the new republic Ǡ august 22 & 29, 2005 21

Wolsky had fabrics made. “Samples long as we’re there, we might as well ap- pictures possible?” I asked who that per- would go back and forth until we could preciate the good ones. We might also son might be. Fellini said, “Piero Gher- arrive at the right weight, weave and col- remember that costumes are usually ex- ardi.” Gherardi was the designer, a long- or.... Everything that Tom Hanks wore tensions of the director’s concept of the time colleague of Fellini’s. He was out of was woven for him.” The facing photo of film. In 1964 I spent a day with Federico town at the moment, and by the time I Hanks in his long overcoat makes us Fellini in Rome while he was shooting got back to Rome he had died. But I nev- grateful for Wolsky’s care. Juliet of the Spirits. At the end of the day er see a Fellini film, which happens fairly I doubt that many viewers go to films I thanked him, and he said, “Why don’t often, without thinking of what the direc- in order to judge the costumes, but as you go to see the genius who makes my tor said about his designer. ½ Jerry Coyne The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name The case against intelligent design.

I. Of Pandas and People evidence.... Intelligent design is an xactly eighty years after By Percival Davis and explanation of the origin of life that the Scopes “monkey trial” Dean H. Kenyon differs from Darwin’s view.The ref- in Dayton, Tennessee, history (Haughton Publishing Company, erence book, Of Pandas and People, is about to repeat itself. In 170 pp., $24.95) is available for students to see if they a courtroom in Harrisburg, would like to explore this view in an EPennsylvania in late September, scien- effort to gain an understanding of tists and creationists will square off someone died on a cross. Can’t someone what intelligent design actually about whether and how high school stu- take a stand for him?” And he added: involves.As is true with any theory, dents in Dover, Pennsylvania will learn “Nowhere in the Constitution does it call students are encouraged to keep an about biological evolution. One would for a separation of church and state.” open mind. have assumed that these battles were After a summer of heated but in- over, but that is to underestimate the conclusive wrangling, on October 18, The results were dramatic but pre- fury (and the ingenuity) of creationists 2004 the Dover school board passed, by dictable. Two school board members re- scorned. a vote of six to three, a resolution that signed. All eight science teachers at The Scopes trial of our day—Kitz- read: “Students will be made aware of Dover High School sent a letter to the miller, et al v. Dover Area School District gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and of school superintendent pointing out that et al—began innocuously. In the spring of other theories of evolution including, but “intelligent design is not science. It is not 2004, the district’s textbook review com- not limited to, intelligent design. Note: biology. It is not an accepted scientific mittee recommended that a new com- Origins of Life is not taught.” A month theory.” The biology teachers asked to mercial text replace the outdated biol- later, the Dover school district issued a be excused from reading the statement, ogy book. At a school board meeting in press release revealing how the alterna- claiming that to do so would “knowingly June, William Buckingham, the chair of tive of “intelligent design” was to be pre- and intentionally misrepresent subject the board’s curriculum committee, com- sented. Before starting to teach evolu- matter or curriculum,” a violation of their plained that the proposed replacement tion, biology teachers were to read their code of professional standards.And so, in book was “laced with Darwinism.” After ninth-grade students a statement, which January of this year, all ninth-grade biol- challenging the audience to trace its roots included the following language: ogy classes were visited by the assistant back to a monkey, he suggested that a superintendent himself, who read the more suitable textbook would include The Pennsylvania Academic Stan- mandated disclaimer while the teachers biblical theories of creation. When dards require students to learn about and a few students left the room. asked whether this might offend those of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and Inevitably,the controversy went to the other faiths, Buckingham replied, “This eventually to take a standardized test courts. Eleven Dover parents filed suit country wasn’t founded on Muslim be- of which evolution is a part. against the school district and its board liefs or evolution. This country was Because Darwin’s Theory is a of directors, asking that the “intelligent founded on Christianity and our students theory, it continues to be tested as should be taught as such.” Defending his new evidence is discovered.The Jerry Coyne is a professor in the Depart- views a week later, Buckingham report- Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the ment of Ecology and Evolution at the edly pleaded: “Two thousand years ago, Theory exist for which there is no University of Chicago. 22 august 22 & 29, 2005 Ǡ the new republic design” policy be rescinded for fostering to find that a scientifically advanced So- according to its account, “primitive” or- “excessive entanglement of government viet Union had beaten the United States ganisms such as fish would be found in and religion, coerced religious instruc- into space.This spurred rapid revisions of the lowest layers, while mammals and tion, and an endorsement by the state of science textbooks, some emphasizing bi- more “advanced” species appeared in religion over non-religion and of one reli- ological evolution. But the anti-evolution higher layers because they climbed hills gious viewpoint over others.” The plain- statutes were still in force, and so some and mountains to escape the rising wa- tiffs are represented by the Philadelphia teachers using newer books were violat- ters.Why dolphins are found in the upper law firm of Pepper Hamilton, the Penn- ing the law. One of these teachers, Susan strata with other mammals is one of sylvania American Civil Liberties Union, Epperson, brought suit against the state many facts that this ludicrous fantasy and Americans United for Separation of Arkansas for violating the Establish- fails to explain. of Church and State; the defendants, by ment Clause. She won the right to teach Scientific creationism also came to the Thomas More Law Center, a conserv- evolution, and Epperson v. Arkansas was grief because its advocates did not ade- ative Christian organization in Ann Ar- upheld by the United States Supreme quately hide its religious underpinnings. bor, Michigan. Court in 1968, only a year after Tennessee In 1981, the Arkansas legislature passed finally rescinded the Butler Act. Finally it an “equal time” bill mandating balanced hy all the fuss about was legal to teach evolution everywhere treatment for “evolution science” and a seemingly inoffensive in America. “creation science” in the classroom. The statement? Who could bill was quickly challenged in federal possibly object to students he opponents of evolution court by a group of religious and scien- W“keep[ing] an open mind” and examin- proceeded to re-think their tific plaintiffs led by a Methodist min- ing a respectable-sounding alternative strategy, deciding that if they ister named William McLean. The de- to evolution? Isn’t science about testing could not beat scientists, they fense was easily outgunned, with Judge theories against each other? The furor Twould join them. They thus recast them- William Overton quickly spotting bib- makes sense only in light of the tortuous selves as “scientific creationists,” propos- lical literalism underlying the scientific- history of creationism in America. Since ing an ostensibly non-religious alterna- creationist arguments. In a landmark it arose after World War I, Christian- tive to the theory of evolution that might opinion (and a masterpiece of legal ar- fundamentalist creationism has under- be acceptable in the classroom. But the gument), Overton ruled in McLean v. gone its own evolution, taking on newer empirical claims of scientific creation- Arkansas Board of Education that the forms after absorbing repeated blows ism—that the Earth is young (6,000 to balanced-treatment act was unconsti- from the courts. “Intelligent design,” as I 10,000 years old), that all species were tutional, asserting that it violated the will show, is merely the latest incarnation created suddenly and simultaneously, Establishment Clause in three ways: it of the biblical creationism espoused by that mass extinctions were caused by a lacked a secular legislative purpose, its William Jennings Bryan in Dayton. Far great worldwide flood—bore a suspi- primary effect was to advance religion, from a respectable scientific alternative cious resemblance to creation stories in and it fostered excessive government to evolution, it is a clever attempt to the Bible.This strategy was devised large- entanglement with religion. sneak religion, cloaked in the guise of ly by Henry Morris, an engineering pro- McLean v. Arkansas Board of Educa- science, into the public schools. fessor who headed the influential Insti- tion began a string of legal setbacks for The journey from Dayton to Dover tute for Creation Research in San Diego scientific creationists. Five years later, was marked by a series of legal verdicts, and helped to write the textbook Scien- in Edwards v. Aguillard, the Supreme only one of which, the Scopes trial, fa- tific Creationism. The book came in two Court held that Louisiana’s “Creationism vored creationism. In 1925, John Scopes, versions: one purged of religious refer- Act”—an act that required the teach- a high school teacher, was convicted of ences for the public schools, the other ing of evolution in public schools to be violating Tennessee’s Butler Act, which containing a scriptural appendix explain- balanced by instruction in “creation prohibited the teaching of “any theory ing that the science came from interpret- science”—was unconstitutional. In the that denies the Story of Divine Creation ing the Bible literally. last two decades, federal courts have also of Man as taught in the Bible, and to Scientific creationism proved a bust used the First Amendment to allow teach instead that man has descended for two reasons. First, the “science” was schools to prohibit teaching creationism from a lower order of animal.” The ver- ludicrously wrong. We have known for a and to ban school districts from requiring dict was reversed on a technicality (the long time that the Earth is 4.6 billion teachers to read evolution disclaimers judge, instead of the jury, levied the $100 years old (the 6,000- to 10,000-year claim similar to the one used in Dover, Pennsyl- fine), so the case was never appealed. In comes from biblical statements, including vania.To get around these rulings, schools the wake of Scopes, anti-evolution laws toting up the number of “begats”) and in Alabama, Arkansas, and Georgia be- were passed in Mississippi and Arkansas, that species were not created suddenly or gan pasting warning stickers in biology adding to those passed by Florida and simultaneously (not only do most species textbooks, as if learning about evolution Oklahoma in 1923. Although these laws go extinct, but various groups appear could endanger one’s mental health. A were rarely enforced, evolution nonethe- at different times in the fossil record), recent specimen from Cobb County, less quickly disappeared from most high and we have ample evidence for species’ Georgia reads: “This textbook contains school biology textbooks because pub- changing over time, as well as for fossils material on evolution. Evolution is a lishers feared losing sales in the South, that illustrate large morphological trans- theory, not a fact, regarding the origin where anti-evolution sentiment ran high. formations. Most risible was Scientific of living things. This material should be In 1957, the situation changed. With Creationism’s struggle to explain the geo- approached with an open mind, studied the launch of Sputnik, Americans awoke logical record as a result of a great flood: carefully and critically considered.” the new republic Ǡ august 22 & 29, 2005 23

