Well I’ll be a monkey’s uncle!

A spirited discussion about “intelligent design”

By Richly Chheuy and Dmitriy Tishyevich
From the November 2005 Print Edition

We at the Patriot are dedicated, above all else, to open and candid debate, not only between liberals and conservatives, but within the conservative movement. Recognizing that multiple conservative approaches exist to various issues, we have made our “Point/Counterpoint” a regular feature, hoping to spark further discussion and challenge our readers to view these topics from several angles. Our newest endeavor adds a twist to this practice; this month, a controversial idea is presented as an actual dialogue between two Patriot writers, and readers can see the arguments unfold on both sides as the debaters interact with one another. The question: Should “intelligent design” be taught in schools?

Dmitriy Tishyevich: The question before us is whether “intelligent design” (ID) should be taught on an equal basis with evolution in schools. The answer must necessarily be a resounding “no.” The science curriculum that is taught in public schools relies firmly on the principles of empirical data, the scientific method, and tangible proof that have advanced human knowledge for centuries. The theory of ID fails to meet each of these requirements, and thus cannot rationally be considered anything even remotely equal to the science-based, fact-supported, and time-tested theory of evolution. Acceptance of ID as an appropriate aspect of a science curriculum would significantly undermine the validity of such a curriculum as a whole, and leave open the possibility of inclusion of wholly unsupported and unscientific “theories” that happen to enjoy wide public support of limited segments of the population. ID has absolutely no place in the science curriculum.

Richly Chhuey: I must first correct a prime misconception about ID; it is not of the same vein as creationism. Creationists hold a literal view of the Bible; intelligent design is a viable scientific theory held by many professors and scholars throughout the world. Biochemist Michael Behe at LeHigh University, mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University, biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco, and numerous other scientific scholars publicly support ID. While the theory itself has not gained wide acceptance in the general scientific community, the fact that there are prominent scholars — who were once staunch neo-Darwinists — gives ID leverage as a legitimate explanation for the complex origins of life.

Whether it should be taught in schools depends on when and how current neo-Darwinists open up their minds and consider the practical applications ID brings to the scientific table.

DT: ID is the wolf of creationism dressed in sheep’s clothing, as they both necessarily postulate some abstract creator entity. Creationism at least explicitly states that this entity is God; ID dishonestly avoids answering the question.

To call ID a “viable scientific theory” is an attempt to redefine that term. An absolute requirement of a scientific theory is falsifiability. ID fails that requirement, as it offers no testable hypotheses and thus cannot possibly be proven or refuted by scientific methods. Its only argument is that the complexity of life somehow demands a supernatural explanation. That is dogma, not science.

Some ID proponents themselves realize its failings as a scientific theory. Indeed, Michael Behe admitted, “You can’t prove intelligent design by experiment.” Considering its apparent failings as a scientific alternative to evolution, precisely what “practical applications” do you suggest teaching ID alongside evolution would bring?

RC: Whether or not ID is “creationism dressed in sheep’s clothing” is irrelevant. ID serves as an alternative viewpoint to the mainstream view of evolution, which in itself is as theoretical as ID. If we look at our own existence objectively, could you imagine the idea that your very life, your very nature in this universe is, at best, a “lottery pick?” Evolution and neo-Darwinism provide a reasonable explanation as to how we may have arrived on this earth, but the arbitrariness leaves one wondering, “Why?” If neo-Darwinism is found to be true, in our minds, we are very lucky to be here. But that’s it.

ID is posed to offer an explanation that is as theoretical as evolution, but pays special attention our position in the universe, the precise “fine-tuning” of our universe, and the origin of the species within reason. It may not be widely accepted as of yet, but teaching it is how such acceptance is earned, and there should be an openness to the possibility of a Designer, God, or whatever else, that had a hand in our biologically complex existence. And unfortunately, ardent supporters of neo-Darwinism within the scientific community steadfastly hold that evolution “is it.”

