sign in sign up
<<
Home , Biologic Institute, Creation science, Of Pandas and People, Watchmaker analogy

Trim Size: 170mm x 244mm k Trevathan ieba0268.tex V2 - 01/27/2018 12:48 A.M. Page 1

forthasmuchasheknewabouttheintricacies of anatomy and the natural world, particularly BRIANA POBINER anatomy, and claimed, enthusiastically, Smithsonian Institution, USA that all of this was evidence of not only the existence of the Creator but also the benign char- MARK TERRY acter of the Creator. He begins with the oft-cited The Northwest School, USA “” , which holds that the com- plex workings of the natural world necessitate an intelligent Creator no less than do the com- plex mechanisms of a watch. This thinking was Historical and philosophical perspective popular, widely disseminated, and considered scientific in the early nineteenth century. The Intelligent design (ID) refers to an ancient philo- eight Bridgewater Treatises (1833–40) expanded sophical and religious concept as well as to a on Paley’s work, touching on everything from modern movement opposed to evolutionary anatomy and behavior to and , in research and education. Advocates of all with the aim of praising the good work of the ID believe that an intelligent entity brought the Creator. Treatise #4, The Hand: Its Mechanism universe, life, and human beings into existence, and Endowments as Evincing Design (Bell 1833), andconverselythatnounguidednaturalprocess is of particular interest, since it explores the could have given rise to such complexity and human hand, including the comparative anatomy ieba elegance. (see evolution), under- of extremities of a wide variety of vertebrates, stood as an undirected, natural process involving including primates. (see darwin, ieba genes, probability, and populations, is declared charles r.) studied Paley’s work thoroughly (and to be insufficient to produce any novelty in the occupied Paley’s former rooms at Cambridge), development of organisms. k Greek philosophers, as well as others in other and embarked on the Beagle in 1832 as a propo- k cultures, saw intricacy, beauty, and functionality nent of the Argument from Design in its natural in natural objects, particularly living organisms. form. Development of animals from eggs, and trees and As science has probed the biochemical and flowers from seeds, appeared to be highly orga- genetic nature of living things since Paley’s time, nized and restricted, as though following a plan. life appears even more complex, and ID pro- Thenotionofaplanbehindanatomyanddevel- ponents credit the “Designer” with producing opment suggested the action of a planning agent, a that complexity. In their publications for main- designer, a supreme mover. This idea is akin to and stream audiences, modern ID proponents make often expressed with notions of ,orpur- no claims about who the Designer is and offer pose, and is sometimes referred to as the “Argu- no explanations about how the Designer works. ment from Design.” In religious traditions, such This appears to be a departure from Paley’s Nat- teleological, design-based thinking has often been ural Theology, which claimed outright that the employed to underpin or even prove the existence intelligence behind all of nature was the of a supreme being, of God or Allah in the Abra- of Christian Scripture. However, in addressing hamic . A prime, succinct example is the religious audiences, ID proponents identify the fifth argument for the set forth designer as the Christian God. by St in the thirteenth century. Modern ID advocates occupy positions on a In the history of evolutionary and anthropo- scale of beliefs that range all the way from the logical thought, no expression of the Argument old-earth creationist position that accepts limited from Design is more important than that pro- degrees of evolution within over time, to a posed by English clergyman in young-earth creationist position that insists that his or Evidences of the Exis- all living things, down to their DNA, RNA, and tence and Attributes of the Deity (1802). Paley set cellular components, were brought into existence The International Encyclopedia of Biological .EditedbyWendaTrevathan. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

k Trim Size: 170mm x 244mm k Trevathan ieba0268.tex V2 - 01/27/2018 12:48 A.M. Page 2

