DOCSLIB.ORG

Falling Over the Edge Claims That an Intelligent Designer Is Needed to Explain Evolution of Complex Systems Are Deeply Flawed

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Falling Over the Edge Claims That an Intelligent Designer Is Needed to Explain Evolution of Complex Systems Are Deeply Flawed Vol 447|28 June 2007 BOOKS & ARTS Falling over the edge Claims that an intelligent designer is needed to explain evolution of complex systems are deeply flawed. The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism by Michael Behe Free Press: 2007. 336 pp. $28 Kenneth R. Miller Michael Behe’s new book, The Edge of Evolu- tion, is an attempt to give the intelligent-design movement a bit of badly needed scientific sup- port. After a spectacular setback in the 2005 Dover, Pennsylvania, intelligent-design trial (Nature 439, 6–7; 2006), and the 2006 elec- toral losses in Ohio and Kansas, the movement could use some help — and Behe is eager to provide it. Knowing how easy it is to demonstrate the workings of evolution in the development of drug resistance in viruses, bacteria and pro- tozoan parasites, Behe concedes the point that evolution works very well at this level. His case study, repeated almost to the point of tedium, is malaria. Resistance to drugs such as chloroquine has indeed arisen within the parasite population, and so has genetic resist- ance to the parasite in humans. But if the inter- Far from finding a clean edge to evolution, Behe’s poorly designed arguments crumble away. species genetic warfare between Homo sapiens and Plasmodium is actually a prime example of badly designed argument collapses under its these two exact mutations occurring simultan- evolution, how can it then be used to make the own weight. eously at precisely the same position in exactly case for ‘design’? Behe cites the malaria literature to note the same gene in a single individual. He then The reason can be found in the book’s title. that two amino-acid changes in the digestive- leads his unsuspecting readers to believe that To Behe, the genetic changes in both parasite vacuole membrane protein PfCRT (at posi- this spurious calculation is a hard and fast sta- and host represent the absolute limit of what tions 76 and 220) of Plasmodium are required tistical barrier to the accumulation of enough darwinian processes can accomplish, and mark to confer chloroquine resistance. From a report variation to drive darwinian evolution. IMAGES L. CIAPPONI/GETTY the “edge of evolution”. He describes these well- that spontaneous resistance to the drug can be It would be difficult to imagine a more understood mutations as a kind of “trench war- found in roughly 1 parasite in 1020, he asserts breathtaking abuse of statistical genetics. fare” in which parasite and host endure a series that these are the odds of both mutations aris- Behe obtains his probabilities by considering of destructive mutations in key elements of cel- ing in a single organism, and uses them to each mutation as an independent event, rul- lular machinery. These changes produce noth- make this sweeping assertion: ing out any role for cumulative selection, and ing genuinely new, serving only to block the requiring evolution to achieve an exact, pre- parasite or render widely used drugs ineffective “On average, for humans to achieve a determined result. Not only are each of these by altering target proteins or clearing damaged mutation like this by chance, we would need conditions unrealistic, but they do not apply cells. The fact that centuries of conflict between to wait a hundred million times ten million even in the case of his chosen example. First, parasite and host have produced nothing in the years. Since that is many times the age of he overlooks the existence of chloroquine- way of new, complex systems in either species the universe, it’s reasonable to conclude the resistant strains of malaria lacking one of the is proof that this is all that evolution can do. following: No mutation that is of the same mutations he claims to be essential (at position They mark the “limits of darwinism”. complexity as chloroquine resistance in 220). This matters, because it shows that there Where does this leave evolutionary expla- malaria arose by Darwinian evolution in are several mutational routes to effective drug nations of more complex systems? Behe tells the line leading to humans in the past ten resistance. Second, and more importantly, Behe us frankly that darwinism cannot account for million years.” waves away evidence suggesting that chloro- even a modest share of the complexity of life, quine resistance may be the result of sequen- and therefore design is absolutely required as Behe, incredibly, thinks he has determined tial, not simultaneous, mutations (Science 298, an explanation. Yet, at the heart of his anti- the odds of a mutation “of the same complexity” 74–75; 2002), boosted by the so-called ARMD darwinian calculus are numbers not merely occurring in the human line. He hasn’t. What (accelerated resistance to multiple drugs) incorrect, but so spectacularly wrong that this he has actually done is to determine the odds of phenotype, which is itself drug induced. 