To laypeople—particularly those un- scent with modification.”) That is, the the Origin of Species, and they have familiar with the scientific status of evo- species on earth today are the descen- not changed substantially, although they lution, which is actually a theory and a dants of other species that lived earlier, have been refined and supplemented by fact—the phrasing may seem harmless. and the change in these lineages has modern work. But Darwin did not pro- But in 2005 a federal judge ordered the been gradual, taking thousands to mil- pose these ideas as pure “theory”; he also stickers removed. By singling out evo- lions of years. Humans, for example, provided voluminous and convincing lution as uniquely controversial among evolved from distinctly different organ- evidence for them. The weight of this scientific theories, the stickers catered isms that had smaller brains and proba- evidence was so overwhelming that it to religious biases and thus violated the bly lived in trees. crushed creationism. Within fifteen years, First Amendment. The second proposition is that new nearly all biologists, previously adherents But the creationists did not despair. forms of life are continually generated by of “natural theology,” abandoned that They are animated, after all, by faith. the splitting of a single lineage into two view and accepted Darwin’s first two And they are very resourceful. They or more lineages.This is known as “speci- propositions. Broad acceptance of natural came up with intelligent design. ation.” About five million years ago, a selection came much later, around 1930. species of primates split into two distinct The overwhelming evidence for evo- lineages: one leading to modern chim- lution can be found in many books (and II. panzees and the other to modern hu- on many websites). Here I wish to pre- ntelligent design, or ID, is mans. And this ancestral primate itself sent just a few observations that not only the latest pseudoscientific incar- shared a common ancestor with earlier support the neo-Darwinist account, but nation of religious creationism, primates, which in turn shared a common in so doing refute the alternative theory cleverly crafted by a new group of ancestor with other mammals.The earlier of creationism—that God specially creat- Ienthusiasts to circumvent recent legal re- ancestor of all mammals shared an even ed organisms and their attributes. Given strictions. ID comes in two parts.The first earlier ancestor with reptiles, and so on the similarity between the claims of in- is a simple critique of evolutionary theo- back to the origin of life. Such successive telligent design and creationism, it is not ry, to the effect that Darwinism, as an ex- splitting yields the common metaphor of surprising that these observations also planation of the origin, the development, an evolutionary “tree of life,” whose root refute the major tenets of ID. and the diversity of life, is fatally flawed. was the first species to arise and whose The second is the assertion that the ma- twigs are the millions of living species. he fossil record is the jor features of life are best understood as Any two extant species share a common most obvious place to search the result of creation by a supernatural ancestor, which can in principle be found for evidence of evolution. Al- intelligent designer. To understand ID, by tracing that pair of twigs back through though the record was sparse then, we must first understand modern the branches to the node where they Tin Darwin’s time, there were already find- evolutionary theory (often called “neo- meet. (Extinction, of course, has pruned ings that suggested evolution. The liv- Darwinism” to take into account post- some branches—pterodactyls, for exam- ing armadillos of South America bore a Darwinian modifications). ple—which represent groups that died striking resemblance to fossil glypto- It is important to realize at the outset off without descendants.) We are more donts, extinct armored mammals whose that evolution is not “just a theory.” It closely related to chimpanzees than to fossils occurred in the same area. This is, again, a theory and a fact. Although orangutans because our common ances- suggested that glyptodonts and armadil- non-scientists often equate “theory” with tor with these primates lived five million los shared a common South American “hunch” or “wild guess,” the Oxford Eng- versus ten million years ago, respectively. ancestry. And the record clearly dis- lish Dictionary defines a scientific theory (It is important to note that although played changes in the forms of life ex- as “a scheme or system of ideas or state- we share a common ancestor with apes, isting over large spans of time, with the ments held as an explanation or account we did not evolve from living apes, but deepest and oldest sediments showing of a group of facts or phenomena; a hy- from apelike species that no longer exist. marine invertebrates, with fishes appear- pothesis that has been confirmed or es- Similarly, I am related to my cousin, but ing much later, and still later amphibians, tablished by observation or experiment, the ancestors we share are two extinct reptiles, and mammals (along with the and is propounded or accepted as ac- grandparents.) persistence of some groups found in ear- counting for the known facts.” In science, The third proposition is that most lier stages). This sequence of change was a theory is a convincing explanation for a (though not all) of evolutionary change in fact established by creationist geolo- diversity of data from nature. Thus scien- is probably driven by natural selection: gists long before Darwin, and was often tists speak of “atomic theory” and “gravi- individuals carrying genes that better thought to reflect hundreds of acts of di- tational theory” as explanations for the suit them to the current environment vine creation. (This does not exactly com- properties of matter and the mutual at- leave more offspring than individuals port with the account given in Genesis.) traction of physical bodies. It makes as carrying genes that make them less Yet evolution predicts not just succes- little sense to doubt the factuality of evo- adapted. Over time, the genetic compo- sions of forms, but also genetic lineages lution as to doubt the factuality of gravity. sition of a population changes, improv- from ancestors to descendants. The ab- Neo-Darwinian theory is not one ing its “fit” to the environment. This in- sence of such transitional series in the proposition but several. The first propo- creasing fit is what gives organisms the fossil record bothered Darwin, who sition is that populations of organisms appearance of design, although, as we called this “the most obvious and serious have evolved. (Darwin, who used the shall see, the “design” can be flawed. objection that can be urged against the word “evolved” only once in On the Ori- These three propositions were first theory.” (He attributed the missing links, gin of Species, called this principle “de- articulated in 1859 by Darwin in On quite reasonably, to the imperfection 24 august 22 & 29, 2005 Ǡ the new republic of the fossil record and the dearth of the product of intelligent design: how ficient variety of animals. One might paleontological collections.) But this many humans died of appendicitis be- respond that this was a strategy of the objection is no longer valid. Since 1859, fore surgery was invented? And consider creator, as those organisms might not paleontologists have turned up Darwin’s also lanugo. Five months after concep- survive on islands. But this objection missing evidence: fossils in profusion, tion, human fetuses grow a thin coat of fails, because such animals often do spec- with many sequences showing evolution- hair, called lanugo, all over their bodies. tacularly well when introduced by hu- ary change. In large and small organisms, It does not seem useful—after all, it is a mans. Hawaii has been overrun by the we can trace, through successive layers of comfortable 98.6 degrees in utero—and introduced cane toad and mongoose, to the fossil record, evolutionary changes the hair is usually shed shortly before the detriment of its native fauna. occurring in lineages. Diatoms get big- birth.The feature makes sense only as an Strikingly, the native groups that are ger, clamshells get ribbier, horses get evolutionary remnant of our primate an- present on these islands—mainly plants, larger and toothier, and the human lin- cestry; fetal apes also grow such a coat, insects, and birds—are present in profu- eage evolves bigger brains, smaller teeth, but they do not shed it. sion, consisting of clusters of numerous and increased efficiency at bipedal walk- Recent studies of the human genome similar species. The Galápagos archi- ing. Moreover, we now have transitional provide more evidence that we were not pelago harbors twenty-three species of forms connecting major groups of organ- created ex nihilo. Our genome is a veri- land birds, of which fourteen species are isms, including fish with tetrapods, dino- table Gemisch of non-functional DNA, finches. Nowhere else in the world will saurs with birds, reptiles with mammals, including many inactive “pseudogenes” you find an area in which two-thirds of and land mammals with whales. Darwin that were functional in our ancestors. the birds are finches. Hawaii has similar predicted that such forms would be