2005

A few days ago Washington Post reporter Peter Slevin came to Seattle to interview me and Steve Meyer for an upcoming article about evolution, intelligent design, and politics. I suspect his story will appear soon. After the Post’s recent track record editorializing and reporting on the evolution issue, I must admit I was somewhat skeptical about talking with another Post reporter. As the interview started, I made a point of going into detail about the false and misleading statements in previous Post coverage. I also explained how the Post’s ombudsman (unlike the ombudsman at the Boston Globe) didn’t even bother to respond to a detailed complaint we sent about inaccuracies in one of the Post’s articles.

Like most reporters, Mr. Slevin appeared mild-mannered, fair, and genuinely interested in hearing our side of the debate. Despite his impeccable manners, however, some of his comments raised concerns. He mentioned he had read Time’s tabloid-style article about intelligent design, but he indicated he was disappointed because the article didn’t deliver on its promise to expose the “real” motives behind the design movement. He further said he had interviewed a minister in Kansas who thinks that attacking evolution is a way to win the culture war about gay marriage and presumably a host of other social issues. These comments made me wonder whether his report will ignore the substance of the policy debate over evolution and simply recapitulate the hackneyed Red State v. Blue State storyline being pressed ad nauseum by much of the major newsmedia. At one point, Mr. Slevin even wanted to know whether Discovery Institute is funded by the Unification Church! (We aren’t.)

Defenders of Darwin’s theory of evolution typically proclaim that evidence for their theory is simply overwhelming. If they really believe that, you would think they would jump at a chance to publicly explain some of that overwhelming evidence to the public. Apparently not. The Kansas State Board of Education has proposed ten days of hearings featuring scientists who embrace evolutionary theory along with scientific critics of neo-Darwinism, but according to this article in the Lawrence Journal-World, evolutionists are crying foul:

some evolution proponents are suggesting that scientists shouldn’t participate in what they say will be an unfair hearing. “The deck is completely stacked,” said Liz Craig, a spokeswoman for Kansas Citizens for Science. “I don’t believe anybody’s going to participate… because it’s just ridiculous.”

Darwinists have a rather peculiar definition of an “unfair” and “stacked” hearing, however. The Kansas Board has asked for an equal number of scientists (10) to testify on each side. Scientists favoring evolution would be selected by professor Steve Case, chair of the state committee drafting revised science standards for Kansas and an ardent evolutionist. Scientists critical of evolutionary theory would be chosen by biochemistry professor Bill Harris, another member of the same science standards committee, and a supporter of intelligent design. Case would be allowed to cross-examine scientists critical of evolutionary theory, and Harris would be allowed to cross-examine scientists who defend evolutionary theory. In other words, the ground rules proposed are scrupulously fair and even-handed to both sides of the debate.

With some local reporters in Kansas striving to cover the science standards controversy there with fairness and accuracy, it’s disappointing to see the Associated Press reporter in Kansas writing science fiction in the guise of news reports. According to the latest salvo from AP’s Bill Draper:

Some conservative members of the state board have questioned whether the committee has properly considered views about creationism or intelligent design alongside evolution.

A minority of members on Case’s committee have said it’s not fair to teach evolution as an explanation of the origin of life without also including the possibility that life was formed by an intelligent being.

Contrary to Draper, there is no debate on the Kansas Board of Education over whether to teach creationism, and there is no debate on the Kansas science standards committee about whether to teach intelligent design. What minority members on the science standards committee have called for is teaching about scientific criticisms of modern evolutionary theory as well as the evidence favoring evolutionary theory. They have not called for the teaching of intelligent design. Has Mr. Draper even read the minority report issued by members of the science standards committee?

From “The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design“
By Stephen Meyer

Unobservables and Testability

[A frequent argument against intelligent design] that appears frequently both in conversation and in print finds expression as follows: “Miracles are unscientific because they can not be studied empirically. Design invokes miraculous events; therefore design is unscientific. Moreover, since miraculous events can’t be studied empirically, they can’t be tested. Since scientific theories must be testable, design is, again, not scientific.” Molecular biologist Fred Grinnell has argued, for example, that intelligent design can’t be a scientific concept because if something “can’t be measured, or counted, or photographed, it can’t be science.”

Gerald Skoog amplifies this concern: “The claim that life is the result of a design created by an intelligent cause can not be tested and is not within the realm of science.” This reasoning was recently invoked at San Francisco State University as a justification for removing Professor Dean Kenyon from his classroom. Kenyon is a biophysicist who has embraced intelligent design after years of work on chemical evolution. Some of his critics at SFSU argued that his theory fails to qualify as scientific because it refers to an unseen Designer that cannot be tested.