1055 BOOKS & ARTS NATURE|Vol 447|28 June 2007 A mistake of this magnitude anywhere in a book on science is bad enough, but Behe has EXHIBITION built his entire thesis on this error. Telling his readers that the production of so much as a single new protein-to-protein binding site is A Wellcome addition “beyond the edge of evolution”, he proclaims darwinian evolution to be a hopeless failure. The Wellcome Collection and a Hollywood humidor, its handsome Apparently he has not followed recent studies by the Wellcome Trust walnut cases, drawers and hidden cabinets exploring the evolution of hormone-receptor 183 Euston Road, London reveal a telling fraction of the objects Sir Henry complexes by sequential mutations (Science www.wellcomecollection.org amassed. There are amputation saws, birth- 312, 97–101; 2006), the ‘evolvability’ of new ing tools, diagnostic dolls, arresting paintings functions in existing proteins — studies on Sara Abdulla and glassware galore. Medicine Now brings serum paraxonase (PON1) traced the evolu- A unique cultural venue opened in London the story of ‘what it means to be human’ up to tion of several new catalytic functions (Nature this month. The Wellcome Collection is the date, in a bright white and red journey through Genet. 37, 73–76; 2005) — or the modular evo- first permanent home for the massive, mav- malaria, obesity, genomics and more. lution of cellular signalling circuitry (Annu. erick history-of-medicine collection that Throughout the building, subtle curation and Rev. Biochem. 75, 655–680; 2006). Instead, he pharmaceutical entrepreneur Sir Henry Well- sumptuous display invite visitors to reflect on tells his readers that there is just one explana- come (1853–1936) gathered throughout his our knowledge, hopes, fears and beliefs about tion that “encompasses the cellular foundation life. Thirty million pounds (US$60 million) the body. This dialogue will continue in The of life as a whole”. That explanation, of course, and decades in the making, the free venue has Forum, an auditorium for debates, workshops, is intelligent design. three galleries, one of the world’s most impor- lectures and performances. Some of these will The sad mistake at the logical centre of this tant history-of-medicine libraries, an original engage with themes of the temporary exhibi- book is eerily reminiscent of a similar claim in programme of live events, a members’ club, tions. For example on 5 July, the audience can Behe’s 1996 book Darwin’s Black Box. In this a bookshop, a café, a conference centre and watch a live video link to a heart-valve opera- work he claimed that complex biochemical Pablo Picasso’s Bernal mural. tion, ask questions of the surgeon and examine systems have a property he called “irreducible Wellcome’s fortune also created the Wellcome instruments akin to those being used. Other complexity”. Irreducibly complex structures, Trust, Britain’s main bioscience research fund- events, such as the Islam and medicine panel such as the bacterial flagellum, could not ing agency. The trust has now remodelled the on 19 July, will respond to current affairs. have evolved because they lack any selectable compact 1930s building it recently vacated to The second floor brings the trust’s vast function until all of their component parts realize Sir Henry’s vision of a ‘Museum of Man’ library into the twenty-first century. Virtual are in place. As he wrote, “any precursor to and to extend its public engagement activities. browsing stations and WiFi now complement an irreducibly complex system is by defini- The scholarly heat rises with each floor. Street the graceful galleries long beloved by science- tion nonfunctional”, since every part of such a level lures in passers-by from the thundering and-society scholars (and TV crews in search system had to be in place for natural selection road outside with a chic café and striking large- of instant gravitas). The top floors house The to favour it. Therefore, such structures must scale works — including a pendulous Antony Wellcome Trust Centre for the History of have been designed. A nice argument, except Gormley cast. Here temporary exhibitions Medicine at University College London, where for the annoying fact that it is wrong. Subsets will explore the interplay between advances in much of this thoughtful activity starts. of proteins nearly identical to those in the medical science and our view of ourselves. The And what of the members’ club? Will it flagellum do indeed have selectable functions opening show, The Heart, runs until 14 Septem- become biology’s Algonquin Hotel? Quite (Nature Rev. Microbiol. 