DT: On the contrary, the parallels between ID and creationism are extraordinarily relevant to this debate. In the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that mandating the teaching of creationism was a violation of the Establishment Clause. Interestingly, the ID movement really began a mere few years after the decision, with Johnson’s 1991 book Darwin on Trial. A “wedge” strategy, formulated by a pro-creationist subsidiary of the Discovery Institute in 1996, aimed to introduce ID as a valid scientific theory and to replace the teaching of evolution at school with creationist — pardon me, intelligent design — dogma. ID is simply creationism masked to make it more palatable to those who believe that schools should not be mandated to teach religion.

Evolution is not as theoretical as ID, contrary to your assertion. Evolution is supported by a myriad of tested and proven facts, experiments, and hypotheses, while ID has nothing to prop it up, aside from the fiery rhetoric of its supporters. It is not the business of science to expound on philosophical and theological questions of man’s place in the universe — that is why evolution does not attempt to do it. The fact that ID does is yet another crack in its crumbling façade as a scientific theory.

RC: The business of science is to answer the “Why?” And of course, this includes the question of why there are humans here on this mystery planet hovering in this black space of stars, moons, and planets. Science, after all, began as a philosophical debate. Naturally, science has evolved to become a source of answers based on statistical data and empirical evidence.

The ID movement, as a whole, does not advocate the teaching of ID in public schools because it has not been widely accepted by the scientific community. The issue has been highly politicized in the media, dubbed by the New York Times as “Scopes II,” a stark misnomer for a movement that widely believes ID should not be a requirement for schools. The focus, however, should be that ID must be seriously considered as a theory unto itself. Unfortunately, the vast majority — more than 80 percent — of the scientific community are ardent naturalists and atheists. What are the chances of a theory — and I stress theory — implying the existence of a god that most scientists will instantly reject, despite evidence of organic complexity and evolutionary inconsistencies that show some clues of design? It’s very unlikely.

Evolution is still very much comparable to ID, in that evolution has immeasurable backing to the point near religious zeal.

DT: Your basic view of science is much too expansive. The question of “why” in science is typically limited to observable phenomena and the like; you, meanwhile, insist on dragging theological issues into a wholly incompatible realm of scientific rigor where they simply cannot exist. There is no blind faith there to support them. The appropriate word for science is not “why,” but “how.”

What does it tell you about the ID movement when even its proponents refuse to support the subject being taught in schools? If they are so certain that it is indeed a valid and important theory, why would they not advocate its inclusion in the school curriculum? Advocates like Behe and Chien beat their chests and proclaim the validity of ID, and yet, when asked to produce proof, do nothing but accuse the other side of bias and prejudice. When the ID proponents step up and actually offer tangible proof of their so-far unsubstantiated beliefs, scientists will listen. Until then, the protestations have no substance.

RC: To show that even advocates of ID don’t fully support it as a requirement for schools shows that the underlying purpose of the ID movement is to substantiate itself as valid scientific analysis. One cannot escape the theological implications of the ID movement; most of its supporters are Christian believers — there’s no denying that fact. But to wholly say that ID isn’t observable shows “blind faith” in a scientific realm that indulges in the concept of the purely natural.

Remember, while Behe said that ID has yet to be experimental, it is far from unobservable. And this is how ID builds its foundation. There may be political and ideological zealots, but there is a foundation purpose for the ID movement. It boils down to what’s there: the complexity of life and our amazing position in the universe. We are a privileged planet within a sea of improbability.

DT: We seem to have deviated from the original question at hand: Should ID be taught in schools alongside evolution? Let’s sum up. You admit that even advocates of ID concede that it should not be part of a required curriculum. You yield that it has no factual basis, and you seem to agree with me that ID fails the very basic requirements of a scientific theory, which would imply that it cannot be taught in a science class. Finally, I have seen no compelling argument that creationism and ID are distinct entities, and that ID advocates are sincerely interested in substantiating it as a scientific theory.

For now we have empiricism. We have logic. We have science. We should keep it that way.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot