10 Ways Darwinists Help Intelligent Design

[Guest guest]

10 Ways Darwinists Help Intelligent Design (Part I)

Eighty years after the Scopes “Monkey” Trial, the public still refuses to

accept the idea that Darwin’s theory of natural selection is a sufficient

explanation for complex biological phenomena. In fact, opinion polls show

that fewer people are willing to accept the idea that human beings developed

from earlier species than they were just ten years ago.

In Britain—a country that is not exactly known for fundamentalist

Christianity—fewer than half accept the theory of evolution as the best

description for the development of life. (And more than 40% of those polled

believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in

school science lessons.) Even doctors, who are more informed about biology

than the general public, overwhelmingly (60%) reject the claim that humans

evolved through natural processes alone.

Why do so many people have such difficulty accepting the theory? Is it due

to a resurgence of religious-based creationism? Or is it that the Discovery

Institute and other advocates of Intelligent Design are more persuasive? I

believe the credit belongs not to the advocates of ID but to the theory’s

critics.

Had the critics remained silent, ID might possibly have moldered in

obscurity. But instead they launched a counter-offensive, forcing people

into choosing sides. The problem is that the more the public learns about

modern evolutionary theory, the more skeptical they become.

I won’t argue that critics of ID are always wrong or that ID is always—or

even mostly—right in its claims. But I do think a compelling case can be

made that the anti-IDers are losing the rhetorical battle. Here is the first

five in a list of ten reasons ways in which they are helping to promote the

theory of intelligent design:

#1 By remaining completely ignorant about ID while knocking down strawman

versions of the theory. – Whether due to intellectual snobbery or

intellectual laziness, too many critics of ID never bother to understand

what the term means, much less learn the general tenets of the theory.

Instead, they knock down a strawman version of ID that they have gleaned

from other, equally ill-informed, critics. The belligerent or paranoid

advocates of ID will assume that the misrepresentation is due to dishonesty

or a conspiracy by “Darwinists.” But even those who are more charitable will

agree that when a critic misrepresents the theory, it undermines their own

credibility.

#2 By claiming that ID is stealth creationism. -- Resorting to this red

herring is one of the most common arguments made against ID. While it’s true

that ID could be used to promote a particular religious agenda, this is not

a sufficient argument against it being a legitimate scientific research

program. There is no a priori reason why a research program could not be

completely in adherence to accepted scientific methods and yet be completely

compatible with a particular religious viewpoint.

But it also refuses to acknowledge the vast majority of people throughout

history have believed in at least a basic form of creationism. Most people

believe that some form of intelligent being (i.e., God) created the universe

and everything in it. For most of these people, “creationism” is not a

derogatory term. The phrase “stealth creationism” might appeal to the

pseudo-intellectuals (those who know almost nothing about science but do

know that they despise “fundamentalist Christians”) yet for most ordinary

people it sounds like bigoted nonsense.

#3 By resorting to “science of the gaps” arguments. – Critics of ID often

claim that the theory relies on a “God of the Gaps” “argument. (Don’t

understand how something occurred? WellRGod did it. Case closed.) As

scientific reasoning, this method is obviously flawed. Yet the critics of ID

often resort to the same tactic, only instead of saying “God did it” they

claim “Science will find it.”

The problem is that this almost never happens. Closing a "science gap"

almost always leads to the discovery of other, even more difficult to

explain gaps in knowledge. For example, when evolution was first proposed by

Darwin, there was no explanation for the mechanism of transmission of traits

from one generation to the next. With the discovery of DNA, Watson and Crick

closed that particular “gap.”

But as physicist David Snoke notes, no one today has an adequate explanation

for how this highly complicated molecule arose out of nowhere. Also, we do

not have an adequate explanation within chemical evolutionary theory for the

appearance of the mechanism that gives us a readout of the information, or

for the appearance of methods that replicate information with out error, or

for the appearance of the delicate balance of repair and maintenance of the

molecular systems that use the information stored in DNA.

Scientific discoveries tend to find that nature is even more complex than we

imagined which makes it even more unlikely that a process like natural

selection is a sufficient explanation.

#4 By claiming that ID isn’t science since it's not published peer-reviewed

literature...and then refusing to allow publications of ID papers in

peer-reviewed journals. – The hypocrisy of snubbing ID because it lacks

peer-review was exposed by the treatment of Richard Sternberg, a journal

editor who made the career-killing mistake of actually publishing an article

that was sympathetic to ID.

The resulting controversy exposed just how close-minded some scientists were

to criticisms of neo-Darwinism. As Sternberg—who is not an advocate of

ID--said after the incident, “It's fascinating how the 'creationist' label

is falsely applied to anyone who raises any questions about neo-Darwinian

evolutionary theory. The reaction to the paper by some [anti-creationist]

extremists suggests that the thought police are alive and well in the

scientific community."