4, 784–790; 2006), and ber 2007; it features Andy Warhol prints, Leon- possibly: it is inside a thrilling new museum, the argument fails. In the same book, Behe also ardo da Vinci anatomical drawings and a wall of beside a leading medical school, opposite Lon- claimed that every component of the irreduc- fixed animal hearts.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals
    UNDERSTANDING THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONIST MOVEMENT: ITS TRUE NATURE AND GOALS A POSITION PAPER FROM THE CENTER FOR INQUIRY OFFICE OF PUBLIC POLICY AUTHOR: BARBARA FORREST, Ph.D. Reviewing Committee: Paul Kurtz, Ph.D.; Austin Dacey, Ph.D.; Stuart D. Jordan, Ph.D.; Ronald A. Lindsay, J. D., Ph.D.; John Shook, Ph.D.; Toni Van Pelt DATED: MAY 2007 ( AMENDED JULY 2007) Copyright © 2007 Center for Inquiry, Inc. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for noncommercial, educational purposes, provided that this notice appears on the reproduced materials, the full authoritative version is retained, and copies are not altered. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the Center for Inquiry, Inc. Table of Contents Section I. Introduction: What is at stake in the dispute over intelligent design?.................. 1 Section II. What is the intelligent design creationist movement? ........................................ 2 Section III. The historical and legal background of intelligent design creationism ................ 6 Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) ............................................................................ 6 McLean v. Arkansas (1982) .............................................................................. 6 Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) ............................................................................. 7 Section IV. The ID movement’s aims and strategy .............................................................. 9 The “Wedge Strategy” .....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Argumentation and Fallacies in Creationist Writings Against Evolutionary Theory Petteri Nieminen1,2* and Anne-Mari Mustonen1
    Nieminen and Mustonen Evolution: Education and Outreach 2014, 7:11 http://www.evolution-outreach.com/content/7/1/11 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Argumentation and fallacies in creationist writings against evolutionary theory Petteri Nieminen1,2* and Anne-Mari Mustonen1 Abstract Background: The creationist–evolutionist conflict is perhaps the most significant example of a debate about a well-supported scientific theory not readily accepted by the public. Methods: We analyzed creationist texts according to type (young earth creationism, old earth creationism or intelligent design) and context (with or without discussion of “scientific” data). Results: The analysis revealed numerous fallacies including the direct ad hominem—portraying evolutionists as racists, unreliable or gullible—and the indirect ad hominem, where evolutionists are accused of breaking the rules of debate that they themselves have dictated. Poisoning the well fallacy stated that evolutionists would not consider supernatural explanations in any situation due to their pre-existing refusal of theism. Appeals to consequences and guilt by association linked evolutionary theory to atrocities, and slippery slopes to abortion, euthanasia and genocide. False dilemmas, hasty generalizations and straw man fallacies were also common. The prevalence of these fallacies was equal in young earth creationism and intelligent design/old earth creationism. The direct and indirect ad hominem were also prevalent in pro-evolutionary texts. Conclusions: While the fallacious arguments are irrelevant when discussing evolutionary theory from the scientific point of view, they can be effective for the reception of creationist claims, especially if the audience has biases. Thus, the recognition of these fallacies and their dismissal as irrelevant should be accompanied by attempts to avoid counter-fallacies and by the recognition of the context, in which the fallacies are presented.