Why do humans, unlike most mammals, “radiations” of fruit flies and silversword found, and their discovery vindicated him require vitamin C in our diet? Because plants, while St. Helena is overloaded fully. It also destroys the creationist no- primates cannot synthesize this essential with ferns and weevils. Compared with tion that species were created in their nutrient from simpler chemicals. Yet we continents or continental islands, then, present form and thereafter remained still carry all the genes for synthesizing oceanic islands have unbalanced flora unchanged. vitamin C. The gene used for the last and fauna, lacking many familiar groups step in this pathway was inactivated by but having an over-representation of arwin’s second line of mutations forty million years ago, prob- some species. evidence comprised the de- ably because it was unnecessary in fruit- Moreover, the animals and the plants velopmental and structural eating primates. But it still sits in our inhabiting oceanic islands bear the remnants of past ancestry that DNA, one of many useless remnants tes- greatest similarity to species found on Dwe find in living species—those features tifying to our evolutionary ancestry. the nearest mainland. As Darwin noted that Stephen Jay Gould called “the sense- when describing the species of the Galá- less signs of history.” Examples are nu- arwin’s third line of evi- pagos, this similarity occurs despite a merous. Both birds and toothless ant- dence came from biogeog- great difference in habitat, a fact militat- eaters develop tooth buds as embryos, raphy, the study of the geo- ing against creationism: but the teeth are aborted and never graphic distribution of plants erupt; the buds are the remnants of the Dand animals. I have already mentioned Why should the species which are teeth of the reptilian ancestor of birds what Darwin called his “Law of Succes- supposed to have been created in the and the toothed ancestor of anteaters. sion”: living organisms in an area most Galápagos Archipelago, and nowhere The flightless kiwi bird of New Zealand, closely resemble fossils found in the else, bear so plainly the stamp of familiar from shoe-polish cans, has tiny same location. This implies that the for- affinity to those created in America? vestigial wings hidden under its feathers; mer evolved from the latter. But Darwin There is nothing in the conditions of they are completely useless, but they at- found his strongest evidence on “oceanic life, in the geological nature of the is- test to the fact that kiwis, like all flight- islands”—those islands, such as Hawaii lands, in their height or climate, or in less birds, evolved from flying ancestors. and the Galápagos, that were never con- the proportions in which the several Some cave animals, descended from nected to continents but arose, bereft of classes are associated together, which sighted ancestors that invaded caves, life, from beneath the sea. resembles closely the conditions of have rudimentary eyes that cannot see; What struck Darwin about oceanic the South American coast: in fact the eyes degenerated after they were no islands—as opposed to continents or there is a considerable dissimilarity longer needed. A creator, especially an “continental islands” such as Great Brit- in all these respects. intelligent one, would not bestow useless ain, which were once connected to con- tooth buds, wings, or eyes on large num- tinents—was the bizarre nature of their As the final peg in Darwin’s bio- bers of species. flora and fauna. Oceanic islands are sim- geographic argument, he noted that the The human body is also a palimpsest ply missing or impoverished in many kinds of organisms commonly found on of our ancestry. Our appendix is the ves- types of animals. Hawaii has no native oceanic islands—birds, plants, and in- tigial remnant of an intestinal pouch mammals, reptiles, or amphibians. These sects—are those that can easily get there. used to ferment the hard-to-digest plant animals, as well as freshwater fish, are Insects and birds can fly to islands (or diets of our ancestors. (Orangutans and also missing on St. Helena, a remote be blown there by winds), and the seeds grazing animals have a large hollow ap- oceanic island in the middle of the South of plants can be transported by winds or pendix instead of the tiny, wormlike one Atlantic Ocean. It seems that the intel- ocean currents, or in the stomachs of that we possess.) An appendix is simply ligent designer forgot to stock oceanic birds. Hawaii may have no native terres- a bad thing to have. It is certainly not (but not continental!) islands with a suf- trial mammals, but the islands do har- the new republic Ǡ august 22 & 29, 2005 25 bor one native aquatic mammal, the animals, a fact familiar to everyone. From the truth of evolution is provisional: it monk seal, and one native flying mam- the ancestral wolf, humans selected forms could conceivably be overturned by fu- mal, the hoary bat. In a direct challenge as diverse as Chihuahuas, St. Bernards, ture investigations. It is possible (but to creationists (and now also to advo- poodles, and bulldogs. Starting with wild unlikely!) that we could find human fos- cates of ID), Darwin posed this rhetori- cabbage, breeders produced domestic sils co-existing with dinosaurs, or fossils cal question: cabbage, broccoli, kohlrabi, kale, cauli- of birds living alongside those of the flower, and Brussels sprouts. Artificial se- earliest invertebrates 600 million years Though terrestrial mammals do not lection is nearly identical to natural selec- ago. Either observation would sink neo- occur on oceanic islands, aerial mam- tion, except that humans rather than the Darwinism for good. mals do occur on almost every island. environment determine which variants When applied to evolution, the erro- New Zealand possesses two bats leave offspring. And if artificial selection neous distinction between theory and fact found nowhere else in the world: can produce such a diversity of domesti- shows why tactics such as the Dover dis- Norfolk Island, the Viti Archipelago, cated plants and animals in a thousand- claimer and the Cobb County textbook the Bonin Islands, the Caroline and odd years, natural selection could obvi- sticker are doubly pernicious. To teach Marianne Archipelagoes, and Mau- ously do much more over millions of that a scientific theory is equivalent to a ritius, all possess their peculiar bats. years. “guess” or a “hunch” is deeply mislead- Why, it may be asked, has the sup- But we no longer need to buttress ing, and to assert that “evolution is a posed creative force produced bats natural selection solely with analogy and theory,not a fact” is simply false.And why and no other mammals on remote logic. Biologists have now observed hun- should evolution, alone among scientific islands? dreds of cases of natural selection, begin- theories, be singled out with the caveat ning with the well-known examples of “This material should be approached The answer is that the creative force bacterial resistance to antibiotics, insect with an open mind, studied carefully and did not produce bats, or any other crea- resistance to DDT, and HIV resistance critically considered”? Why haven’t tures, on oceanic islands. All of Darwin’s to antiviral drugs. Natural selection ac- school boards put similar warnings in observations about island biogeography counts for the resistance of fish and mice physics textbooks, noting that gravity and point to one explanation: species on is- to predators by making them more electrons are only theories, not facts, and lands descend from individuals who suc- camouflaged, and for the adaptation of should be critically considered? After all, cessfully colonized from the mainland plants to toxic minerals in the soil. (A nobody has ever seen gravity or an elec- and subsequently evolved into new long list of examples may be found in tron. The reason that evolution stands species. Only the theory of evolution ex- Natural Selection in the Wild, by John alone is clear: other scientific theories do plains the paucity of mammals, birds, rep- Endler.) Moreover, the strength of selec- not offend religious sensibilities. tiles, amphibians, and freshwater fish on tion observed in the wild, when extrap- oceanic islands (they cannot get there), olated over long periods, is more than the radiation of some groups into many adequate to explain the diversification of III. species (the few species that make it to life on Earth. iven the copious evidence islands find empty niches and speciate Since 1859, Darwin’s theories have for evolution, it seems un- profusely), and the resemblance of island been expanded, and we now know that likely that it will be replaced species to those from the nearest main- some evolutionary change can be caused by an alternative theory. But land (an island colonist is most likely to by forces other than natural selection. Gthat is exactly what intelligent-design have come from the closest source). For example, random and non-adaptive creationists are demanding. Is there changes in the frequencies of different some dramatic new evidence, then, or n the last 150 years, im- genetic variants—the genetic equivalent some insufficiency of neo-Darwinism, mense amounts of new evidence of coin-tossing—have produced evolu- that warrants overturning the theory of have been collected about biogeog- tionary changes in DNA sequences. Yet evolution? raphy, embryology, and, especially, selection is still the only known evo- The question is worth asking, but Ithe fossil record. All of it supports evo- lutionary force that can produce the fit the answer is no. Intelligent design is lution. But support for the idea of nat- between organism and environment (or simply the third attempt of creationists ural selection was not so strong, and between organism and organism) that to proselytize our children at the ex- Darwin had no direct evidence for it. He makes nature seem “designed.” As the pense of good science and clear think- relied instead on two arguments. The geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky re- ing. Having failed to ban evolution from first was logical. If individuals in a pop- marked, “Nothing in biology makes schools, and later to get equal class- ulation varied genetically (which they sense except in the light of evolution.” room time for scientific creationism, they do), and some of this variation affected And so evolution has graduated from have made a few adjustments designed the individual’s chance of leaving de- theory to fact. We know that species on to sneak Christian cosmogony past the scendants (which seems likely), then nat- earth today descended from earlier, dif- First Amendment. And these adjust- ural selection would work automati- ferent species, and that every pair of ments have given ID a popularity never cally, enriching the population in genes species had a common ancestor