Creationism
and Intelligent Design by
Revised
The following essay describes why creationism
and, in particular, Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC) are not considered
scientific and therefore should not be taught as science in a science
classroom. Throughout this essay are links you can click on that will take you
to websites that contain further information and clarification of the
information being presented. To return to this essay,
click the Back button at the top left-hand side of the web page you have
navigated to. The links are repeated in
the References section at the end of the essay. Also in the Reference section
are additional, related links.
Creationism, in its general definition, is
very broad and refers to the creation of the universe by a supernatural
entity or entities. If a person refers to himself or herself as a creationist,
he or she should be more specific. For example, many Native Americans
believe that they were created on the spot, here, in
Within Christian creationism, there is a broad
range of thought. On one end of the spectrum, are those who believe God
initially created the universe and its laws but then had no further hand in its
development. Christian creationists of this sort generally accept evolution as
God’s method of creating species while at the same time accepting Jesus as
their savior.
On the other end of the spectrum are Biblical
fundamentalists who believe every word of the Bible to be the literal word of
God. All living ‘kinds’ were created in the first week of
creation less than 10,000 years ago and evolution is limited only to within
kinds. (A kind is a type of organism. Thus, there is a cat kind, a dog
kind, a dinosaur kind, etc.) Further, all major landforms on earth are the result of the Great Flood of
Noah, occurring approximately 7, 500 years ago. This form of creationism is
known as Young Earth Creationism (YEC) and is the most popular form of
Creationism among Americans. Polls
indicate that approximately 45% of Americans agree with the statements of the
YEC. Despite its popularity, Young Earth Creationism has been soundly refuted by science
(see also Rennie, 2002; for several articles on the
implausibility of flood geology see The Talk Origins
Archive) and rejected
by a number of court cases as an alternative or an adjunct to teaching
evolution in public school settings. In every court case, YEC was deemed to be
not science, but rather religion dressed in scientific jargon. Other
forms of creationism exist between the two extremes presented above, each
with varying degrees of acceptance of evolution.
A somewhat new form of Creationism emerged in the
1990’s pioneered by now retired law professor, Phillip Johnson. It is
called Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC) and the basic idea is that life is
too complicated to have evolved naturally and thus (so IDC claims), must have
been created supernaturally by an intelligent designer. ID advocates not only reject
evolution as an explanation for the origin of species but also object to the
way science is being practiced: they insist that the definition of science by
broadened to accommodate supernatural
explanations (See the document,
The Wedge, for a
complete exposition of ID creationist intentions and strategy. For a critique of
the The Wedge strategy, click
here.)
The Intelligent Design movement got a big boost
in 1996 with the publication of the book,
The arguments of IDC advocates are similar to
those of Reverend William Paley, who in the 18th
century presented the classic ‘argument from
design’ thesis. Reverend Paley used the analogy
of a watch. If one were to analyze the construction of a watch without having
any prior knowledge of its existence, one would be forced to the conclusion
that it was not an object created by natural forces but must have been created
by design for a purpose. Likewise with life; its complexity reveals design and
purpose, Paley claimed. Paley’s
thesis has been disputed by many philosophers and scientists including David
Hume, Charles
Darwin, and more recently by Richard
Dawkins.
The main argument against intelligent design (and
the older, but similar argument from design) goes like this. By building up
layers of complexity step-by-step, natural structures and processes can give
the appearance of having been created. Darwin used
the example of the eye. In nature are various grades of image detecting devices
from simple eyespots like those of Euglena to the
complex eye of the mammal (or the better designed mollusk eye). Likewise with the
brain: from simple neural clusters in primitive worms, one finds many
intermediate states building in size and complexity until the most complex of
brains (ours!). So, simple units assembled step-by-step result in complex
structures dependent upon all its parts. Ecosystems are another example of
irreducibly complex systems.