#5 By making claims that natural selection is responsible for all behaviors

and biological features. -- Instead of saying that “God created X”,

Darwinists tend to claim that “Sex selection created X.” Take, for instance,

this statement made by zoologist Richard Dawkins:

"Why did humans lose their body hair? Why did they start walking on their

hind legs? Why did they develop big brains? I think that the answer to all

three questions is sexual selection," Dawkins said. Hairlessness advertises

your health to potential mates, he explained. The less hair you have on your

body, the less real estate you make available to lice and other

ectoparasites. Of course, it was worth keeping the hair on our heads to

protect against sunstroke, which can be very dangerous in Africa, where we

evolved. As for the hair in our armpits and pubic regions, that was probably

retained because it helps disseminate "pheromones," airborne scent signals

that still play a bigger role in our sex lives than most of us realize.

Why did we lose our body hair? Sex selection. Why do we retain some body

hair? Yep, sex selection. Why do humans walk on two legs? Again, the same

answer, sex selection. Why do dogs walk on all four? You guessed it, sex

selection.

The same goes for human behavior. Hardly a week goes by that some newspaper

or magazine article does not include a story claiming how “evolution” is the

reason humans do X, avoid Y, or prefer Z.

Even scientists grow weary of hearing such faith claims presented as if was

“science.” As Philip S. Skell, emeritus professor at Pennsylvania State

University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, notes in a

recent edition of The Scientist:

RDarwinian explanations for [human behavior] are often too supple: Natural

selection makes humans self- centered and aggressive - except when it makes

them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who

eagerly spread their seed - except when it prefers men who are faithful

protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can

explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less

use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.

Even those who flunked high school biology can see that when a theory can be

used to prove any behavior that it ceases to be science and enters the realm

of faith. Yet when evolutionists make such claims they are often flummoxed

by the public’s skeptical reaction. They can’t understand how we could be so

stupid as to not accept their claims. And we wonder how they could be so

stupid as to think we are really that gullible.

 

#6 By invoking design in non-design explanations. Anyone who wonders why so

many people find intelligent design explanations plausible need only to

listen to scientific community discuss the evolutionary process. Scientists

have a complete inability to talk about and explain processes like natural

selection without using the terms, analogies, and metaphors of design and

teleology.

Take, for instance, the recent finding that leads researchers to believe

they have found a second code in DNA in addition to the genetic code. On The

New York Times science page we find an explanation by Eran Segal of the

Weizmann Institute in Israel:

A curious feature of the code is that it is redundant, meaning that a given

amino acid can be defined by any of several different triplets. Biologists

have long speculated that the redundancy may have been designed so as to

coexist with some other kind of code, and this, Dr. Segal said, could be the

nucleosome code. [emphasis added]

Or consider this, my favorite example, taken from a primer on evolutionary

psychology:

Design evidence. Adaptations are problem-solving machines, and can be

identified using the same standards of evidence that one would use to

recognize a human-made machine: design evidenceR.. Complex functional design

is the hallmark of adaptive machines as well. One can identify an aspect of

the phenotype as an adaptation by showing that (1) it has many design

features that are complexly specialized for solving an adaptive problem, (2)

these phenotypic properties are unlikely to have arisen by chance alone, and

(3) they are not better explained as the by-product of mechanisms designed

to solve some alternative adaptive problem. Finding that an architectural

element solves an adaptive problem with "reliability, efficiency, and

economy" is prima facie evidence that one has located an adaptation

(Williams, 1966).

Design evidence is important not only for explaining why a known mechanism

exists, but also for discovering new mechanisms, ones that no one had

thought to look for. [Proponents of this theory] also use theories of

adaptive function heuristically, to guide their investigations of phenotypic

design.

 

After reading that passage you might wonder if I had copied the wrong

passage, providing a selection from a primer on ID rather than on

evolutionary psychology. It seems improbable that a paper on evolutionary

processes would use the word design 85 times(!), often in conjunction with

explaining how natural selection “designed” a certain function (i.e.,

“Principle 2. Our neural circuits were designed by natural selection to

solve problems that our ancestors faced during our species' evolutionary

history.”)

Such uses of design, however, are not uncommon. In fact, some

neo-Darwinists, such as Richard Dawkins, admit that while certain biological

forms may have the appearance of design, they are only designoids. (As Dave

Barry would say, I’m not making this stuff up.)

The world is divided into things that look designed (like birds and

airliners) and things that don't (rocks and mountains).Things that look

designed are divided into those that really are designed (submarines and tin

openers) and those that aren't (sharks and hedgehogs). The diagnostic of

things that look (or are) designed is that their parts are assembled in ways

that are statistically improbable in a functional direction. They do

something well: for instance, fly. Darwinian natural selection can produce

an uncanny illusion of design. An engineer would be hard put to decide

whether a bird or a plane was the more aerodynamically elegant.