that enjoyed by earlier forms of creationism. that better adapted individuals to their existed in the past. Most evolutionary Even the president of the United States environment. change in the features of organisms, has lent a sympathetic ear: George W. The second argument was analogical. moreover, is almost certainly the result Bush recently told reporters in Texas Artificial selection used by breeders had of natural selection. But we must also that intelligent design should be taught wrought immense changes in plants and remember that, like all scientific truths, in public schools alongside evolution 26 august 22 & 29, 2005 Ǡ the new republic because “part of education is to expose and its destructive moral, cultural, and its “primary purpose is both religious and people to different schools of thought.” political legacies” and “to replace mate- educational, which includes, but is not Articles by IDers, or about their “theo- rialistic explanations with the theistic un- limited to, proclaiming, preaching, teach- ry,” regularly appear in mainstream pub- derstanding that nature and human be- ing, promoting, broadcasting, disseminat- lications such as The New York Times. ings are created by God.” Between them, ing, and otherwise making known the Why have the new image and the these IDers have published more than Christian gospel and understanding of new approach been more successful? a dozen books about intelligent design the Bible and the light it sheds on the For a start, IDers have duped many peo- (Johnson alone has produced eight), academic and social issues of our day.” In ple by further removing God from the which in turn have provoked numerous a fund-raising letter for the proposed picture, or at least hiding him behind the responses by scientists. Let us examine third edition of Pandas, Jon Buell, presi- frame. No longer do creationists mention one of their most influential volumes, the dent of the FTE, is equally frank about a deity, or even a creator, but simply a textbook called Of Pandas and People. his goals: neutral-sounding “intelligent designer,” This is the book recommended by the as if it were not the same thing. This de- Dover school district as a “reference We will energetically continue to pub- signer could in principle be Brahma, or book” for students interested in learning lish and propel these strategic tools in the Taoist P’an Ku, or even a space alien; about intelligent design. the battle for the minds and hearts of but ID creationists, as will be evident to the young....Yes,most young Ameri- anybody who attends to all that they say, F PANDAS AND PEOPLE is cans are exposed to numerous gospel mean only one entity: the biblical God. a textbook designed as an presentations. But the fog of the alien Their problem is that invoking this deity antidote to the evolution seg- world view deadens their responses. in science classes in public schools is ment of high school biology This is why we have to inundate them unconstitutional. So IDers never refer Oclasses. It was first published in 1989. By with a rational, defensible, well- openly to God, and people unfamiliar repackaging and updating a subset of argued Judeo-Christian world view. with the history of their creationist doc- traditional young-earth creationist argu- FTE’s carefully-researched books trine might believe that there is a real ments while avoiding taking a stand on do just that. scientific theory afoot. They use impos- any issues that might divide creationists ing new terms such as “irreducible com- (such as the age of the Earth), it marked Charles Thaxton, the “academic editor” plexity,” which make their arguments the beginning of the modern intelligent- of Pandas, is the director of curriculum seem more sophisticated than those of design movement. By presenting the research for FTE and a fellow of the earlier creationists. case for ID, it is supposedly designed to CSC. In a proto-ID book on the origin of In addition, many IDers have more give students a “balanced perspective” life, Thaxton argued that “Special Cre- impressive academic credentials than did on evolution. Although the second edi- ation by a Creator beyond the cosmos is earlier scientific creationists, whose talks tion of Pandas is now twelve years old a plausible view of origin science.” and antics always bore a whiff of the re- (a third edition, called Design of Life,is Given Pandas’ pedigree and the affil- vival meeting. Unlike scientific creation- in the works), it accurately presents to iations of its authors, it is not surprising ists, many IDers work at secular institu- students the major arguments for ID. that the book is nothing more than dis- tions rather than at Bible schools. IDers Pandas carefully avoids mentioning guised creationism. What is surprising work, speak, and write like trained acade- God (except under aliases such as “in- is the transparency of this disguise. De- mics; they do not come off as barely re- telligent designer,” “master intellect,” spite the efforts of IDers to come up pressed evangelists. Their ranks include and so on); but a little digging reveals the with new anti-Darwinian arguments, Phillip Johnson, the most prominent book’s deep religious roots. One of its Pandas turns out to be nothing more spokesperson for ID, and a retired pro- authors, Percival Davis, wrote explicitly than recycled scientific creationism, with fessor of law at the University of Califor- about his religious beliefs in his book most of the old arguments buffed up nia, Berkeley; Michael Behe, a profes- A Case for Creation, co-authored with and proffered as new. (Unlike scientific sor of biochemistry at Lehigh University; Wayne Frair: “Truth as God sees it is re- creationism, however, Pandas adopts a William Dembski, a mathematician- vealed in the pages of Scripture, and that studied neutrality toward the facts of philosopher and the director of the Cen- revelation is therefore more certainly astronomy and geology, instead of deny- ter for Theology and Science at Southern true than any human rationalism. For the ing them outright.) Baptist Theological Seminary; and Jona- creationist, revealed truth controls his than Wells, who has a doctorate in biol- view of the universe to at least as great ANDAS’ discussion of the ogy from Berkeley. a degree as anything that has been ad- Earth’s age is a prime example All of these proponents, save John- vanced using the scientific method.” Its of the book’s creationist roots, son, are senior fellows at the Center for other author, Dean Kenyon, has written and of its anti-scientific attitude. Science and Culture (CSC), a division of approvingly of scientific creationism. PIf the Earth were young—say, the 6,000 the Discovery Institute, which is a conser- Pandas is published by the Haughton to 10,000 years old posited by “young vative think tank in Seattle. (Johnson is Publishing Company of Dallas, a publish- earth” biblical creationists—then evo- the “program advisor” to the CSC.) The er of agricultural books, but the copyright lution would be false. Life simply could CSC is the nerve center of the intelligent- is held by the Foundation for Thought not have originated, evolved, and diver- design movement. Its origins are demon- and Ethics (FTE) in Richardson, Texas. sified in such a short time. But we now strably religious: as described by the Dis- Although the FTE website scrupulously know from several independent and mu- covery Institute, the CSC was designed avoids mentioning religion, its articles of tually corroborating lines of evidence explicitly “to defeat scientific materialism incorporation note with stark clarity that that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. All the new republic Ǡ august 22 & 29, 2005 27 geologists agree on this. So what is Pan- millions of years. (We still do not under- Paleontologists have uncovered many das’ stance on this critical issue? The stand why many groups originated in transitional forms between major groups, book merely notes that design propo- even this relatively short time, although almost more than we have a right to ex- nents “are divided on the issue of the it may reflect an artifact: the evolution pect. Pandas simply ignores—or waves earth’s age. Some take the view that the of easily fossilized hard parts suddenly away—these “non-missing links,” stating earth’s history can be compressed into made organisms capable of being fossil- that “we cannot form a smooth, unam- a framework of thousands of years, while ized.) Moreover, the species of the Cam- biguous transitional series linking, let’s others adhere to the standard old earth brian are no longer with us, though their say, the first small horse to today’s horse, chronology.” Well, what’s the truth? This descendants are. But over time, nearly fishes to amphibians, or reptiles to mam- equivocation is an attempt to paper over every species that ever lived (more than mals.” This is flatly wrong. All three cited a strong disagreement between young- 99 percent of them) has gone extinct transitions (and others) are well docu- earth creationists and old-earth crea- without leaving descendants. Finally, mented with fossils. Moreover, the transi- tionists, both of whom have marched many animals and plants do not show up tional forms appear at exactly the right under the banner of ID. It is typical of as fossils until well after the Cambrian time in the fossil record: after the ances- creationists to exploit disagreements be- explosion: bony fishes and land plants tral forms already existed, but before the tween evolutionists as proof that neo- first appeared around 440 million years “linked” later group had evolved. Darwinism is dead while at the same ago, reptiles around 350 million years Take one example: the link between time hiding their own disagreements ago, mammals around 250 million years early reptiles and later mammals, the so- from the public. ago, flowering plants around 210 million called mammal-like reptiles. Three hun- This equivocation about the funda- years ago, and human ancestors around dred fifty million years ago, the world was mental fact of Earth’s age does not bode 5 million years ago. The staggered ap- full of reptiles, but there were no mam- well for the textbook’s treatment of the pearance of groups that become very dif- mals. By 250 million years ago, mammals fossil record. Indeed, in this area the au- ferent over the next 500 million years had appeared on the scene. (Fossil rep- thors continue their misrepresentations. gives no support to the notion of instan- tiles are easily distinguished from fossil Their basic premise is the old creationist taneously created species that thereafter mammals by a complex of skeletal traits argument that organisms appeared si- remain largely unchanged. If this record including features of the teeth and skull.) multaneously and have remained largely does reflect the exertions of an intelli- Around 275 million