........................................................................ Professional Ethics Report Publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Scientific Freedom, Responsibility & Law Program in collaboration with the Committee on Scientific Freedom & Responsibility, Professional Society Ethics Group VOLUME XIX NUMBER 1 Winter 2006 Dr. Jason Borenstein science. to encourage the courts, legislators, and A legal ruling such as this could school boards to participate in an age- The author is a visiting Assistant generate a precedent that keeps “design” old, and perhaps intractable, philosophi- Professor in the School of Public Policy out of science classes in other school cal debate concerning whether there is a at Georgia Tech and the Editor of the districts (as opposed to what might occur firm and decisive dividing line between Journal of Philosophy, Science & Law if local school boards decide the matter). science and religion.[6] When these (www.psljournal.com). Yet it is not clear that the arguments groups rekindle arguments about supporting design theory should be whether a set of criteria exists that Intelligent Design: Religious Concerns labeled as being religious in nature. distinguishes science from other fields of Aside, It Is Still Troubling inquiry, it may generate more problems There is a strong temptation to say than it solves. Scholars disagree, for From Pennsylvania and Ohio to that the teaching of Intelligent Design example, about whether Michael Ruse[7] Kansas and Utah, battles wage on during violates the Establishment Clause consid- or Larry Laudan[8] has put forward the school board meetings and legislative ering the underlying religious motives of superior view concerning the decision in sessions concerning how public schools its supporters. The agenda of design McLean v. Arkansas.[9] should handle the topic of evolution. theorists may, and often does, coincide Intelligent Design theory is a relatively with the goals of religious organizations, On a related note, assuming that the new participant in these debates, and as a but that alone might not be sufficient to problem of demarcation can be solved result, it was not known, until recently, prove that their arguments are unscientific. and that the relevant criteria have been how the courts would respond to it. It would be overly hasty and uncharitable accurately identified, we can certainly Whereas challenges to evolution have to assume that merely because someone is question whether non-scientists such as typically been dismissed on constitu- religious, that she cannot genuinely be judges and public officials will be able to tional grounds, Intelligent Design was interested in promoting good science. apply the criteria properly and consis- articulated in a cautious and deliberate Further, in principle, one does not neces- tently. The strategy of labeling Intelli- manner so that it might successfully sarily have to be a theist to be swayed by gent Design as being religion might be withstand legal scrutiny. Although the Michael Behe’s “irreducible complexity” fraught with problems, but there are notion that an intelligent being created argument,[2] William Dembski’s argument compelling reasons why we should be life is far from new, recent advocates of concerning statistical improbabilities,[3] or wary of the view. For one, design design theory have tried to incorporate Stephen Meyer’s argument about the theorists explicitly refuse to shed light scientific concepts and terminology in a “Cambrian explosion.”[4] There is suitable on the nature and identity of the more sophisticated fashion than their justification for claiming that these “designer.” It is rather suspicious that predecessors did. arguments have their share of flaws, which scholars, who allegedly offer a theory is one reason why the scientific commu- that is scientific in nature, acknowledge Historically, the legal system nity has largely rejected them. Yet a that there are significant components of endeavored to determine whether primary and essential way of revealing their theory for which they will not alternatives to evolution should be these flaws is through examining the provide an explanation. This is an characterized as science or as religion, a empirical evidence. especially troubling practice since it strategy commonly used to handle cases appears to be done to accomplish a Placing the arguments of design involving creationism. After weighing the predetermined legal goal, the acceptance theorists within the domain of religion can merits of Intelligent Design, a federal of design in biology classrooms, rather sidetrack the dispute from the crucial issue, judge, John E. Jones III, held that it is not than for purely scientific reasons. science and thus should be barred from which is whether any of the claims being offered have supporting evidence behind science classrooms in the Dover Pennsyl- Within their writings, design them. Many of the key arguments for vania school district.[1] It is understand- theorists primarily focus their attention design can be challenged, and perhaps able why Judge Jones’s decision has on delineating alleged shortcomings already have been refuted, on scientific been praised as being a victory for contained within evolutionary theory. grounds.[5] Further, it is probably unwise Winter 2006 Professional Ethics Report 1 ........................................................................ (Borenstein continued from page 1) Santorum from Pennsylvania, play a key human life began and their view is a Although critiques can be useful, design role in pushing forward various different “rival,” in some sense of the term, to theory falls short of providing a coherent kinds of initiatives that “encourage” evolution. However, merely because a set of positive claims about how the teachers to criticize evolution, and these group of people espouse a view and world works. Scientists rightly complain individuals are not typically scientists. sincerely believe it, that is not sufficient that Intelligent Design offers little or no to show it belongs in a science classroom. direction for future research avenues. For Design supporters are quick to attack A hypothesis must prove its mettle by example, what kind of experiment could be flaws that they detect in evolution, which withstanding the scrutiny of the scientific constructed to determine how the leads them to endorse the “teach the community, and design theorists them- designer created biological mechanisms controversy” approach.[10] Although the selves seem to acknowledge, albeit such as blood clotting? There is plausibil- design movement operates under the grudgingly,[13] that their theory has not ity behind the cynic’s suggestion that guise of promoting good pedagogy, it is passed this demanding test. design theory may just amount to a unclear how this goal is being accom- complex series of arguments from plished if political mandates, such as the [1] “Court rejects ‘intelligent design’ in science class,” Cnn.com, December 23, 2005, at http:// ignorance, honing in on both real and one that was temporarily enforced in supposed gaps in our knowledge about www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/ Dover, and parental pressure are interfer- intelligent.design.ap/ (last visited January 16, the world. It does not advance our ing with how biology teachers run their 2006). understanding beyond informing us that own classrooms. Evolution is such a [2] Michael J. Behe, “Irreducible Complexity: Obstacle to Darwinian Evolution,” in Dembski scientists have not fully solved all of the politically-charged issue that it causes key questions for which we seek answers. and Ruse (eds.), Debating Design: From Darwin some biology teachers to present a to DNA, Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. caricature of the topic or avoid it alto- 352-370. There is also reason to be skeptical gether in order to avoid the wrath of [3] William Dembski, et. al., The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small about design theory because of the parents, politicians, and school board frequency with which supporters of Probabilities, Cambridge University Press, officials.[11] Arguably, the goal of 2006. design make use of non-scientific teaching students good science is not [4] Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological avenues to gain support for their view. being upheld if our philosophical and information and the higher taxonomic categories,” Proceedings of the Biological The mainstream scientific community is religious disagreements interfere with the not clamoring for the modification of Society of Washington, Vol. 117(2), 2004, pp. ability of teachers to discuss a topic they 213-239. evolution education so that it becomes know is central to the biology curriculum. [5] For example, Francisco Ayala seeks to more “ID-friendly.” Rather, momentum The work of scientists instead of political explain how evolutionary theory undermines an appeal to a “designer” and to teleological behind the attempt to gain acceptance for rhetoric should determine which scientific design is generated, for example, from explanations for natural processes in “Design theories are presented in the biology without Designer: Darwin’s Greatest Discovery,” government officials who are sympathetic classroom. from Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA, to it. Politicians, such as Senator Rick edited by William A. Dembski and Michael Ruse, Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 55-80. Editor: Mark S. Frankel As a by-product of the seemingly [6] A point of contention,