Ecosystems are built up from simple beginnings
(e.g. see this
site) But over time, the various components of the ecosystem (e.g. primary
producers like plant, pollinators, seed dispersers) become dependent on each
other and the ecosystem suffers irreparable harm if one or more is lost. Thus, the components
of mature ecosystems are irreducibly complex yet they are fully explainable
in purely natural terms. We can explain many other complex systems in the
same way, but what about biochemical pathways?
Biochemists and
evolutionary biologists were quick to respond to Behe’s
claims of irreducibly complex biochemical pathways. First of all, there are
biochemical pathways that show, like the eye and the brain, varying
degrees of complexity in different organisms and thus illustrate how these
particular pathways could have evolved naturally. Others have shown ways by
which pathways could evolve by
scaffolding and redundancy and in the end become irreducibly complex.
Behe further claims
that the evolution of biochemical pathways is an area of research poorly
covered by science (purposely so Behe believes). If this is the case (though many
scientists disagree), then any definitive claim for the origin of
biochemical pathways, natural or supernatural, is at best, premature.
This leads us to an essential criterion of science.
Science relies on an open door policy. That is,
all questions remain open until answered or the doors stay open and the
question remains unanswered. Someday someone may somehow figure out how
biochemical pathways arose naturally (or, maybe not). But to close the door on
this question by claiming supernatural origin is tantamount to quitting.
Imagine the state of science if every time a researcher came up against a
seemingly intractable problem, he or she simply threw up their hands and
claimed intelligent design. Science remains vibrant by always leaving the door
open to further exploration. So, the suggestion made by Phillip Johnson,
Michael Behe, et al. that supernatural explanations be allowed into science would have the final effect of
crippling it.
Other scientists have pointed out what Paley missed and Behe apparently
ignored (he should know better): a lot of design
appears to be anything but intelligent. Take the male reproductive system (diagram).
The course taken by the vas deferens from the testicles to the urethra is a
study in torturous pathways. While the design makes sense
evolutionarily, from an IDC perspective it must be a bit embarrassing to
explain. A designer, even an adequately intelligent designer, could have done
much better. Many
such examples belie IDC claims. Concerning biochemical pathways, it is
incumbent upon Behe to explain why if these pathways
were intelligently designed there is so much waste. Inefficiency is not the
hallmark of good (not to mention perfect, as one would expect from the implied
Intelligent Designer) design.
Another problem with Intelligent Design as
science is related to how science is done. The final and most crucial step in
the scientific process is publication in peer reviewed publicly accessible science
journals. It is not enough to conduct an experiment or make an observation and
then proclaim a result. One must submit one’s findings to a scientifically
valid journal where experts in the appropriate field scrutinize the findings
and either accept or reject them. If accepted, the findings are published for
others in the field to review, criticize, debate, or lambaste. This is how
healthy science proceeds.
The problem with Intelligent Design (and
creationism in general) is that the scientific literature is bereft of IDC
publications. George Gilchrist, professor of zoology at the University of
Washington surveyed the scientific literature using several scientific
databases and found not
a single scientific study using Intelligent Design as its basis (also see
this link).
We are forced to conclude from this interesting exercise conducted by Professor
Gilchrist that scientists don’t do IDC research. And if scientists don’t do it,
we can’t call it science because at the end of the day science is what
scientists do. The recent statement
by the American Association for the Advancement of Science on IDC reflects this
clearly.
Note should be made here of the relatively recent
article in Protein Science by Behe and Snoke. The
authors conducted a computer generated experiment that appeared to show the
improbability that a point
mutation would result in an amino acid substitution in a protein that would
be beneficial. A comprehensive refutation to this experiment can be found both here
and here. Briefly,
one problem with this investigation is that it did not consider other types of
mutation. The
Human Genome Project, for example, has discovered multiple families of genes
created by gene duplication. Gene duplication, it
appears, has been an important engine
for evolution. Also, Behe and Snoke
only considered the probability of one substitution in a single protein. This is
analogous to considering the chance that a particular individual will win the
lottery. That chance is extremely high, roughly about 1 in 20
million. But, if enough people play, the chances of somebody
winning reduce to absolute certainty. Likewise for the evolution of
proteins: consider over 3.6 billion years of life the number of times cells
have divided. With each division there is a chance of mutation. With each
mutation the chance of a protein evolving that is beneficial. Like the lottery,
the probability of a beneficial mutation evolving rises to certainty.
