Rarely, if ever, do I begin a review with the following statement, so please do pay attention: you should watch this week's special two hour Nova episode, "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial."
The show focuses on the debate between the notion of Intelligent Design and the Theory of Evolution and to do so uses the 2005 trial Kitzmiller, et. al. v. Dover School District, et. al. Most simply, Ms. Kitzmiller and 10 other parents of children in the Dover school district in Dover, Pennsylvania sued the school board for ordering science teachers to read a statement stating that there were gaps in Darwin's Theory of Evolution, and that the idea of "Intelligent Design" (ID) was a viable alternative. Kitzmiller, the science teachers, and others believed that Intelligent Design was nothing more than Creationism using different terminology. If the trial proved them correct, Intelligent Design would not be allowed to be discussed in the classroom as it represents a violation of the Constitution's Establishment Clause (the separation of church and state).
Darwin's theory argues that over the course of an exceedingly long period of time life on this planet grows and changes. These changes occur in animals as a result of mutations, and beneficial ones tend to allow an animal to live longer and thereby reproduce more and more successfully. As animals with these changes reproduce more, the changes are, over several generations, incorporated into the population of the species as a whole. Intelligent Design, on the other hand, argues that some things are just so complex that there had to be an "intelligent agent" that designed (ID proponents prefer the use of the word "design" to "create") them. Followers of ID use the term "irreducible complexity" to describe certain things found in the world. One of the things often pointed to as system with irreducible complexity is bacterial flagellum. As explained in the Kitzmiller trial by Dr. Michael Behe (a believer in ID), the structure that allows bacteria to move, the flagellum, is hugely complex (there are dozens of pieces involved) and it would not work at all if just a single piece were missing. Therefore, the argument goes, the individual pieces would not have evolved over time because there was no benefit to the individual pieces, the entire system had to have been created as a single unit (something that would not happen within Darwin's theory).
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Josh Lasser
Congratulations! This article has been selected for syndication to Advance.net, which is affiliated with newspapers around the United States.
2 - C. David Parsons
Not so fast on the biased review: There is a real "judgment day" around the corner in the form of a new book on creationism. The Quest for Right does that which heretofore was deemed impossible: to level the playing field between those who advocate creationism and those who preach Darwinism. The first volume, of which there are seven, was designed as a textbook for the public schools and will be available Jan 1. Until then, you may wish to be more reserved in celebrating the defeat of intelligent design. C. David Parsons, Author, The Quest for Right
3 - Christopher Rose
Oh no it doesn't. It is simply impossible to "level the playing field" between a quaint old creation myth and a scientific theory.
You are simply trying to promote your book, which is nothing more than a cynical exercise in exploitation. You could more honestly call it the Quest for Profit.
4 - Bill Weber
If Darwinism is the religious dogma of the God of pitiless indifference contained in materials and time acting on itself in a universe of blind physical forces, why is it not identified as the religion it truly is? And as such, why is it not banned from public schools under the Establishement Clause, i.e. seperation of church and state? Bill Weber
5 - Linda
I cannot WAIT for The Quest for Right. This truly is the book that Christians have hoped and prayed for and there is a celebration coming for God's side. The so-called "science" of evolution, which only exists in the minds of the quantum scientists who preach it, is on its way out and the truth will be shouted to the housetops. God will not be mocked. And no this is not an advertisement for the book. Christians are tired of being ridiculed and put down as nonintellectuals when the only wisdom there is comes from God. Since the number of scientists, biologists, etc. who even believe there is a God is almost nil, how can they have wisdom enough to understand even the most minute thing in creation since wisdom comes from God. I say we take Paul's admonition to Timothy and run with it: (1 Tim 6:20 KJV) O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
(1 Tim 6:21 KJV) Which some professing have erred concerning the faith...
(Eph 4:18 KJV) Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:
(Eph 4:19 KJV) Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.
(Eph 4:20 KJV) But ye have not so learned Christ;
God always says it BEST!!
6 - duane
Bill (#4): "If Darwinism is the religious dogma of the God of pitiless indifference... in a universe of blind physical forces...."
Pity and indifference are human traits. The universe is not human. Nor is the universe a supernatural being. So studying the universe falls outside the purview of religion. Blindness is a malady that can be attributed to a biological organism with eyes. Forces do not have eyes. Your premises are false, so your implied conclusion is meaningless.
Linda (#5): "The so-called "science" of evolution, which only exists in the minds of the quantum scientists who preach it, is on its way out and the truth will be shouted to the housetops."
You mean "shouted from the rooftops"? It might be a little crowded up there, what with all those quantum scientists milling about. By the way, what is a "quantum scientist"? Whatever they are, they're not the ones studying evolution. Are you sure you understand the theory enough to use the term "so-called"?
"Christians are tired of being ridiculed and put down as nonintellectuals...."
Oh, who isn't? It sounds like you're directing a bit of ridicule yourself, at those so-called scientists.
