentials are seriously questioned. Students straigten the spine (why have shear forces when simply standing up? Did God flunk out of rational mechanics 101?), create separate inlets for food and air with dynamic redundancy (single point of failure design? Did God go to school in the 1970s?), replace hemoglobin with highly efficient oxygen transport nanites (doesn't God have good SciFi in Heaven?), and so on...

It dawns on them that people who think human beings were designed by some superbeing are completely clueless about design (and engineering... and biology... and science).

By the time the class is over someone will have made the old joke: God's engineering degree must come from [local rival school]: what kind of designer runs a sewer through an amusement area? (Yep, they always get that old joke in.)

I never make any religious points or even discuss the implications of their redesigns (that is not the point of the class and I always keep my classes strictly to the point). But the result is much more damaging to the fundies: being criticized, argued against, ostracized, and even yelled at is nothing compared to being laughed at.

Laughter. Powerful medicine against ID.

(I am all for intelligent design of stuff; especially since so much of the stuff we see --- living beings included --- fail even the most basic design criteria.)

WG

Other Comments by wundergeist

33. Comment #16986 by G Bile on January 10, 2007 at 12:56 am

Of course the Design idea is true ! And I think that there must have been an undesigned Designer, who designed a lot of .. Designers.
What we are facing : us, our environment, our universe, might very well be the undergraduate project of one of the tenth generation of Designers and reflecting upon my removed appendix and the HIV virus, I expect that the responsible Designer might get a C-grade at best and it is likely that his designwork will not be classified as Intelligent Design, but rather as 'G'enerally 'O'rdinary 'D'esign.

Other Comments by G Bile

34. Comment #16987 by JohnC on January 10, 2007 at 1:01 am

Wonderful, wg.

Although there is an obvious retort to the sewer-amusement-park joke. Yahweh never intended it that way - it's actually our fault. Something to do with talking snakes and apples, I believe.

I'm sure a careful study of the scriptures will provide equally cogent answers to all those other questions about haemorrhoids and hernias. O, ye of little faith!

Other Comments by JohnC

35. Comment #16989 by wundergeist on January 10, 2007 at 1:13 am

Dear G Bile:

A C-Grade? Surely you jest! Any student who proposed a curved structure for vertical load bearing with variable dynamics (except if it had aesthetic purposes), segmented and with soft weak joints, and placed a critical communication network running through its center (without redundant alternative wiring paths to boot) would get an F and a recommendation to drop out of engineering and become a poet or bartender (nothing wrong with poets or bartenders, obviously, but I don't want them designing critical load-bearing structures or communication networks, and we can always use a good bartender).

A C grade! Really!

WG

Other Comments by wundergeist

36. Comment #16990 by wundergeist on January 10, 2007 at 1:34 am

Dear John C:

You mean that Go did not do User Testing, Specification Validation, Human Factors Analysis, Product Creative Uses Lab? I guess he took [ancient professor in rival department]'s product design course. That being the case, I'm surprised humans don't run on steam engines, can be mass produced by unskilled labor, don't need daily maintenance, and don't have higher failure rates... :-)

Seriously though, my point is that humans are a great _adaptation_ given evolution and the constraints thereof, but a terrible _design_ for an omnipotent being. The only reason IDers believe that humans are good examples of design is because they (IDers) don't know anything about design (or engineering, or physics). Remember that God has no constraints and supposedly starts from scratch. Even my lower quintile students would beat God in any design comparison....

The basic premise of ID is fundamentally flawed: humans don't have the appearance of being designed [it just appears so to those who know nothing about design], unless the designer was so constrained that he had to settle for minor changes to a previously existing product. Not very omnipotent, then, is he?

On the other hand, how does the Bible justify hemorrhoids?

WG

Other Comments by wundergeist

37. Comment #16991 by tentotheminus9 on January 10, 2007 at 1:50 am

"More recently, proponents of ID predicted that some "junk" DNA must have a function well before this view became mainstream among Darwinists"

- oh well, that proves it then.

"If, as an explanation for organised complexity, Darwinism had a more convincing evidential basis, then many of us would give up on ID"

- Its true. I wish there was more evidence that gravity causes the Earth to travel around the Sun to be honest. The fact that that theory fits the facts and we have a colossal amount of evidence supporting it really isn't quite enough is it? Maybe if we had a more convincing evidential basis, then many of us would give up on FIEM (Fairy Induced Earth Motion).

"Finally, Randerson claims that ID is "pure religion". In fact, ID is a logical inference, based on data gathered from the natural world, and hence it is firmly in the realm of science"

- Again, very true. When my house was burgled last year, the two theories that the police came up with were that either someone broke in, or they used a key. My claim, however, was that Aliens had teleported my possessions into their spaceship. When we found that no windows or doors had been broken, and that my flatmate's bag had been stolen (containing his key and a letter with our address on it), the police concluded that someone had used this key and information to rob our flat. In fact, Alien theft is a logical inference, based on data gathered from my house, and hence it is firmly in the realm of science. Also, science does not rule out the existence of such aliens.

