[V]andemar.org

I’ve been following the recent intelligent design trial in Dover fairly closely, as it’s an issue I feel particularly strongly about. I have no problem with someone being religious, I can deal with people believing in crackpot ideas like intelligent design, young Earth creationism, or the healing power of crystals, but it scares me that such an obviously fallacious idea as intelligent design is even being considered as appropriate for inclusion in science classes. Thankfully, the judge in the case, Judge John Jones, saw past the numerous lies and falsifications the intelligent design supporters put forward, and issued an excellent ruling (available here) which was both comprehensive, fair, and extremely well thought out. I was not worried about the outcome of the case, but I was expecting a limp ruling which would be a light slap on the hand to intelligent design. This ruling is a complete smackdown, and has exceeded all of my expectations. If you have time, I recommend reading it through. It’s both interesting and very insightful.

One of the constant factors during the trial was the willingness of the intelligent design supporters to lie, falsify information, and completely ignore any evidence which conflicted with their “research”. I would have thought things had changed since the days of Tennessee vs. John Scopes, but evidently they haven’t. It amazes me that they claim moral superiority, and yet continually resort to such low, deceitful tactics. I hope this is not become the norm in the fundamentalist religious community. The intelligent design supporters’ behavior on the stand is, in my opinion, not a result of pure malice, but caused by a desperate attempt to cling to beliefs they know to be false . They support what they want to believe, not what the overwhelming majority of available data points to. They have mastered the art of deception, both of themselves and others. If they truly wish to be considered seriously, they need to argue their point logically and truthfully, while also presenting their findings and theories to the scientific community for peer review. I get the feeling the following is all too true:

In this vein, a couple of quotes from the ruling struck me as particularly interesting:

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

Plaintiffs’ science experts, Drs. Miller and Padian, clearly explained how ID proponents generally and Pandas specifically, distort and misrepresent scientific knowledge in making their anti-evolution argument.

The immune system is the third system to which Professor Behe has applied the definition of irreducible complexity. Although in Darwin’s Black Box, Professor Behe wrote that not only were there no natural explanations for the immune system at the time, but that natural explanations were impossible regarding its origin. (P-647 at 139; 2:26-27 (Miller)). However, Dr. Miller presented peer-reviewed studies refuting Professor Behe’s claim that the immune system was irreducibly complex. Between 1996 and 2002, various studies confirmed each element of the evolutionary hypothesis explaining the origin of the immune system. (2:31 (Miller)). In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fiftyeight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not “good enough.” (23:19 (Behe).

The one [one!] article referenced by both Professors Behe and Minnich as supporting ID is an article written by Behe and Snoke entitled “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues.” (P-721). A review of the article indicates that it does not mention either irreducible complexity or ID. In fact, Professor Behe admitted that the study which forms the basis for the article did not rule out many known evolutionary mechanisms and that the research actually might support evolutionary pathways if a biologically realistic population size were used.

Some other, more general quotes from the decision:

In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies.

To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to “change the ground rules” of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces.

We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980’s; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.

Another theme throughout the case was the idea that religion and evolution are entirely incompatible, a view I do not understand. Evolution has nothing to do with the existence (or lack thereof) of God. The following quote cuts to the heart of the issue, this perceived incompatibility between evolution and religion:

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

And finally, one rather frightening quote (The last one, I promise! There’s just so many good ones!):

In the midst of this panoply, there arose the astonishing story of an evolution mural that was taken from a classroom and destroyed in 2002 by Larry Reeser, the head of buildings and grounds for the DASD. At the June 2004 meeting, Spahr asked Buckingham where he had received a picture of the evolution mural that had been torn down and incinerated. Jen Miller testified that Buckingham responded: “I gleefully watched it burn.” Buckingham disliked the mural because he thought it advocated the theory of evolution, particularly common ancestry.

In an all too predictable turn of events, the intelligent design backers are now claiming that this is a free speech issue, and that “Intelligent design has been banned from schools!”. This is, again, an outright lie. Intelligent design can still be taught in schools, but in an appropriate setting, such as a philosophy or religion class, where it belongs. The good folks at the “Discovery Institute” have already issued a press release regarding their loss in the trial. I find it to be angry and illogical. You be the judge.

It’s hard for me to believe that in this age of rapidly expanding scientific boundaries, we still have people clinging to 15th century beliefs. I don’t know whether to blame the American science education system (we are falling far behind other countries, and the fact trials such as these even make it to court has made us the laughingstock of the international community), or human nature itself. Whatever the reason, this ruling will hopefully cause some thought and reflection among those in the intelligent design movement. In a rather ironic twist, two days after the ruling was released, the journal Science declared evolution 2005’s top scientific breakthrough.

Despite the loud voices of the intelligent design community, the vast majority of the coverage I’ve read has been in support of the decision. Headlines such as “‘Design’ ruling shows sound judgment“, “Intelligent decision on intelligent design“, “An intelligent decision“, and (my favorite) “Threw the Book at ‘Em” from the good old Scientific American abound. Maybe America isn’t doomed after all.

~ by Andrew on December 23, 2005.