2 INTELLIGENT DESIGN

only a few thousand years ago and are maintained As these court battles wrapped up in the 1980s, by the constant activity of the Designer. Such a group of creationists assembled and began to competing views are of more than philosophical plan a new approach: promoting ID. Central interest, because ID followers have taken their to this strategy was the notion that ID would place in a long line of creationist authors and be presented as new, cutting-edge science, not activists attempting to influence how . Neither God nor Scripture would be in general, and (or hominin mentioned. origins) in particular, are taught in public schools. The roots of ID in traditional creationism were revealed during an important (and, to date, the only) legal case involving ID (discussed below), The intelligent design (ID) movement when successive early drafts of a supplemental high-school text were closely examined. Of Pan- The emergence of an ID movement in the 1990s das and People: The Central Question of Biological is best understood in the context of creationist Origins (Davis and Kenyon 1993) was originally struggles to control the teaching of evolution published in 1989. Most of the book’s arguments in US public schools throughout the twentieth are identical to those of traditional creationists, century. The landmark Scopes “Monkey” Trial and early drafts from the 1980s used “creation- of 1925 (The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas ism,”“creator,”and“creationist”terminology Scopes), while popularly remembered for expos- throughout, making no reference to ID. Follow- ing the weakness of the creationist approach, ing the 1987 Supreme Court ruling drove publishers away from inclusion of any in Edwards v. Aguillard that found inclusion evolutionary science in high-school textbooks for of “” in public school thenextfourdecades.JohnScopes,asubstitute science curricula unconstitutional, all of the orig- high-school teacher, was accused of violating inal creationist terms were switched throughout k Tennessee’s , which made it illegal subsequent drafts to terms such as “intelligent k to teach human evolution in public schools. design,” “agency” or “designer,” and “intelligent Although he could not recall whether he had design proponent” (Forrest and Gross 2007). actually taught evolution in class, Scopes agreed In 1996, an infusion of donor funding con- toserveasadefendantinthiscase,whichwas centrated the talents of a group of ID advocates financed by the American Civil Liberties Union. and authors at the (DI), a Town businessmen hoped the trial would bring conservative public affairs think-tank in Seattle, publicity and economic gain to Dayton, Ten- , that was founded in 1990. Since for- nessee. Scopes was found guilty and fined $100, mation of the DI and its Center for Science and but the verdict was subsequently overturned by Culture (originally the Center for the Renewal the Tennessee Supreme Court on a technicality, of Science and Culture), an aggressive print, making it impossible for the defense to appeal to electronic, video, and conference outreach pro- the United States Supreme Court. The Butler Act gram has been underway. Most publications have remained in force. been through either established religious pub- Inthesecondhalfofthecentury,aserious lishing houses or DI’s own press. Four ID authors effort funded by the Federal Government to have succeeded in publishing through major enhance science education suddenly brought publishers (: Free Press; William evolution back into high-school textbooks, led by Dembski: Rowman & Littlefield; Stephen Meyer the Biological Curriculum Study (BSCS) and Douglas Axe: Harper’s religious imprint, series, launched in 1963. Creationists responded Harper One). ID authors have not succeeded with further attempts, first, to ban the teaching of in gaining acceptance by peer-reviewed science evolution, and, when that tactic failed, to require journals. They have instead founded their own “equal time” for teaching “Creation Science.” journals (e.g., BIO-Complexity,whichhasbeen In court cases in (1968, 1982) and published annually since 2010), much as creation- Louisiana (1987), each of these attempts was ists began their own journals in the 1960s (e.g., found by federal courts to be unconstitutional. Creation Research Society Quarterly,foundedin

k Trim Size: 170mm x 244mm k Trevathan ieba0268.tex V2 - 01/27/2018 12:48 A.M. Page 3