More recently, IDC has received a couple of
public refutations. In
Another blow came from the
More support from religious quarters for
evolution has recently surfaced. Over
10,000 clergy have signed on to support The
Clergy Letter Project. As the
One of the great privileges of being an educator
is having academic
freedom. This means that as a teacher, I can present controversial topics
or say controversial things (within reasonable limits) and not have to worry
that it might cost me my job. However, above and beyond academic freedom is
academic responsibility. Whatever view I may have on a particular topic, I have
a responsibility to tell the truth and to present matters as they are, not how
I might wish they would be. As a science teacher, I am obligated to teach
science as the world of science has determined it is. Where Creationism in general and its
fledgling, Intelligent Design, have been tested; they have failed (this is
especially the case with YEC). And in other cases, tests have apparently not
even been attempted or, given their supernatural nature, could not be (this is
especially the case with IDC).
Creationism, including Intelligent Design Creationism, is not science.
It would be dishonest and a disservice to students to present these concepts in
any other light.
Evolution is not something I teach because I like
the sound of it (although I agree with philosopher Daniel Dennett that it is "single best
idea anyone has ever had"), I teach it because it has been shown by a mountain of evidence to
be the way of life. All living things have evolved by common descent over
millions and millions of years; it is one of the great facts of life. Evolution
is rightly the foundational concept of all biology. This is a fact supported
by the scientific community and many other communities as well (see below
for more links) and that is how it should be presented in every biology class
throughout the world.
Evolution
pervades all biological phenomena. To ignore that it occurred or to classify it
as a form of dogma is to deprive the student of the most fundamental
organizational concept in the biological sciences. No other biological concept
has been more extensively tested and more thoroughly corroborated than the
evolutionary history of organisms.
National
Academy of Sciences 1998.
Nothing
in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Theodosius
Dobzhansky
NOTE: this section is under construction. Links are in the
process of being updated. I apologize for any inconvenience.
References (click on link to go to website).
2think.org.2002b. Evolution and the human
eye. http://www.2think.org/eye.shtml
Abramson, Paul. 2002. Introduction to Creationism.
http://www.creationism.org/
Access Research Network.
1998. Michael Behe. http://www.arn.org/behe/behehome.htm
Access Research Network.
1998. Phillip E. Johnson. http://www.arn.org/johnson/johome.htm
American Association for the Advancement
of Science. 2002. AAAS Resolution on
Intelligent Design Theory. http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml
American Association of University
Professors. 2002. Statement
of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure. http://www.aaup.org/statements/Redbook/1940stat.htm
Behe, Michael J. and David W. Snoke. 2004. Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein
features that require multiple amino acid residues. Abstact. Protein
Science. http://www.proteinscience.org/cgi/content/abstract/ps.04802904v1
Biology Online.
2002. Succession of an Ecosystem. http://www.biology-online.org/4/7_ecosystem_succession.htm
Catalano, John (editor). 2002. Behe’s Empty Box. http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Catalano/box/behe.htm
CBS News. 2004. Mega Millions Winner Was Bankrupt.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/national/main657133.shtml
Clergy Letter Project.
2006. http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/rel_evol_sun.htm.
Colby, Chris et al. 2002.Evidence for Jury-Rigged Design in Nature. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html
CITA. 2004.
Crystal, Ellie. 2002. Native American Myths of
Creation. http://www.crystalinks.com/nativeamcreation.html
Cziko, Gary. 1995. Without Miracles: 5 Brain Evolution and Development. http://faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/g-cziko/wm/05.html
- Heading2
Darwin, Charles. 1859. On
the Origin of Species by Natural Selection. Chapter Six.
http://www.zoo.uib.no/classics/darwin/origin.chap6.html
Decelle,
Paul. 1999. Euglena Homepage. http://old.jccc.net/~pdecell/protista/euglena.html
Dunn, C.S. 2004.