years ago, forms ap- unchanged ever since. Pandas says of the gent designer, he was apparently dissatis- pear that are intermediate in skeletal fossil record that “fully formed organ- fied with nearly all of his creations, re- traits between reptiles and mammals, in isms appear all at once, separated by dis- peatedly destroying them and creating a some cases so intermediate that the ani- tinct gaps.” That’s not exactly true. Dif- new set of species that just happened to mals cannot be unambiguously classified ferent types of organisms appear in a resemble descendants of those that he as either reptiles or mammals. These distinct sequence supporting evolution. had destroyed. mammal-like reptiles, which become less The first fossils of living organisms, bac- reptilian and more mammalian with teria, appear 3.5 billion years ago, fol- ANDAS also makes much of time, are the no-longer-missing links be- lowed two billion years later by algae, the supposed absence of transi- tween the two forms, important not only the first organisms having true cells with tional forms: the “missing” links because they have the traits of both a nucleus containing distinct chromo- between major forms of life that, forms, but also because they occur at ex- somes. Then, 600 million years ago, we Paccording to evolutionary theory, must actly the right time. see the appearance of rudimentary ani- have existed as common ancestors. Their mals with shells, and many soft-bodied absence, claim creationists, is a major ne of these traits is marine organisms. Later, in the Cambri- embarrassment for evolutionary biology. worth examining in detail be- an period, about 543 million years ago, a Phillip Johnson’s influential book Darwin cause it is among the finest number of groups arose in a relatively on Trial, which appeared in 1993, particu- examples of an evolutionary short period of time, the so-called “Cam- larly emphasizes these gaps, which, IDers Otransition. This trait is the “chewing” brian explosion.” (“Short period” here believe, reflect the designer’s creation of hinge where the jaw meets the skull. In means geologically short, in this case 10 major forms ex nihilo. And there are in- early reptiles (and their modern reptilian million to 30 million years). The Cam- deed some animals, such as bats, that ap- brian groups include mollusks, starfish, pear in the fossil record suddenly,without arthropods, worms, and chordates (in- obvious ancestors.Yet in most cases these cluding vertebrates). And in some cases, gaps are certainly due to the imperfec- such as worms, modern groups do not tion of the fossil record. (Most organisms just spring into being, but increase in do not get buried in aquatic sediments, complexity over millions of years. which is a prerequisite for fossilization.) Creationists have always made much And species that are soft-bodied or have of the “Cambrian explosion,” and IDers fragile bones, such as bats, degrade be- are no exception. The relatively sudden fore they can fossilize. Paleontologists es- appearance of many groups seems to timate that we have fossils representing support the Genesis view of creation. only about one in a thousand of all the But IDers—and Pandas—fail to empha- species that ever lived. size several facts. First, the Cambrian ex- In its treatment of evolutionary transi- plosion was not “sudden”; it took many tions, Pandas is again guilty of distortion. 28 august 22 & 29, 2005 Ǡ the new republic descendants), the lower jaw comprises When such fossils are found, as they of- the body wall, and most parts were im- several bones, and the hinge is formed ten are, creationists must then punt and mobile. Apparently the intelligent de- by the quadrate bone of the skull and the change their emphasis to other missing signer had a whimsical streak, choosing articular bone of the jaw. As mammal- links, continually retreating before the to construct a sex aid that looked exactly like reptiles become more mammalian, advance of science. like a degenerate pelvis and set of hind these hinge bones become smaller, and As for other transitional forms, IDers limbs. ultimately the jaw hinge shifts to a differ- simply dismiss them as aberrant fossils. And what about the strong evidence ent pair of bones: the dentary (our “jaw- Pandas characterizes Homo erectus and for evolution from biogeography? About bone”) and the squamosal, another bone other probable human ancestors as “lit- this Pandas, like all creationist books, of the skull. (The quadrate and articular, tle more than apes.” But this is false. says nothing. The omission is strategic. much reduced, moved into the middle While H. erectus has a skull with large It would be very hard for IDers to give ear of mammals, forming two of the brow ridges and a braincase much small- plausible reasons why an “intelligent” de- bones that transmit sounds from the ear- er than ours, the rest of its skeleton is signer stocked oceanic islands with only a drum to the middle ear.) The dentary- nearly identical to that of modern hu- few types of animals and plants—and just squamosal articulation occurs in all mod- mans. The famous fossil Archaeopteryx, those types with the ability to disperse ern mammals, the quadrate-articular in a small dinosaur-like creature with teeth from the nearest mainland. Biogeogra- modern reptiles; and this difference is and a basically reptilian skeleton but phy has always been the Achilles’ heel of often used as the defining feature of also with wings and feathers, is probably creationists, so they just ignore it. these groups. on or closely related to the line of di- Like earlier creationist tracts, Pandas nosaurs that evolved into birds. But Pan- simply denies that this evolution of the das dismisses this fossil as just an “odd- IV. jaw hinge occurred. It asserts that “there ball” type, and laments instead the lack lthough intelligent de- is no fossil record of such an amazing of the unfossilizable: “If only we could sign rejects much of the evi- process,” and further notes that such find a fossil showing scales developing dence for evolution, it still a migration would be “extraordinary.” the properties of feathers, or lungs that admits that some evolution- This echoes the old creationist argument were intermediate between the very dif- aryA change occurs through natural selec- that an adaptive transition from one ferent reptilian and avian lungs, then we tion. This change is what Pandas calls type of hinge to another by means of would have more to go on.” It is again a “microevolution,” or “small scale genetic natural selection would be impossible: typical creationist strategy that when changes, observable in organisms.” Such members of a species could not eat dur- skeletons of missing links turn up, cre- microevolutionary changes include the ing the evolutionary period when their ationists ignore them and insist that evi- evolution of antibiotic resistance in jaws were being unhinged and then re- dence of intermediacy be sought instead bacteria, changes in the proportion of hinged. (The implication is that the in- in the soft parts that rarely fossilize. In different-colored moths due to preda- telligent designer must have done this sum, the treatment of the fossil evidence tion by birds, and all changes wrought job instantaneously and miraculously.) for evolution in Pandas is shoddy and by artificial selection. But Pandas has- But we have long known how this tran- deceptive, and offers no advance over tens to add that microevolution gives no sition happened. It was easily accom- the discredited arguments of scientific evidence for the origin of diverse types plished by natural selection. In 1958, creationism. of organisms, because “these limited Alfred Crompton described the critical changes do not accumulate the way Dar- fossil: the mammal-like reptile Diar- n contrast to its long treat- winian evolutionary theory requires in thrognathus broomi. D. broomi has, in ment and dismissal of the fossil order to produce macro changes. The fact, a double jaw joint with two record, Pandas barely deals with process that produces macroevolution- hinges—the reptilian one and the mam- evidence for evolution from devel- ary changes [defined here as “large scale malian one! Obviously, this animal could Iopment and vestigial traits. The best it changes, leading to new levels of com- chew. What better “missing link” could can do is note that vestigial features plexity”] must be different from any that we find? can have a function, and therefore are geneticists have studied so far.” not really vestigial. The vestigial pelvic So, though one can use selection to t should embarrass IDers that bones and legs of the transitional whale transform a wolf into either a Chihuahua so many of the missing links cited Basilosaurus, which were not connected or a St. Bernard, that is merely micro- by Pandas as evidence for super- to the skeleton, may have functioned as a evolution: they are all still dogs. And natural intervention are no longer guide for the penis during mating. Such a a DDT-resistant fly is still a fly. Pandas Imissing. Creationists make a serious use, according to the authors of Pandas, thus echoes the ID assertion that natural mistake when using the absence of tran- means that the legs and pelvis “were not selection cannot do more than create sitional forms as evidence for an intel- vestigial as originally thought.” But this microevolutionary changes: “It cannot ligent designer. In the last decade, pale- argument is wrong: no evolutionist de- produce new characteristics. It only acts ontologists have uncovered a fairly nies that the remnants of ancestral traits on traits that already exist.” But this is complete evolutionary series of whales, can retain some functionality or be co- specious reasoning. As we have noted, beginning with fully terrestrial animals opted for other uses. The “penis guide” fossils already show that “macro change,” that became more and more aquatic has every bone in the mammalian pelvis as defined by Pandas, has occurred in the over time, with their front limbs evolving and rear leg in reduced form—femur, fossil record (the evolution of fish into into flippers and their hind limbs and tibia, fibula, and digits. In Basilosaurus, amphibians, and so on). And if breeders pelvis gradually reduced to tiny vestiges. nearly all of these structures lay within have not turned a dog into another kind the new republic Ǡ august 22 & 29, 2005 29 of animal, it is because dog breeding has evolution and creation have operated to- occurs ten times in this first chapter been going on for only a few thousand gether, with the latter creating distinct of Genesis. years, while the differences between dogs “kinds,” was nicely rebutted by Darwin and cats, for example, have evolved over in On the Origin of Species: There is thus a clear line of descent more than ten million years. No princi- from the story of Genesis to the