    [Show full text]
  • Answers to Practice Quiz #2
    Philosophy 1104: Critical Thinking Answers to Practice Quiz #2 [Total: 50 marks] 1. In which of the following pairs of propositions does A provide conclusive evidence for B? Also say whether or not A provides at least some evidence, no matter how weak (i.e. say whether A is positively relevant to B). Write just „Yes‟ or „No‟ in each column provided. A B Conclusive Some evidence? evidence? (i) Fred just hit a hole-in-one Fred is a very good golfer No Yes (ii) I have between 4 and 6 eggs I have at least 3 eggs Yes (iii) I have at least 4 eggs I have 5 or more eggs No Yes (iv) It‟s not the case that every Every politician is honest No Yes politician is corrupt. (v) Janet likes listening to Jazz Vancouver is west of Calgary No No (vi) Simpson is a world-class skier Simpson is a non-smoker No Yes (vii) We‟re having fish for supper We‟re having trout for supper No Yes (viii) Qin‟s theory is rejected by all Qin‟s theory is false No Yes relevant scientific authorities (ix) Sally is a Catholic Sally has eight children No Yes (x) Ali stabbed a man in Vernon, Ali first entered Canada in No No B.C. in 1998. 2002. [1 mark each] In rows where you say ‘yes’ in the first column, you should of course say ‘yes’ in the second as well! Or just leave the second column blank, if you prefer. 2. Each of the following definitions is flawed in some way (each in just one way, I think, or at least one main one).
    [Show full text]
  • Intelligent Design: Is It Really Worth It?
    Leaven Volume 17 Issue 2 Theology and Science Article 6 1-1-2009 Intelligent Design: Is It Really Worth It? Chris Doran [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, Christianity Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Doran, Chris (2009) "Intelligent Design: Is It Really Worth It?," Leaven: Vol. 17 : Iss. 2 , Article 6. Available at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven/vol17/iss2/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Religion at Pepperdine Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Leaven by an authorized editor of Pepperdine Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. Doran: Intelligent Design: Is It Really Worth It? Intelligent Design: Is It Really Worth It? CHRIS DORAN imaginethatwe have all had occasion to look up into the sky on a clear night, gaze at the countless stars, and think about how small we are in comparison to the enormity of the universe. For everyone except Ithe most strident atheist (although I suspect that even s/he has at one point considered the same feeling), staring into space can be a stark reminder that the universe is much grander than we could ever imagine, which may cause us to contemplate who or what might have put this universe together. For believers, looking up at tJotestars often puts us into the same spirit of worship that must have filled the psalmist when he wrote, "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands" (Psalms 19.1).
    [Show full text]
  • Intelligent Design Is Not Science” Given by John G
    An Outline of a lecture entitled, “Intelligent Design is not Science” given by John G. Wise in the Spring Semester of 2007: Slide 1 Why… … do humans have so much trouble with wisdom teeth? … is childbirth so dangerous and painful? Because a big, thinking brain is an advantage, and evolution is imperfect. Slide 2 Charles Darwin’s Revolutionary Idea His book changed the world. All life forms on this planet are related to each other through “Descent with modification over generations from a common ancestor”. Natural processes fully explain the biological connections between all life on the planet. Slide 3 Darwin’s Idea is Dangerous (from the book of the same title by Daniel Dennett) If we have evolution, we no longer need a Creator to create each and every species. Darwinism is dangerous because it infers that God did not directly and purposefully create us. It simply states that we evolved. Slide 4 Intelligent Design Attempts to Counter Darwin “Intelligent Design” has been proposed as way out of this dilemma. – Phillip Johnson, William Dembski, and Michael Behe (to name a few). They attempt to redefine science to encompass the supernatural as well as the natural world. They accept Darwin’s evolution, if an Intelligent Designer is (sometimes) substituted for natural selection. Design arguments are not new: − 1250 - St. Thomas Aquinas - first design argument − 1802 - Natural Theology - William Paley – perhaps the best(?) design argument Slide 5 What is Science? A specific way of understanding the natural world. Based on the idea that our senses give us accurate information about the Universe.