So what is the “explanatory filter” (to borrow a phrase from the ID’ers)

that naturalism uses in order to distinguish between what is “designed” by

an intelligence and what are, in the words of Richard Dawkins, “designoids”,

phenomena that only have the appearance of being designed? Since ID theory

claims to have a method for differentiating one from the other, we might

presume that naturalism does as well.

Evidence for design that requires an intelligent designer? Unscientific

nonsense. Evidence for design that requires only undirected, unintelligent

processes? An important mechanism for explaining known mechanisms. Even

people who have never taken a course in logic can spot the special pleading

required to make this argument.

Whether intelligent design will ever become the primary explanation in

evolutionary biology remains to be seen. But the use of design language in

explaining the process will ensure that ID remains the most plausible

explanation in the minds of the public.

#7 By claiming that the criticism of ID has nothing to do with a prejudice

against theism – and then having the most vocal critics of ID be

anti-religious atheists. – Let’s first dispell the ridiculous notion that

most evolutionary biologists believe in God. Somehow this has become a

dominant theme in these discussions, even though it remains patently false.

In 1998, the journal Nature polled the members of the National Academy of

Sciences on their belief in God. Of all those questioned, biological

scientists had the lowest rate of belief -- only 5.5 percent were theists.

When 94.5 percent of the "scientific elite" has a plausibility structure

that rejects the possibility of a Supreme Intelligent Being, it is not

surprising that they would reject the very concept of an “intelligent

designer.”

But even among the disbelievers, the most prominent critics are not the

agnostics but the evangelical atheists. Take, for instance, zoologist

Richard Dawkins' interview with Salon.com:

Salon: Those who embrace "intelligent design" -- the idea that living cells

are too complex to have been created by nature alone -- say evolution isn't

incompatible with the existence of God.

Dawkins: There is just no evidence for the existence of God. Evolution by

natural selection is a process that works up from simple beginnings, and

simple beginnings are easy to explain. The engineer or any other living

thing is difficult to explain -- but it is explicable by evolution by

natural selection. So the relevance of evolutionary biology to atheism is

that evolutionary biology gives us the only known mechanism whereby the

illusion of design, or apparent design, could ever come into the universe

anywhere.

 

Some of the most vocal critics of ID are also vocal critics against religion

in general. Dawkins, P.Z. Myers, E.O. Wilson, Daniel Dennett, and Michael

Shermer are a few examples of prominent ID critics who spend an inordinate

amount of time railing about the ignorance of religious beliefs.

Even fellow ID critic Michael Ruse thinks that Dawkins and Dennett are

hurting their own case. As he wrote in a letter to Dennett, “I think that

you and Richard are absolute disasters in the fight against intelligent

design R what we need is not knee-jerk atheism but serious grappling with

the issues Rmore than this, we are in a fight, and we need to make allies in

the fight, not simply alienate everyone of good will.”

 

#8 By separating origins of life science from evolutionary explanations. –

Nature is too complex to be encompassed in any one field. That is why it’s

necessary for scientific disciplines (physics, biology, chemistry) to be

broken down into sub-disciplines (cosmology, zoology, biochemistry, etc.).

But while most scientists may not have no problems thinking in unconnected

categories, the average person expects the various parts to be stitched back

into a seamless whole.

That is why when looking for an explanation for the origins of mankind, most

people naturally start at the beginning. The neo-Darwinists, on the other

hand, prefer to jump ahead to the middle and begin the argument with

“specifies evolve.” If you ask them how “life” (a necessary feature for any

evolving species) began in the first place they will claim that the issue is

outside the theory.

Perhaps. But since naturalistic theories rise or fall based on the

plausibility of this issue, it would probably be a good idea to make sure

that this one is nailed down.

Unfortunately for these advocates, modern science doesn’t have a clue how

DNA, much less a living organism, could have been produced from non-living

matter. If you ask most anti-ID critics about abiogenesis they will either

be under the (false) impression that this problem has already been solved or

will claim that it is only a matter of time before the process is

understood. (See #3)

Some scientists, such as Nobel-prize winner Francis Crick, have at least

attempted to come up with an alternative explanation. Crick, realizing the

impossibility of abiogenesis occurring on earth, published a paper in which

he suggested that life on earth was “seeded” from another planet. (That’s

something to keep in mind the next time someone mentions that real science

(as opposed to something like ID theory) is submitted through “peer-reviewed

science journals”.)

An adequate theory of speciation must begin at the beginning. Before there

can be species there must first be living organisms. How did these organisms

evolve from inanimate matter? No one knows. But until the theory can be

rooted in a firm explanation for how this occurs, explanations for an

“intelligent designer” will appear quite plausible.