ID no- ple of evolution dictates that evolution- Several eminent naturalists . . . admit tion of evolutionary limits, a line charted ary changes observed during a human that they [evolved species] have been by what Darwin called “the blindness lifetime cannot be extrapolated to much produced by variation, but they refuse of preconceived opinion.” Until IDers longer periods. to extend the same view to other and tell us what the limits to evolution are, In fact, Pandas admits that the fruit very slightly different forms. Never- how they can be ascertained, and what flies of Hawaii—a diverse group of more theless they do not pretend that they evidence supports these limits, this no- than 300 species—have all evolved from can define, or even conjecture, which tion cannot be regarded as a genuinely a common ancestor. We now know that are the created forms of life, and scientific claim. this common ancestor lived about 20 mil- which are those produced by sec- lion years ago. The species of Hawaiian ondary laws.They admit variation as a flies differ in many traits, including size, vera causa in one case, they arbitrarily V. shape, ecology, color pattern, mating be- reject it in another, without assigning Ders make one claim that they havior, and so on. One can in fact make any distinction in the two cases.The tout as truly novel, a claim that has a good case that some of the fly species day will come when this will be given become quite popular. It is the idea differ more from each other than humans as a curious illustration of the blind- that organisms show some adapta- differ from chimps. Why, then, do IDers ness of preconceived opinion.These Itions that could not be built by natural assert that chimps and humans (whose authors seem no more startled at a selection, thus implying the need for a ancestor lived only 5 million years ago) miraculous act of creation than at an supernatural creative force such as an must have resulted from separate acts ordinary birth. But do they really be- intelligent designer. These adaptations of creation by the intelligent designer, lieve that at innumerable periods in share a property called “irreducible com- while admitting that fruit flies evolved the earth’s history certain elemental plexity,” a characteristic discussed in from a common ancestor that lived 20 atoms have been commanded sud- Pandas but defined more explicitly by million years ago? The answer is that hu- denly to flash into living tissues? Do Michael Behe in 1996 in his book Dar- mans must at all costs not be lumped in they believe that at each supposed act win’s Black Box: The Biochemical Chal- with other species, so as to protect the of creation one individual or many lenge to Evolution: “By irreducibly com- biblical status of humans as uniquely cre- were produced? Were all the infinitely plex I mean a single system composed of ated in God’s image. numerous kinds of animals and plants several well-matched, interacting parts created as egg or seed, or as full that contribute to the basic function, ccording to PANDAS, the grown? and in the case of mammals, wherein the removal of any one of the theory of “limits to evolution” were they created bearing the false parts causes the system to effectively is a scientific one: “The idea marks of nourishment from the moth- cease functioning.” of intelligent design does not er’s womb? Although naturalists very Many man-made objects show this precludeA the possibility that variation properly demand a full explanation property: Behe cites the mousetrap, within species occurs, or that new species of every difficulty from those who which would not work if even one part are formed from existing populations . . . believe in the mutability of species, were removed, such as the catch, the the theory of intelligent design does sug- on their own side they ignore the spring, the base, and so on. Pandas men- gest that there are limits to the amount whole subject of the first appearance tions a car engine, which will not work if of variation that natural selection and of species in what they consider one removes the fan belt, spark plugs, random change mechanisms can pro- reverent silence. distributor cap, or any of numerous indi- duce.” But there is nothing in the theory vidual parts. A famous example of an ir- of intelligent design that tells us how In fact, the biblical appendix of Sci- reducibly complex system in the biologi- far evolution can go. This “thus far and entific Creationism shows that the term cal realm is the “camera” eye of humans no further” view of evolution comes not “kind” derives from the biblical notion and other vertebrates. The eye has many from any scientific findings of ID; it of created kinds: parts whose individual removal would comes from ID’s ancestor, scientific cre- render the organ useless, including the ationism. Scientific Creationism notes The Scriptures are very clear in lens, retina, and optic nerve. that “the creation model . . . recognizes their teaching that God created all The reason IDers love “irreducibly only the kind as the basic created unit, in things as He wanted them to be, each complex” features of organisms is that this case, mankind,” and a chart contrast- with its own particular structure, natural selection is powerless (or so ing evolution with the “creation model” according to His own sovereign pur- they claim) to create such features. As says that the former predicts “new kinds poses.The account of Genesis 1, for Behe notes: appearing,” while the latter says “no new example, indicates that at least ten kinds appearing.” major categories of organic life were An irreducibly complex system can- But what is a “kind”? No creationist specially created “after his kind.”... not be produced directly . . . by slight, has ever defined it, though they are all Finally, man “kind” was created as successive modifications of a precur- very sure that humans and apes are dif- another completely separate cate- sor system, because any precursor to ferent “kinds.” In fact, the notion that gory.The phrase “after his kind” an irreducibly complex system that 30 august 22 & 29, 2005 Ǡ the new republic

is missing a part is by definition non- should not be considered as subver- the British theologian William Paley, functional.... Since natural selection sive of the theory. who in 1802 raised the famous “argu- can only choose systems that are al- ment from design” in his book Natural ready working, then if a biological Thus our eyes did not suddenly ap- Theology. Paley argued that just as find- system cannot be produced gradually pear as full-fledged camera eyes, but ing a watch on the ground implies a it would have to arise as an integrat- evolved from simpler eyes, having fewer conscious designer (the watchmaker), so ed unit, in one fell swoop, for natural components, in ancestral species. Darwin finding an equally complex organism im- selection to have anything to act on. brilliantly addressed this argument by plies a cosmic designer (God). surveying existing species to see if one But the eye is not a watch.The human “One fell swoop,” of course, implies that could find functional but less complex eye, though eminently functional, is im- the feature must have been produced by eyes that not only were useful, but also perfect—certainly not the sort of eye an the miraculous intervention of the intel- could be strung together into a hypo- engineer would create from scratch. Its ligent designer. thetical sequence showing how a cam- imperfection arises precisely because But this argument for intelligent de- era eye might evolve. If this could be our eye evolved using whatever compo- sign has a fatal flaw.We have realized for done—and it can—then the argument nents were at hand, or produced by mu- decades that natural selection can in- for irreducible complexity vanishes, for tation. Since our retina evolved from an deed produce systems that, over time, the eyes of existing species are obviously everted part of the brain, for example, become integrated to the point where useful, and each step in the hypothetical the nerves and blood vessels that attach they appear to be irreducibly complex. sequence could thus evolve by natural to our photoreceptor cells are on the in- But these features do not evolve by the selection. side rather than the outside of the eye, sequential addition of parts to a feature A possible sequence of such changes running over the surface of the retina. that becomes functional only at the end. begins with pigmented eye spots (as seen Leakage of these blood vessels can oc- They evolve by adding, via natural selec- in flatworms), followed by an invagina- clude vision, a problem that would not tion, more and more parts into an origi- tion of the skin to form a cup protecting occur if the vessels fed the retina from nally rudimentary but functional system, the eyespot and allowing it to better lo- behind. Likewise, to get the nerve im- with these parts sometimes co-opted calize the image (as in limpets), followed pulses from the photocells to the brain, from other structures. Every step of this by a further narrowing of the cup’s open- the different nerves must join together process improves the organism’s sur- ing to produce an improved image (the and dive back through the eye, forming vival, and so is evolutionarily possible via nautilus), followed by the evolution of a the optic nerve. This hole in the retina natural selection. protective transparent cover to protect creates a blind spot in the eye, a flaw that the opening (ragworms), followed by co- again would be avoidable with a priori onsider the eye. Creation- agulation of part of the fluid in the eye- design. The whole system is like a car in ists have long maintained ball into a lens to help focus the light which all the wires to the dashboard that it could not have resulted (abalones), followed by the co-opting of hang inside the driver’s compartment from natural selection, citing a nearby muscles to move the lens and instead of being tucked safely out of Csentence from On the Origin of Species: vary the focus (mammals).The evolution sight. Evolution differs from a priori de- “To suppose that the eye with all its in- of a retina, an optic nerve, and so on sign because it is constrained to operate imitable contrivances for adjusting the would follow by natural selection. Each by modifying whatever features have focus to different distances, for admitting step of this transitional “series” confers evolved previously.Thus evolution yields different amounts of light, and for the increased adaptation on its possessor, fitter types that often have flaws. These correction of spherical and chromatic because it enables the animal to gather flaws violate reasonable principles of in- aberration, could have been formed by more light or to form better images, both telligent design. natural selection, seems, I freely confess, of which aid survival. And each