Other Comments by tentotheminus9

38. Comment #16995 by secularireland on January 10, 2007 at 3:00 am

Thanks for the chuckle tentotheminus9, although, to be honest and fair, you are in the shadow of the aptly named Mr. Buggs when it comes to innate (and clearly God-given) comic genius. That guy just kills me. Really. He does.

Other Comments by secularireland

39. Comment #16997 by JohnC on January 10, 2007 at 3:09 am

wg, that (to paraphrase) "x has the appearance of being designed involves an ignorance of the discipline of design" actually points to a broad problem. In general, science is deeply counter-intuitive, starting with Newton's First Law of Motion. Those of us fortunate enough to have absorbed a good science education forget that many, perhaps most, people just don't get it. RD is terribly eloquent about the beauty and simplicity of the theory of natural selection but if they haven't already understood it then he may as well be reciting from the Rosetta Stone. And on design, the natural assumption (able-bodied) people make about their own bodies is that they were perfectly formed (a common expression about babies) but break through misuse and eventually overuse. Yet the starting assumption is wrong. Your wonderful pedagogical expample shows that it takes work (real education) to break through the world of everyday assumptions and "common sense" to a disciplined, scientific understanding. And that's why science education is the main point of attack for these ID desperados.

Other Comments by JohnC

40. Comment #17006 by Tinky Winky on January 10, 2007 at 4:15 am

"ID is a logical inference, based on data gathered from the natural world"

Not logical - presumptuous

"It does not rely upon the Bible, the Qur'an, or any religious authority or tradition - only on scientific evidence"

Such as ?

Other Comments by Tinky Winky

41. Comment #17008 by Severus on January 10, 2007 at 4:33 am

Why do christians always feel the need to lie.
almost everything they say about their new scientific wonder theory is couched in such a way that at no time must they ever mention the 'G' word. Oh yes, they say, there was a designer, but we're not saying who it was. why is his/her/its identity a secret. what are they afraid of?

Other Comments by Severus

42. Comment #17009 by JohnC on January 10, 2007 at 4:36 am

"scientific evidence"
We have a general idea of what evidence means, but what is "scientific evidence". Surely, it can only mean empirical data gathered by scientists using methodologies generally agreed - then or subsequently - as valid by the discipline and then subject to scrutiny through the peer-review process. Further validation may be provided through replication of the results by independent researchers, or various other empirical tests, depending on the discipline and situation. The significance of such evidence of course depends upon its integration into a theory (model, paradigm, heuristic ... pick your epistemologist) that is itself judged on criteria such as explanatory and predictive success, internal consistency, ability to generate new research programs, etc.

Yoo-hoo! ID where are you? Off with Buggs Bunny - Britain's answer to Michael Behe? I hope so.

Other Comments by JohnC

43. Comment #17011 by steve_kap on January 10, 2007 at 4:41 am

"Science has turned lots of corners since Darwin, and many of them have thrown up data quite unpredicted by his theory."

True, also Darwin failed to predict the winner of the 1982 World Series.

Notice that everything in the list following this rather unenlightening sentence falls well within the Darwin theory. This guy's a real punter.

Other Comments by steve_kap

44. Comment #17012 by Greg Laden on January 10, 2007 at 4:42 am

There is little new here. But the last paragraph demands comment. Here I quote from the Discovery Institute's famous Wedge Strategy document:

"The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization is built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including ... sciences.

Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea [that humans were created in the image of God] came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on ... modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin,... portrayed humans ... as animals or machines....

Discovery Institute's Center� seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies."

I've shortened this a lot, but feel free to check the original to make sure I have not altered the meaning! (links can be found on a recent post on my web site gregladen.com).

Other Comments by Greg Laden

45. Comment #17013 by stephenray on January 10, 2007 at 4:43 am

The whole of ID is posited on what RD labelled "The Argument from Personal Incredulity" in The Blind Watchmaker.

"Gee, I've thought about this for at least several hours now and *I* just can't figger out how that could possibly have evolved. Ergo it must have been designed. As for how the Designer might have been designed - er - I'll think about that later. Much later."

Other Comments by stephenray

46. Comment #17017 by Homo economicus on January 10, 2007 at 5:46 am

'But the fact is that we are still unable even to guess Darwinian pathways for the origin of most complex biological structures.'

So we need a "designer of the gaps" as a scientific theory do we?

'Science has turned lots of corners since Darwin, and many of them have thrown up data quite unpredicted by his theory.'