7 - duane
Well, after having watched the program, I note the following:
- The judge made the obvious decision, yet showed his integrity by not kissing up to Bush.
- Christians are not above making death threats to their detractors, totally at odds with the teachings of the man they purport to emulate.
- Intelligent design activists do not hesitate to engage in duplicitous behavior, totally at odds with the teachings of the man they purport to emulate.
- The vast majority of intelligent design supporters have no regard for science or logic.
- The vast majority of intelligent design supporters have no curiosity about Nature.
- The vast majority of intelligent design supporters have little knowledge of the theory they claim to refute.
- Intelligent design is a negative proposition, i.e., it is merely a claim that evolution is wrong, but offers no scientific alternative.
- Intelligent design activists attempt to judge the worth of the theory of evolution by its non-scientific spin-offs in sociology, psychology, philosophy, and politics, which is not how theories of Nature are to be evaluated.
- Science is far more "miraculous" and awe-inspiring than mythology.
8 - Barbara Barnett
What many advocates of "Creationism as science" and "intelligent design" fail to understand (or ignore) is the distinct possibility that Darwin (himself a religious man) was inspired by the spark of the divine. That his discoveries were meant to be, and as they have done, push humans forward in so many areas of science. Who is to say that evolutionary theory and us (as humans understanding and then using it for scientific and medical advances) isn't what God intended in the first place? To me, it isn't an either/or proposition. Evolution can co-exist with belief in a Creator. The problem is that that belief and faith are simply that. They are not science. Creation is for the religious schools to teach; not the science classroom. I am looking forward to seeing this, I closely followed the case when it was a live case.
9 - Sean
Yo. This entire universe was created, and Jesus did it. That's the simple truth. He is the only one who speaks it like it is. "Buddha" didn't do it, "Allah" didn't do it, Jesus did it. "Evolution" didn't do it either. Evolution is a poor explanation for the presence of life, or anything for that matter. It is an incredibly dark interpretation of the earth that we see today. "Intelligent Design" is an attempt to get people to understand that we are allowed to use common sense in explaining what we see...it IS permissible to use supernatural explanations.
10 - Ray Ellis
You know what isn't permissible, Sean? Making comments like that. I don't know what Bible you're looking at, but in this universe, Jesus was the son of God--not the Creator.
11 - Christopher Rose
The supernatural is not an explanation of anything except that some people have very vivid imaginations and some people are incredibly gullible.
12 - Dr Dreadful
#8: Good observation, Barbara. Many of the scientific pioneers who turned previous worldviews on their heads - Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton and yes, even (in his early career) Darwin, were motivated at least partly by a desire not to demolish faith but to glorify God by casting new light on his creation.
Galileo, in particular, ended his life a broken man, crushed by the Church's condemnation of his work.
13 - duane
Yes, Barbara and Dr. D, many of the intellectual and artistic monuments to civilization were conceived as means to honor and glorify God. But that is little more than a cultural artifact. Science, in particular, has historically used belief in the supernatural as a scaffolding under which was erected the early workings of the edifice of modern science.
Astrology, for example, was entirely based on the belief that gods meddle in all earthly affairs, which led to the careful charting of the apparent motions of planets and stars, which led eventually to the clockwork universe, which led to Copernicus and Kepler and the heliocentric model, then to the Big Bang. Excellent. Astrology started us on the road to a stunning conception of the universe. The intellectual underpinnings of astrology are no less fallacious for it. The scaffolding has been stripped away, readers of the daily horoscope notwithstanding.
All of these steps have slowly erased the need for divine intervention as an agent of causation in the workings of Nature. Many people refer to this as progress.
Creationists have painted themselves into a small and dwindling corner: God with his mighty hand wrote the laws of Nature, then set the universe in motion. In this respect only can science and religion be considered as compatible. In this respect only is the creationist mindset currently untouchable.
As an alternative to huddling in their small corner, creationists have only one other choice: simply deny the findings of modern scientific research. That is a potent strategy. It is all too easy to simply defer to "the inerrant word of God." One finds many allies flying this flag. It's much easier to roll out the old reliable
"Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?"
--- I Corinthians 1:20
than to actually learn anything.
14 - Ray Ellis
I just have to know, Duane. Is the world really flat? Oh, and by the way, which version of God are you refeering to?
15 - duane
Not following you, Ray.
16 - Dr Dreadful
Agreed, Duane. My point (and, I suspect, Barbara's also) was that it is not the purpose of science to attack religion, as creationists/IDers often seem to think.
Rather, science evolved, via philosophy, out of religion; but all of these disciplines are ways of attempting to understand the universe.
17 - duane
Yeah. Good points, Doctor D.
18 - duane
Yeah. Good points, Dr. D.
19 - Dan
In general, I think that the perpetual misrepresentation, by atheistic Darwiniacs, as to what Intelligent Design theory purports to examine and theorize about, is evidence of an unwillingness to challenge deep convictions of faith.