step of IDers tend to concentrate more on absurd in the highest degree.” But in the this process is exemplified by the eye of a biochemistry than on organs such as the next passage, invariably omitted by cre- different living species. At the end of the eye, citing “irreducibly complex” molecu- ationists, Darwin ingeniously answers his sequence we have the camera eye, which lar systems such as the mechanism for own objection: seems irreducibly complex. But the com- blood-clotting and the immune system. plexity is reducible to a series of small, Like the eye, these systems supposedly Reason tells me, that if numerous gra- adaptive steps. could not have evolved, since removal of dations from a simple and imperfect any step in these pathways would render eye to one complex and perfect can ow, we do not know the the entire pathway non-functional. (This be shown to exist, each grade being precise order in which the biochemical complexity is the subject of useful to its possessor, as is certainly components of the camera Behe’s book Darwin’s Black Box.) Dis- the case; if further, the eye ever varies eye evolved—but the point is cussing the blood-clotting system in its and the variations be inherited, as is Nthat the appearance of “irreducible com- sixth chapter (partially written by Behe), likewise certainly the case and if such plexity” cannot be an argument against Pandas asserts that “like a car engine, bi- variations should be useful to any ani- neo-Darwinism if we can document a ological systems can only work after they mal under changing conditions of life, plausible sequence in which the com- have been assembled by someone who then the difficulty of believing that a plexity can arise from a series of adap- knows what the final result will be.” This perfect and complex eye could be tive steps. The “irreducible complexity” is nonsense. As we have seen in the case formed by natural selection, though argument is not, in fact, completely nov- of the eye, biological systems are not use- insuperable by our imagination, el. It descends, with modification, from ful only at the end of a long evolutionary the new republic Ǡ august 22 & 29, 2005 31 process, but during every step of that injurious organ that just happens to re- intelligent designer did indeed have a process. And biochemical systems—like semble a vestigial version of a digestive good reason for every decision that all adaptations created by natural selec- pouch in related organisms? Why would was made, and for including every tion—are not assembled with foresight. the designer give us a pathway for mak- trait in each organism, it does not Whatever useful mutations happen to ing vitamin C, but then destroy it by dis- follow that such reasons will be arise get folded into the system. abling one of its enzymes? Why didn’t obvious to us. There is no doubt that many bio- the intelligent designer stock oceanic is- chemical systems are dauntingly com- lands with reptiles, mammals, amphib- Well, if we admit that the designer had plex. A diagram of the blood-clotting ians, and freshwater fish, despite the suit- a number of means and motives, which pathway looks like a complicated circuit ability of such islands for these species? can be self-contradictory, arbitrary, im- board, with dozens of proteins interact- And why would he make the flora and provisatory, and “unguessable,” then we ing with one another to one end: healing fauna on those islands resemble that of are left with a theory that cannot be re- a wound. And the system seems irre- the nearest mainland, even when the jected. Every conceivable observation of ducibly complex, because without any of environments are very different? Why, nature, including those that support evo- several key proteins, the blood would about a million years ago, would the de- lution, becomes compatible with ID, for not clot. Yet such biochemical systems signer produce creatures that have an the ways of the designer are unfath- evolved in the same way that the eye apelike cranium perched atop a human- omable. And a theory that cannot be re- evolved, by adding parts successively like skeleton? And why would he then jected is not a scientific theory. If IDers and adaptively to simpler, functioning successively replace these creatures with want to have a genuinely scientific theo- systems. It is more difficult to trace the others having an ever-closer resemblance ry, let them propose a model that can be evolution of biochemical pathways than to modern humans? rigorously tested. of anatomical structures because the an- There are only two answers to these cestral metabolic pathways are no longer questions: either life resulted not from iven its lack of rigor, one present. But biologists are beginning to intelligent design, but from evolution; might expect that ID theory provide plausible scenarios for how “ir- or the intelligent designer is a cosmic would not inspire much sci- reducibly complex” biochemical path- prankster who designed everything to entific research. And there ways might have evolved. As expected, make it look as though it had evolved. Gis virtually none. Despite the claims of these systems involve using bits co-opted Few people, religious or otherwise, will ID to be a program of research, its ad- from other pathways originally having find the second alternative palatable. It herents have published only one refer- different functions. (Thus, one of the en- is the modern version of the old argu- eed paper supporting ID in a scientific zymes in the blood-clotting system also ment that God put fossils in the rocks to journal: a review of ID by Stephen C. plays a role in digestion and cell divi- test our faith. Meyer, the director of the Discovery sion.) In view of our progress in under- The final blow to the claim that intelli- Institute’s Center for Science and Cul- standing biochemical evolution, it is sim- gent design is scientific is its proponents’ ture, which appeared in the Proceedings ply irrational to say that because we do admission that we cannot understand of the Biological Society of Washington. not completely understand how bio- the designer’s goals or methods. Behe This paper merely rehashes ID argu- chemical pathways evolved, we should owns up to this in Darwin’s Black Box: ments for why natural selection and evo- give up trying and invoke the intelligent “Features that strike us as odd in a de- lution cannot explain the diversity of designer. If the history of science shows sign might have been placed there by life and then asserts that intelligent de- us anything, it is that we get nowhere by the designer for a reason—for artistic sign is the only alternative. It distorts labeling our ignorance “God.” reasons, to show off, for some as-yet- the evolutionary literature it purports undetectable practical purpose, or for to review, and it neither advances new some unguessable reason—or they might scientific arguments nor suggests any VI. not.” And, discussing skeletal differences way that ID better explains patterns in nsofar as intelligent-design between placental and marsupial mam- nature. Not surprisingly, the Council of theory can be tested scientifically, mals, Pandas notes: the Biological Society of Washington it has been falsified. Organisms sim- later disowned the paper because it did ply do not look as if they had been Why were not the North American Iintelligently designed. Would an intelli- placentals given the same bones? gent designer create millions of species Would an intelligent designer with- and then make them go extinct, only to hold these structures from placentals replace them with other species, repeat- if they were superior to the placental ing this process over and over again? system? At present we do not know; Would an intelligent designer produce however, we all recognize that an animals having a mixture of mammalian engineer can choose any of several and reptilian traits, at exactly the time different engineering solutions to when reptiles are thought to have been overcome a single design problem. evolving into mammals? Why did the An intelligent designer might reason- designer give tiny, non-functional wings ably be expected to use a variety (if a to kiwi birds? Or useless eyes to cave limited variety) of design approaches animals? Or a transitory coat of hair to produce a single engineering solu- to a human fetus? Or an appendix, an tion, also. Even if it is assumed that an 32 august 22 & 29, 2005 Ǡ the new republic

“not meet the scientific standards of the only of supernatural acts as a part of come full-blown biblical creationism. Proceedings.” their theory, but also of Christian super- The ultimate goal is to replace naturalist The gold standard for modern scien- natural acts. In a foreword to a book on science with spiritualist thinking, and tific achievement is the publication of creationism, Johnson wrote: “The intel- the method is to hammer the wedge of new results in a peer-reviewed scientific ligent design movement starts with the ID into science at its most vulnerable journal. By that standard, IDers have recognition that ‘In the beginning was point: public education. In Johnson’s failed miserably. As William Dembski the Word,’ and ‘In the beginning God own words: himself noted, “There are good and bad created.’ Establishing that point isn’t reasons to be skeptical of intelligent de- enough, but it is absolutely essential to So the question is:“How to win?” sign. Perhaps the best reason is that in- the rest of the gospel message.” And That’s when I began to develop telligent design has yet to establish itself here is Dembski writing in Touchstone,a what you now see full-fledged in the as a thriving scientific research program.” Christian magazine: “The world is a mir- “wedge” strategy:“stick with the IDers desperately crave scientific re- ror representing the divine life.... Intel- most important thing,” the mecha- spectability, but it is their own theory that ligent design readily embraces the sacra- nism and the building up of informa- prevents them from attaining it. Thus, mental nature of physical reality. Indeed tion. Get the Bible and the Book of while IDers demand that evolutionists intelligent design is just the Logos theol- Genesis out of the debate because produce thousands of transitional fossils ogy of John’s Gospel restated in the you do not want to raise the so-called and hundreds of detailed scenarios about idiom of information theory.” Indeed, in Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the the evolution of biochemical pathways, the manuscript draft of the first edition argument in such a way that you can they put forth no observations support- of Pandas, the terms “creationism,” “cre- get it heard in the secular academy ing the plausibility of a supernatural de- ationist,” and “creation” are used repeat- and in a way that tends to unify the signer, nor do they show how appeal to edly instead of the