Primary Succession. http://www.uncwil.edu/bio/ksucc.htm.
Economics New School.
2004. David Hume. http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/hume.htm.
Gilchrist, George. 2001. The Elusive
Scientific Basis of Intelligent Design. http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/articles/2083_the_elusive_scientific_basis_o_3_16_2001.asp
Hale, Steven. 1997. Creation Myths from Around
the World. http://www.dc.peachnet.edu/~shale/humanities/literature/religion/creation.html
Human Genome Project Information. 2004. International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium Describes Finished Human Genome Sequence Researchers Trim Count of Human Genes to 20,000-25,000.
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/project/20to25K.shtml
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
2002. David Hume Writings on Religion. http://www.iep.utm.edu/h/humereli.htm#Hume's%20Writings%20on%20Religion
Johnson, D.R. 1996. Introductory
Anatomy: Excretory & Reproductive Systems. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/chb/lectures/anatomy9.html
Kamin Online. 2001. Poll:
Creationism is more popular than ever.
http://www.kaimin.org/Mar2001/3-6-01/news10_3-6-01.html
Long, Manyuan. 2001. Gene Duplication and Evolution. Science.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/293/5535/1551a.pdf
Lynch, Michael. 2005. Simple evolutionary pathways to complex proteins. http://proteinscience.org/cgi/reprint/14/9/2217
Meyer, Stephen C. 2004. The Origin of Biological
Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories.
Proceedings of the Biological
Society of Washington.
117(2):213-239.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177.
Miller, Kenneth. 2002. The Evolution of Vertebrate Blood Clotting. http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Darwin/DI/clot/Clotting.html
Musgrave, Ian F., Steve Reuland,
and Reed A. Cartwright. 2004. Theory is as Theory Does. The
Panda’s Thumb. http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000480.html
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309063647/html/index.html
Statements from scientific organizations: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8882_statements_from_scientific_org_1_30_2001.asp
Statements from educational organizations: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3120_statements_from_educational_or_1_30_2001.asp
Statements from civil liberties organizations: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/7046_statements_from_civil_libertie_1_30_2001.asp
Statements from religious organizations: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/2027_statements_from_religious_orga_1_26_2001.asp
Rennie, John. 2002. 15
Answers to Creationist Nonsense. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2
Robison, Keith. 1996.
Scott, Eugenie. 2000. The Creation/Evolution
Continuum. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/1593_the_creationevolution_continu_12_7_2000.asp
Shanks, Niall and K.H. Joplin.
1999. Redundant Complexity: A
Critical Analysis of Intelligent Design in Biochemistry. PHILOSOPHY OF
SCIENCE, 66 (June 1999), pp. 268-298. http://www.etsu.edu/philos/faculty/niall/complexi.htm
Sze, Emily Lei Pi.
2002. Theodosius Dobzhansky. Emuseum. http://emuseum.mnsu.edu/information/biography/abcde/dobzhansky_theodosius.html
Stear, John. 1999.
The Evolution Evidence Page.http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html
The Talk Origins Archive.
2002. Flood Geology. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html
Theobald,
Douglas. 2002 29 Evidences for Macroevolution. Part 3. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section3.html
US
The Victorian Web.
2002. Natural Theology of Paley. http://65.107.211.206/victorian/religion/paley1.html.
Or, if you would like to read the original text of Natural Theology by Paley go to: http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/p/pd-modeng/pd-modeng-idx?type=HTML&rgn=TEI.2&byte=53049319
Wikipedia. 2008. Gene Duplication. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication
Wikipedia. 2007. Point Mutation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_mutation
Yee, Danny. 1996. Review of Daniel Dennett’s
Return to Gerry Barclay’s Homepage