INTELLIGENT DESIGN 3

1964). In addition, like earlier “creation science” , in 2005. Parents sued the Dover organizations (such as the Institute for Creation School District in the United States District Court Research founded in 1972), ID proponents have for the Middle District of Pennsylvania over the established their own “research laboratory,” the requirement that a statement presenting ID as a , for which the DI provides scientific alternative to evolution be read aloud funding. in ninth grade science classes in which evolution was taught. The statement also directed students to the supplemental text Shifting strategies: from the “Wedge” (Davis and Kenyon 1993), dozens of copies of to “Academic Freedom” which were provided in the high-school library. The DI, which had not initiated the Dover policy In 1998 a DI fundraising document, subsequently and failed to persuade the school board to either leaked to the public in 1999, outlined an ambi- revise or withdraw it, reluctantly cooperated with tious “Wedge Strategy” to change American the (TMLC), which culture via the acceptance of ID in scientific represented the board, by agreeing to provide research and in public discourse, education, and expert witnesses for the defense. Although sev- policy. The “Wedge” of ID, using a metaphor first eral of the DI’s witnesses withdrew because of proposed by then-UC Berkeley law professor disagreements with the TMLC legal team, three Philip Johnson, would weaken the grip of “sci- went on to testify, most notably Michael Behe. entific materialism” and bring America “back” to The trial attracted national and international conservative Christian theistic values and policies attention, and the judge’s ruling declared that throughout public life. An initial goal set forth in the Dover School Board had acted with religious this “Wedge Document” was the inclusion of ID intent, contrary to law, and concluded: “In mak- in public school science curricula (Forrest and ing this determination, we have addressed the k Gross 2007). Alongside the effort to inject ID into seminal question of whether ID is science. We k schools,theDIcampaignedfora“TeachtheCon- have concluded that it is not, and moreover that troversy” strategy, promoting a false perception ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and that evolution is a controversial “theory in crisis” thus religious, antecedents” (Jones 2005, 136). being hotly debated within the scientific com- Creationism in a wide array of forms con- munity, and that scientists are trying to suppress tinues to thrive in the United States and, to a “new” scientific information, particularly ID, that more limited extent, in many other countries. challenges the status quo. Beginning in 2004, the Young-earth creationists are frequently not in DI also began promoting an “Academic Freedom” sympathy with the ID movement because of its approach. Template legislation was made widely efforts to appear purely scientific and to avoid availableforstateorlocaladoptiontodefendthe invocation of the identity of any Designer. Highly right of teachers to include whatever material successful groups such as , they might find useful in the teaching of “con- creators of the , and, recently, troversial” topics. Whereas evolution has been the “,” a replica of ’s ark, in traditionally singled out in creationist legislation, Kentucky, are overt in their identification with the these academic freedom bills also commonly tar- GodoftheBible.Someofthesegroups,however, get global warming and human cloning. Dozens appreciate and embrace ID’s ongoing critique of of state education committees and legislatures “.” have dealt with such bills. Some of the language in these bills refers to teaching the “strengths and weaknesses” or undertaking “critical analysis” of evolution, phrases long used in prior creationist Intelligent design and human evolution campaigns to undermine the teaching of evolu- tion. Three states (Louisiana in 2008, Tennessee Contemporary ID authors have made specific in 2012, and in 2017) adopted them. claims about human evolution and paleoanthro- The push to include ID in public school science pology (see paleoanthropology). The section ieba curricula led to a dramatic outcome in Dover, on “The Origin of Man” in Of Pandas and People

k Trim Size: 170mm x 244mm k Trevathan ieba0268.tex V2 - 01/27/2018 12:48 A.M. Page 4