It's the same sort of zealotorial denial that biblical creation literalists are accused of.
There is so much deliberate confusion, and obfuscation by politically motivated evolutionists, that it makes it hard to have faith in them.
20 - duane
Darwiniacs. Heh. Good one, Dan.
So, how are ID advocates misrepresented?
And why do you think politics has anything to do with it?
21 - Dan
It's not the advocates that are being misrepresented. Some of the damage is being done by the advocates.
One statement you were right about in comment #7 was: "- Intelligent design is a negative proposition, i.e., it is merely a claim that evolution is wrong, but offers no scientific alternative."
There is no deity proposed in real, scientific, ID theory. It's compatible with atheism. No scientific alternative is necessary because it accepts all that's been proven in evolutionary science.
That's one misrepresentation right there.
22 - duane
Dan: "There is no deity proposed in real, scientific, ID theory."
A designer of some sort is proposed, whether it is called an intelligent agent or God or whatever. Assuming that the vast majority of ID supporters are Christian, and all Christians believe that God created the universe, it's not much of a stretch to conclude that, at least in the minds of the advocates, the designer is none other than God. The fact that IDers attempt to eliminate the word "god" or "deity" from their speech and literature just seems disingenuous.
"No scientific alternative is necessary because it accepts all that's been proven in evolutionary science."
The key word being "proven," I suppose. Scientists are not in the business of proving things. I know that sounds strange, but it's true. Mathematicians prove things. The goal of the scientific method is to find theories (models, frameworks, constructs, equations) that consolidate a known range of facts under one roof, then to use the theory to predict and futher integrate, always subject to modification or refutation. Facts can be proven, more or less (the sky looks blue on a clear day). Theories can't. No theories are "true," as was pointed out in the TV program.
On the other hand, if I take your comment at face value, then what does ID have to offer?
23 - Dan
If Christians want to believe it was their God who created life, that's their presumption.
"The fact that IDers attempt to eliminate the word "god" or "deity" from their speech and literature just seems disingenuous."
Is it any more disingenuous than Darwiniacs attempts to eliminate the possibility that a intelligent designer is within the bounds of scientific possibility?
"Scientists are not in the business of proving things."
Things are more or less "proven" if they are observable in the fossil record, duplicated in a lab, etc. I'm not needful of a lecture in a strict interpretation of the word "proven" as it relates to scientific semantics.
"then what does ID have to offer?"
A more complete understanding of evolution, natural selection, and probability. It is the critical examination of evolutionary theory, that is currently being excluded from scholarly discussion by ideologically driven political power seekers. sort of.
24 - duane
Dan: "If Christians want to believe it was their God who created life, that's their presumption."
Good, then you agree with me that the entire ID community thinks God is the intelligent designer.
"Is it any more disingenuous than Darwiniacs attempts to eliminate the possibility that a intelligent designer is within the bounds of scientific possibility?"
Good, then you agree with me that the ID community is disingenuous.
As Dr. Dreadful pointed out (#16), scientists do not earn their salaries by dabbling in non-scientific matters, with the possible exception of those at the Discovery Institute.
"I'm not needful of a lecture in a strict interpretation of the word "proven" as it relates to scientific semantics."
Bully for you.
"A more complete understanding of evolution, natural selection, and probability."
Don't you suppose there are already thousands of actual scientists doing just that? Again, what new ideas does the ID community offer?
"...that is currently being excluded from scholarly discussion ...."
I'll just ask the same question in response to this: what new ideas does the ID community offer? What is the meat of the putative scholarly discussion?
"... by ideologically driven political power seekers."
You have got to be kidding.
25 - Steve
The key tenant of science is testability. Intelligent Design does not and never will hold itself up to such scrutiny and can therefore never be called a science.
As a simple example, I can assert that the sun will rise tomorrow. This is not a fact, it is a theory, based on the observation that for every day of my life this phenomenon has occurred. Were the sun to not rise tomorrow, I would be proven wrong.
Pseudo scientific thinking, such as ID, does not hold itself to any such standard. It is enough for believers to look at a feature of nature and say 'now that looks too complex to have evolved'. Such a statement is not based on data, but is rather an assertion of opinion. It cannot, as such, ever be proven incorrect.
Here is a theory that NO ONE in the ID community can refute - it was The Flying Spaghetti Monster that was the intelligent designer. Is this a ludicrous statement? Absolutely. But it uses IDs own standards to establish an unassailable 'scientific' theory.
For those IDers that find this too outrageous to accept, perhaps you would have done well to have watched the program. In it, the ID expert was asked if by his standards Astrology could have been called science. He answered that yes, by his standards, any pseudo science is actual science.
There is a place for ID teaching, and that is right along side all those folks currently stunned to learn that a la The Secret, they can bend the entire universe to their whims. Both The Secret and ID are equally credible. Neither The Secret or ID can ever be proven wrong.