Intelligent design continues to be widely discussed, even though “there is no serious scientific controversy over whether Darwinian evolution takes place” (Washington Post, 8 May 2005). A subset of the Kansas Board of Education recently held hearings to discuss a minority report on the state's science teaching standards -- a report that would mandate teaching of intelligent design in biology classrooms. In a funny sort of way, that's progress.
Six years ago the Kansas Board of Education voted to delete most references to evolution from the biology curriculum (and those responsible were voted out of office the following summer). Intelligent design proponents now realize they can't get away with that. The evidence for Darwinian evolution is too strong. What hasn't dawned on them, is that they are fighting a losing battle. By agreeing to debate the empirical merits of Darwinian evolution and intelligent design, they are agreeing to pit a theory with almost 150 years of success and progress behind it against (Darwinian evolution) against one that is incoherent (inteliigent design).
What do I mean that intelligent design incoherent? Just this. “Science uses natural causes to explain natural phenomena” (Hartford Courant, 7 January 2001). Proponents of intelligent design argue that “design”1 in biological systems require the intervention of an “intelligent designer.” That assertion can be interpreted in one of two ways:
- The “intelligent designer” is not part of the natural world.
- The “intelligent designer” is part of the natural world.
In the first case, the assertion is not scientific. It isn't amenable to experiment and observation. It isn't an assertion that should be studied or discussed in biology classrooms.
In the second case, the process empirical research has so far uncovered that can produce “design” is natural selection. Thus, natural selection is our best guess for “who” the intelligent designer is.
The theory of intelligent design is incoherent because it cannot simultaneously and consistently maintain (a) that there is an intelligent designer outside the realm of natural cause and (b) that intelligent design is an empirical theory. Or to the extent that it is an empirical theory, it is woefully incomplete and inadequate. It doesn't provide explanations or a guide for further investigation.
Intelligent design deserves to be studied -- in philosophy courses, where it can be used as an example of how not to do science.
Update (17 June): I meant to include a link to Will Saletan's recent article in Slate, “What Matters in Kansas: The evolution of creationism.” He points out that two proponents of intelligent design in Kansas
would define science as a continuous process of "observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena."
and that
Abstract creationism can't qualify for such scrutiny. Substantive creationism can't survive it. Or if it can, it should.
1“Design” is jargon. It refers to the observation that many features of plants and animals serve a purpose and appear to have been designed, just as a watch is designed to tell time.
Leave a comment