A writer for the newspaper of record in Liberal, Kansas (yes, there is a town with that name in Kansas) endorses the truly liberal policy of teaching the scientific controversy over evolution. He argues: (opponents of teaching the controversy) should come up with a good argument on why teaching only the evolution theory does not violate the state education science mission statement to make all students lifelong learners who can use science to make reasoned decisions. Presenting only one life science theory in classes without alternatives breeds ignorance and violates the mission statement. The author of the essay is wrong to suggest that the Kansas Board of Education is considering adding intelligent design to the Kansas state science standards. In Read More ›

John Derbyshire is on The Corner arguing that we can never safely infer that certain biological structures were designed. To a reader who asserted that organizational complexity cannot arise from impersonal processes, Derbyshire replies, “How do you know it can’t? It is true that the genesis of organizational complexity is not currently well understood; but to leap from that to telling me we shall NEVER be able to find a natural-law explanation for it is just dogma.”

Derbyshire’s argument is worth confronting because it represents the opinion of leading Darwinists. Biologist Kenneth Miller, for instance, routinely makes just such an argument. Design theorist William Dembski responds thus:

Miller claims that the problem with anti-evolutionists like Michael Behe and me is a failure of imagination — that we personally cannot “imagine how evolutionary mechanisms might have produced a certain species, organ, or structure.” He then emphasizes that such claims are “personal,” merely pointing up the limitations of those who make them. Let’s get real. The problem is not that we in the intelligent design community, whom Miller incorrectly calls “anti-evolutionists,” just can’t imagine how those systems arose.

The problem is that Ken Miller and the entire biological community haven’t figured out how those systems arose. It’s not a question of personal incredulity but of global disciplinary failure (the discipline here being biology) and gross theoretical inadequacy (the theory here being Darwin’s).

The particular mechanism Miller has in view here is the bacterial flagellum. Click here and scroll down for a good, brief description and animation of the bacterial flagellum, and here for an enlarged view with its parts labeled. Biochemist Michael Behe made this little engine that could famous by showing that it was irreducibly complex, like a mouse trap: “If any one of the components of the mousetrap (the base, hammer, spring, catch, or holding bar) is removed, then the trap does not function.” With even four of these parts, it’s utterly useless. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex.

BY KEITH PENNOCK Some school boards seem to have confused their role with that of the FDA, placing warning labels on textbooks as though they were a package of cigarettes that should be kept out of the hands of minors. Fortunately, there’s a better way. Rather than noting the scientific controversy over Darwinism by placing stickers on textbooks, we advise that school boards attempt to teach the controversy by augmenting their curriculum using supplemental materials. Ohio and Minnesota followed this approach, and now students there can learn both the strengths and weaknesses in Darwin’s theory. And neither state has been drawn into a legal flap. Smart.

John Derbyshire of The Corner, and Darwinists on every street corner, insist that we should never cram God into the gaps of our scientific knowledge.

As if detecting design meant cramming the designer into the work itself: Imagine Leonardo da Vinci trapped inside the Mona Lisa.

Derbyshire proceeds apace: “History shows that these puzzles always get resolved sooner or later in a natural way, … sending the ‘God of the Gaps’ traipsing off to find a new place where he can hang his starry cloak for a while.”

Bracket off for the moment that this particular history of modern science is an urban legend.

Derbyshire’s argument falls apart all by itself, apart from the historical record. Because more and more things have been explained with reference to impersonal causes, Derbyshire argues, we can never assume that something in nature cannot be explained thus.

That simply doesn’t follow. Consider an analogy.

The Rev. Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State continues to serve in the Ministry of Dis-Information when it comes to intelligent design theory. A dogmatic opponent of intelligent design, the Rev. Lynn recently authored an op-ed that dismisses ID out of hand — not even bothering to take on any of the empirical, scientific claims made by Dr. Michael Behe or any other ID theorists. Comes now Darrick Dean of Science Watch. Dean gives the Rev. Lynn the full-court press in a very noteworthy blog post. Rev. Lynn wishes to continue playing the motives game instead of assessing the scientific arguments for ID. But as Dean argues, the red herring arguments can cut BOTH ways.

Secondhand Smoke is the new weblog operated by Discovery Institute Senior Fellow Wesley J. Smith. His voice is a welcome addition to the blogosphere and his new blog is well worth the visit. An author, attorney and leading voice on many bioethics’ issues, Smith’s work does not involve intelligent design — though he does kindly mention ID and Michael Behe’s recent New York Times op-ed “Design for Living,” in a blog post (here). So while Smith’s work is not the subject of this blog, many readers may be interested in his analysis and commentary on many science-related issues. He has some important and timely articles this week at National Review Online and Daily Standard.