4 INTELLIGENT DESIGN

(Davis and Kenyon 1993) presents three argu- , genetic drift, or any evolution- ments: (1) of human ancestors are rare ary process not guided by intelligence. This is and fragmentary (citing an outdated 1984 Science essentially the same argument that distanced commentary); (2) the record of primates Alfred Russell Wallace (see wallace, alfred ieba contains“distincttypes”thatappearabruptly, russel) from Charles Darwin, since Wallace remain essentially unchanged, and sometimes asserted in his later years that human capabil- abruptly disappear; and (3) there is no evidence ities could not be explained by gradual natural for transitional forms in the hominin fossil selection. Darwin maintained they could. The record. These assertions have been reiterated DI credits Alfred Russell Wallace as being ID’s often throughout ID literature and are identical “Lost Ancestor.” These and other ID arguments tothosemadebymainstreamcreationists. about improbability and insufficient time focus Additional ID pronouncements on human on how evolution as currently understood could evolution allege the weakness and contentious- not possibly work; modern ID is principally a ness of the science: (1) fossil reconstructions negative argument strategy. are arbitrary; (2) fossils do not establish ancestor–descendant relationships; and (3) fossils are simply placed into pre-existing, pro-evolution REFERENCES narratives. Robust disagreements and discussions among mainstream scientists are presented as Bell, Charles. 1833. The Hand: Its Mechanism and Vital signsofweaknessratherthanstrength. Endowments as Evincing Design.London:William DI’s Science and Human Origins (Gauger, Axe, Pickering. and Luskin 2012) is ID’s most extensive offering Davis, Percival W., and Dean H. Kenyon. 1993. Of Pan- on human evolution. It consists of five essays by das and People: The Central Question of Biological three authors, none of whom has any background Origins.Dallas:HaughtonPublishingCompany. Forrest, Barbara, and Paul R. Gross. 2007. Creationism’s k in paleoanthropology. The essays reiterate the k points already made in Of Pandas and People. Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design.New York: Oxford University Press. Using headlines from the popular press and Gauger, Ann, Douglas Axe, and Casey Luskin. 2012. “sensational” quotations from scientists taken out Science and Human Origins.Seattle:DiscoveryInsti- of context, the attempt is made to portray the tute Press. field of human evolution as being in permanent, Jones, John E, III. 2005. Memorandum Opinion, nonproductive turmoil. A prime example of ID Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.USDistrict analysisinthebookisattorneyCaseyLuskin’s CourtfortheMiddleDistrictofPennsylvania. treatment of the widely accepted evidence of Paley, William. 1802. Natural Theology or Evidences of common ancestry that is derived from compari- theExistenceandAttributesoftheDeityCollected son of human chromosome #2 with two shorter from the Appearance of Nature.London:Hallowell. chimpanzee chromosomes. Luskin argues that ’ and chimpanzees’ genetic similarity could just as easily be taken as evidence for the FURTHER READING action of a Designer as for natural, evolutionary processes.Sincetherearenolimitsonwhata Numbers, Ronald L. 2006. : From Sci- Designer might do, the argument is unassailable entific Creationism to Intelligent Design.Cambridge, and therefore unscientific. MA: Harvard University Press. Another key argument against human evolu- Pobiner, Briana. 2016. “Accepting, Understanding, tion by modern ID proponents, just as it was in Teaching, and Learning (Human) Evolution: Obsta- cles and Opportunities.” Yearbook of Physical Anthro- Paley’sday,isthathumancognitiveandcommu- pology 159: S232–74. nicative abilities such as intelligence, language, Scott, Eugenie. C. 2009. Evolution vs. Creationism: An art, abstraction, altruism, and ethics cannot ade- Introduction,2nded.Berkeley:UniversityofCalifor- quately be accounted for by random , nia Press.

k Trim Size: 170mm x 244mm k Trevathan ieba0268.tex V2 - 01/27/2018 12:48 A.M. Page 5

Please note that the abstract and keywords will not be included in the printed book, but are required for the online presentation of this book which will be published on Wiley’s own online publishing platform. Iftheabstractandkeywordsarenotpresentbelow,pleasetakethisopportunitytoaddthemnow. The abstract should be a short paragraph of between 50 and 150 words in length and there should be at least 3 keywords.

ABSTRACT Intelligent design (ID) is a nonscientific idea that holds certain features of the universe and living things as too complex to have arisen through undirected, chance processes such as evo- lutionbynaturalselection.Instead,proponentsclaimthesefeaturesareevidenceofdesignin nature and best explained by an unspecified intelligent cause or agent. The modern ID move- ment, which seeks to include ID content in science classrooms, distances itself from its clear Christian creationist roots by deliberately not referencing a designer.

KEYWORDS Intelligent design; creationism; teleology; natural theology; Darwin; ; Discovery k k Institute; Wedge strategy; evolution education

k