#9 By resorting to ad hominems instead of arguments (e.g., claiming that

advocates of ID are “ignorant”). -- About a year ago I had an email

discussion about evolution and Intelligent Design theory with the

Hugo-nominated sci-fi novelist John Scalzi. The debate quickly degenerated

when he resorted to claiming, “the science is there for one and not for the

other. By all means enjoy your ignorance, but don't expect me to treat it or

you very seriously.”

I suspect that if you gave Mr. Scalzi a test on the basic terms, concepts,

and theories surrounding evolutionary biology, that he would fare no better

than I would. (And I can almost guarantee that if you gave him a test on the

basic terms, concepts, and theories of ID that he would flunk completely,

for the reasons outlined in #1.) So why is it that Mr. Scalzi, thinks his

position is superior?

I don’t know, and for the purposes of this post, a psychoanalytical analyis

of his reasons isn't necessary. What is important is not the motive but the

dismissive attitude toward anyone who holds an opinion that differs from

what is considered acceptable scientific dogma.

On occasion I’ve been known to gently mock those with whom I disagree

(except for Dawkins and Peter Singer, who I despise). But to dismiss them

entirely, even when, like Mr. Scalzi, they hold anti-rational opinions,

would stifle genuine debate.

Perhaps I am too much a child of the Enlightenment for, like Voltaire and

his fellow deists, I believe that the light of reason illuminates the

obvious, namely that our intellects are not formed by a “crude, blind,

insensible being.” Perhaps I just have too much faith in science which

causes me to reject the science-fiction that neo-Darwinists explanations are

sufficient. Or maybe I just assume that people who resort to ad hominems

have run out of arguments.

#10 By not being able to believe their own theory. -- Say what you will

about advocates of ID, they actually believe in the basic claims of their

theory. Not so, with neo-Darwinists.

For example, philosopher of science David Stove notes that ultra-Darwinists

assert that while man was once trapped in the struggle to survive and pass

on our genes, we no longer are trapped in the spiral of natural selection.

Stove calls this the “Cave Man” attempt to solve “Darwinism’s Dilemma”:

If Darwin’s theory of evolution is true, no species can ever escape from the

process of natural selection. His theory is that two universal and permanent

tendencies of all species of organisms—the tendency to increase in numbers

up to the limit that the food supply allows, and the tendency to vary in a

heritable way—are together sufficient to bring about in any species

universal and permanent competition for survival, and therefore universal

and permanent natural selection among the competitors.

Natural selection, which is a “universal generalization about all

terrestrial species at any time” can’t just be true sometimes: “If the

theory says something which is not true now of our species (or another),

then it is not true—finish.” Not only is this not true of our species now,

it could never have been true:

Do you know of even one human being who ever had as many descendants as he

or she could have had? And yet Darwinism says that every single one of us

does. For there can clearly be no question of Darwinism making an exception

of man, without openly contradicting itself. ‘Every single organic being’,

or ‘each organic being’: this means you.

Those whose ideas about evolution are derived from Internet-debates or

reading books by Richard Dawkins will quickly dismiss Stoves claims an

dismiss it as a “strawman.” The problem is that this is Darwinism. It is the

heart of the theory, which is why not one recognizes it which is why few

critically thinking people actually believe it.

In fact, if you took what most lay advocates of neo-Darwinians believe about

the theory and compared it to what evolutionary biologists actually say, you

would likely find a vast, unbridgeable chasm. “Most educated people

nowadays, I believe, think of themselves as Darwinians,” wrote Stove. “If

they do, however, it can only be from ignorance: from not knowing enough

about what Darwinism says. For Darwinism says many things, especially about

our species, which are too obviously false to be believed by any educated

person; or at least by an educated person who retains any capacity at all

for critical thought on the subject of Darwinism.”

 

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

 

How Darwinists Help Intelligent Design

Jonathan Witt

Joe Carter's complete series on How Darwinists Help Intelligent Design is

now up. (Part I, Part II, Part III.)

His series begins:

Eighty years after the Scopes “Monkey” Trial, the public still refuses to

accept the idea that Darwin’s theory of natural selection is a sufficient

explanation for complex biological phenomena. In fact, opinion polls show

that fewer people are willing to accept the idea that human beings developed

from earlier species than they were just ten years ago.

 

In Britain—a country that is not exactly known for fundamentalist

Christianity—fewer than half accept the theory of evolution as the best

description for the development of life. (And more than 40% of those polled

believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in

school science lessons.) Even doctors, who are more informed about biology

than the general public, overwhelmingly (60%) reject the claim that humans

evolved through natural processes alone.

 

Why do so many people have such difficulty accepting the theory? Is it due

to a resurgence of religious-based creationism? Or is it that the Discovery

Institute and other advocates of Intelligent Design are more persuasive? I

believe the credit belongs not to the advocates of ID but to the theory’s

critics.

Carter then goes on to give an excellent overview of the state of Darwinism

and ID.