equivalent ID terms, religious dissenters.That means such a designer could explain the fossil and “creationism” is defined identically concentrating on,“Do you need a record, embryology, and biogeography to “intelligent design” in the published Creator to do the creating, or can better than neo-Darwinism. Herbert version. Nothing gives a clearer indica- nature do it on its own?” and refus- Spencer could have been describing ID tion that one ancestor of this textbook ing to get sidetracked onto other when he declared that “those who cava- was the Bible. issues, which people are always try- lierly reject the Theory of Evolution as ing to do. not being adequately supported by facts, t is clear, then, that intelli- seem to forget that their own theory is gent design did not arise because Johnson was even more explicit in 1999 supported by no facts at all. Like the ma- of some long-standing problems in remarks to a conference on “Reclaim- jority of men who are born to a given be- with evolutionary theory, or be- ing America for Christ.” Rob Boston re- lief, they demand the most rigorous proof Icause new facts have called neo- ported Johnson’s remarks in Church & of any adverse belief, but assume that Darwinism into question. ID is here for State magazine: their own needs none.” only one reason—to act as a Trojan Finally, the reliance of ID on super- horse poised before the public schools: a Johnson calls his movement “The natural intervention means that the en- seemingly secular vessel ready to inject Wedge.”The objective, he said, is to terprise cannot be seen, strictly speaking, its religious message into the science convince people that Darwinism is as scientific. In his rejection of scien- curriculum. The contents of Pandas, and inherently atheistic, thus shifting the tific creationism in McLean v. Arkansas, of the other writings of IDers, are sim- debate from creationism v. evolution Judge Overton described the character- ply a cunning pedagogical ploy to cir- to the existence of God v. the non- istics of good science: cumvent legal restrictions against reli- existence of God. From there people gious creationism. (With any luck, are introduced to “the truth” of the (1) It is guided by natural law; though, the publicity will backfire. Last Bible and then “the question of sin” (2) It has to be explanatory by refer- month The York Dispatch in Pennsyl- and finally “introduced to Jesus.” ence to natural law; vania reported that the Foundation for (3) It is testable against the empirical Thought and Ethics, the group that pub- Other major figures in the ID move- world; lishes this textbook and others designed ment have been equally clear about their (4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e., to present “a Christian perspective,” religious motivations. Here is Dembski: are not necessarily the final word; and wanted to intervene in the Dover law- (5) It is falsifiable. suit. According to John Buell, the foun- But there are deeper motivations. dation’s president, the association of ID I think at a fundamental level, in By invoking the repeated occurrence of with creationism “would make the book terms of what drives me in this is that supernatural intervention by an intelli- radioactive,” and his outfit could lose as I think God’s glory is being robbed gent designer to create new species and much as $525,000 in sales.) by these naturalistic approaches to new traits, ID violates criteria 1 and 2; ID is part of what Johnson candidly biological evolution, creation, the ori- and in its ultimate reliance on Christian calls the “wedge strategy,” a carefully gin of the world, the origin of biologi- dogma and God, it violates criteria 3, 4, crafted scheme that begins with the cal complexity and diversity.When and 5. adoption of intelligent design as an alter- you are attributing the wonders of In candid moments, usually when native theory to evolution, after which nature to these mindless material writing for or speaking to a religious au- ID will edge out evolution until it is mechanisms, God’s glory is getting dience, IDers admit the existence not the only view left, after which it will be- robbed. the new republic Ǡ august 22 & 29, 2005 33

And here is Jonathan Wells, a member of sense of human purpose, and that reli- olates both the Constitution and the prin- Reverend Moon’s Unification Church: gion is their only ally, is pervasive in the ciples of good education. There is no sec- writings of IDers. As Johnson noted, ular reason why evolutionary biology, Father’s [Reverend Moon’s] words, “Once God is culturally determined to among all the sciences, should be singled my studies, and my prayers convinced be imaginary, then God’s morality loses out for a school-mandated disclaimer. me that I should devote my life to de- its foundation and withers away.” Nancy But the real losers will be the people of stroying Darwinism, just as many of Pearcey, a senior fellow of the Discovery Dover, who will likely be saddled with my fellow Unificationists had already Institute’s Center for Science and Cul- huge legal bills and either a substantial devoted their lives to destroying ture, summarizes why evolution disturbs cut in the school budget or a substantial Marxism.When Father chose me so many Americans: hike in property taxes.We can also expect (along with about a dozen other that, if they lose, the IDers will re-group seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. Why does the public care so passion- and return in a new disguise even less ob- program in 1978, I welcomed the ately about a theory of biology? Be- viously religious. I await the formation of opportunity to prepare myself for cause people sense intuitively that the Right to Teach Problems with Evolu- battle. there’s much more at stake than a tion Movement. scientific theory.They know that IDers have been helped by Ameri- o these people really be- when naturalistic evolution is taught cans’ continuing doubts about the truth lieve in intelligent design? in the science classroom, then a natu- of evolution. According to a Gallup poll There is no reason to think ralistic view of ethics will be taught taken last year, 45 percent of Americans otherwise. They are not lying down the hallway in the history class- agree with the statement, “God created Dfor their cause, but sincerely hold that room, the sociology classroom, the human beings pretty much in their pre- life on earth reflects a succession of mir- family life classroom, and in all areas sent form at one time within the last acles worked by a supernatural agent. of the curriculum. 10,000 years.” Asked if evolution is well In fact, they view evolutionists as the supported by evidence, 35 percent of duplicitous ones. In an interview in The Even some parents in Dover, though op- Americans said yes, 35 percent said no, Sacramento Bee in 1991, Johnson pro- posed to teaching ID in school, worry and 29 percent said they lack the knowl- claimed that “scientists have long known that learning evolution will erode the edge to reply. As a rationalist, I cannot that Darwinism is false. They have ad- Christian values that they are trying to help but believe that the first group hered to the myth out of self-interest and instill in their children. would swell were Americans to be thor- a zealous desire to put down God.” Nev- But the acceptance of evolution need oughly taught the evidence for evolu- er mind that many scientists, including not efface morality or purpose. Evolu- tion, which is rarely done in public high evolutionists, are religious. tion is simply a theory about the process schools. I have seen creationist students Given the overwhelming evidence and patterns of life’s diversification, not become evolutionists when they learn for evolution and the lack of evidence a grand philosophical scheme about the about biogeography or examine the for ID, how can intelligent people hold meaning of life. Philosophers have ar- skulls of mammal-like reptiles. What we such views? Is their faith so strong that gued for years about whether ethics need in the schools is not less teaching of it blinds them to all evidence? It is a should have a basis in nature. There is evolution but more. bit more complicated than that. After certainly no logical connection between In the end, many Americans may still all, many theologians and religious peo- evolution and immorality. Nor is there a reject evolution, finding the creationist ple accept evolution. The real issues be- causal connection: in Europe, religion is alternative psychologically more com- hind intelligent design—and much of far less pervasive than in America, and fortable. But emotion should be distin- creationism—are purpose and morality: belief in evolution is more widespread, guished from thought, and a “comfort specifically, the fear that if evolution is but somehow the continent remains civi- level” should not affect what is taught in true, then we are no different from other lized. Most religious scientists, laymen, the science classroom.As Judge Overton animals, not the special objects of God’s and theologians have not found the ac- wrote in his magisterial decision striking creation but a contingent product of ceptance of evolution to impede living down Arkansas Act 590, which mandat- natural selection, and so we lack real an upright, meaningful life. And the idea ed equal classroom time for “scientific purpose, and our morality is just the law that religion provides the sole founda- creationism”: of the jungle. Tom DeLay furnished a tion for meaning and morality also can- colorful example of this view on the not be right: the world is full of skeptics, The application and content of First floor of the House of Representatives agnostics, and atheists who live good and Amendment principles are not deter- on June 16, 1999. Explaining the causes meaningful lives. mined by public opinion polls or by a of the massacre at Columbine High majority vote.Whether the propo- School, he read a sarcastic letter in a arring a miracle, the Dover nents of Act 590 constitute the major- Texas newspaper that suggested that “it Area School District will lose its ity or the minority is quite irrelevant couldn’t have been because our school case. Anyone who bothers to under a constitutional system of gov- systems teach the children that they are study ID and its evolution from ernment. No group, no matter how nothing but glorified apes who have Bearlier and more overtly religious forms large or small, may use the organs of evolutionized out of some primordial of creationism will find it an unscientific, government, of which the public soup of mud.” faith-based theory ultimately resting on schools are the most conspicuous and The notion that naturalism and mate- the doctrines of fundamentalist Chris- influential, to foist its religious beliefs rialism are the enemies of morality and a tianity. Its presentation in schools thus vi- on others. ½