Has any one ever claimed that evolution is a general theory about everyting?

'If true, ID is a profound insight into the natural world and a motivator to scientific inquiry.'

As opposed to human curiosity about the natural world being a motivator?

'But, according to Randerson, ID is not a science because "there is no evidence that could in principle disprove ID". Remind me, what is claimed of Darwinism? If, as an explanation for organised complexity, Darwinism had a more convincing evidential basis, then many of us would give up on ID.'

No evidence for evolution, but there is for ID? Hmmm and your evidence is . . . curiously not in this article!

'When a religious person advocates teaching ID in science without identification of the designer, there is no dishonesty or "Trojan horse", just realism about the limitations of the scientific method. If certain Darwinists also had the intellectual honesty to distinguish between science and their religious beliefs, the public understanding of science would be much enhanced.'

Oh I see science proves a designer but not who/what/it is. Damn shame. However, you loose me when you say that using evolutionary theory (as a Darwinist) means I have a religious belief to foster on people.

No, if someone is teaching evolutionary theory in school they are explaining how the biological world works. As to whether God kick started the whole thing is a debate outside the science class room. I want science to be taught, not someone's supernatural belief system.

Lets keep religious language out of the science classroom. Allow children to have developed skills, logical reasoning and knowledge they need for the adult world. Lets teach them to be critical of everything and examine the evidence, so they can work things out for themselves.

Additional: link to Mr Buggs talking breifly about ID in a local news report

http://richarddawkins.net/article,426,Intelligent-Design-packets,BBC-London-Graham-Wright

Other Comments by Homo economicus

47. Comment #17018 by brianeyre on January 10, 2007 at 5:49 am

Another frightening example of the mutual exclusivity of articulacy and intellect... and this published in the Guardian, no less!

Other Comments by brianeyre

48. Comment #17021 by Homo economicus on January 10, 2007 at 5:58 am

Have to say I lost faith in the Guardian years ago when it reported on the front page a Labour Government reshuffle completely wrong the day after.

Other Comments by Homo economicus

49. Comment #17047 by Arcturus on January 10, 2007 at 12:15 pm

Meanwhile in Turkey, the creationist influence is HUGE:
Nature 445, 147 (11 January 2007)
----
Your recent Special Report "Anti-evolutionists raise their profile in Europe" (Nature 444, 406�407; 2006) draws attention to the strong anti-evolution climate in Turkey, and concludes pessimistically. However, the teaching of evolution is not a lost cause in Turkey.

It is true that the situation is grave. In a recent survey of acceptance of evolution, Turkey scored the worst among 25 countries, with less than 30% of the population accepting it (J. D. Miller et al. Science 313, 765�766; 2006).

The major reason for this has been the conservative influence on education in Turkey during the past 25 years. In 1985, the then minister of education contacted creationists in the United States, a cooperation that led to the inclusion of creationism in the high-school biology curriculum and textbooks.

Furthermore, anti-evolution views are not restricted to textbooks. In a study conducted by one of us in the capital, Ankara, last year, only 47% of the 147 biology and science teachers surveyed said they accepted evolution. More disturbing is that it was accepted by significantly fewer of the young teachers and by only 26% of the 257 14-year-old students.

On the other hand, Turkish scientists have been striving to reverse this trend. It has been publicly criticized by the Turkish Academy of Sciences (www.natcenscied.org). A group of graduate students known as Evrim Caliskanlari, or 'hard-workers for evolution', has started translating the University of California, Berkeley's Understanding Evolution website into Turkish (see http://www.universitekonseyleri.org/evrimcaliskanlari).

Most forcefully, a non-governmental association, Universite Konseyleri Dernegi, has filed a lawsuit against the Ministry of Education, demanding that creationism should be removed from textbooks and evolutionary biology should be covered appropriately in the curriculum.

The ministry has responded by asserting that darwinism is scientifically suspect — using publications by the US intelligent-design Discovery Institute for reference. It goes on to claim that developed countries are including creation-like theories in their curricula and to imply that evolution is not compatible with Turkish 'culture and values'. At this point it is unclear how the case will turn out.

If more Turkish scientists showed their support for the efforts that are being made, and put pressure on their academic bodies to take a pro-evolutionary position, this would certainly influence both the ministry and public opinion. Better late than never.

Other Comments by Arcturus

50. Comment #17048 by Vadjong on January 10, 2007 at 12:19 pm

So we have established that humans are lousely designed. But what about ORCA's ? They're brilliant ! What grade would you pass them, G Bile and wundergeist ?
What other creature(-s) might pass the designer exams in your opinions ? 4 Billion years of evolution and crap to show for it doesn't make darwinism look like much, now does it ?

Other Comments by Vadjong

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last