    [Show full text]
  • Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Washington University St. Louis: Open Scholarship Washington University Law Review Volume 83 Issue 1 2005 Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution Matthew J. Brauer Princeton University Barbara Forrest Southeastern Louisiana University Steven G. Gey Florida State University Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Education Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, Religion Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Matthew J. Brauer, Barbara Forrest, and Steven G. Gey, Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution, 83 WASH. U. L. Q. 1 (2005). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol83/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Washington University Law Quarterly VOLUME 83 NUMBER 1 2005 IS IT SCIENCE YET?: INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONISM AND THE CONSTITUTION MATTHEW J. BRAUER BARBARA FORREST STEVEN G. GEY* TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Probability, Statistics, Evolution, and Intelligent Design
    Probability, Statistics, Evolution, and Intelligent Design Peter Olofsson n the last decades, arguments against Darwinian evolution An ID Hypothesis Testing Challenge to Evolution have become increasingly sophisticated, replacing Cre- In his book The Design Inference, William Dembski introduces ationism by Intelligent Design (ID) and the book of Genesis I the “explanatory filter” as a device to rule out chance expla- by biochemistry and mathematics. As arguments claiming to nations and infer design of observed phenomena. The filter be based in probability and statistics are being used to justify also appears in his book No Free Lunch, where the description the anti-evolution stance, it may be of interest to readers of differs slightly. In essence, the filter is a variation on statistical CHANCE to investigate methods and claims of ID theorists. hypothesis testing with the main difference being that it aims at ruling out chance altogether, rather than just a specified Probability, Statistics, and Evolution null hypothesis. Once all chance explanations have been ruled The theory of evolution states in part that traits of organisms out, ‘design’ is inferred. Thus, in this context, design is merely are passed on to successive generations through genetic mate- viewed as the complement of chance. rial and that modifications in genetic material cause changes To illustrate the filter, Dembski uses the example of in appearance, ability, function, and survival of organisms. Nicholas Caputo, a New Jersey Democrat who was in charge Genetic changes that are advantageous to successful repro- of putting together the ballots in his county. Names were to be duction over time dominate and new species evolve.
    [Show full text]
  • The Design Argument
    The design argument The different versions of the cosmological argument we discussed over the last few weeks were arguments for the existence of God based on extremely abstract and general features of the universe, such as the fact that some things come into existence, and that there are some contingent things. The argument we’ll be discussing today is not like this. The basic idea of the argument is that if we pay close attention to the details of the universe in which we live, we’ll be able to see that that universe must have been created by an intelligent designer. This design argument, or, as its sometimes called, the teleological argument, has probably been the most influential argument for the existence of God throughout most of history. You will by now not be surprised that a version of the teleological argument can be found in the writings of Thomas Aquinas. You will by now not be surprised that a version of the teleological argument can be found in the writings of Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas is noting that things we observe in nature, like plants and animals, typically act in ways which are advantageous to themselves. Think, for example, of the way that many plants grow in the direction of light. Clearly, as Aquinas says, plants don’t do this because they know where the light is; as he says, they “lack knowledge.” But then how do they manage this? What does explain the fact that plants grow in the direction of light, if not knowledge? Aquinas’ answer to this question is that they must be “directed to their end” -- i.e., designed to be such as to grow toward the light -- by God.
    [Show full text]
  • Distinguishing Science from Philosophy: a Critical Assessment of Thomas Nagel's Recommendation for Public Education Melissa Lammey
    Florida State University Libraries Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School 2012 Distinguishing Science from Philosophy: A Critical Assessment of Thomas Nagel's Recommendation for Public Education Melissa Lammey Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCES DISTINGUISHING SCIENCE FROM PHILOSOPHY: A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF THOMAS NAGEL’S RECOMMENDATION FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION By MELISSA LAMMEY A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Philosophy in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Degree Awarded: Spring Semester, 2012 Melissa Lammey defended this dissertation on February 10, 2012. The members of the supervisory committee were: Michael Ruse Professor Directing Dissertation Sherry Southerland University Representative Justin Leiber Committee Member Piers Rawling Committee Member The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and certifies that the dissertation has been approved in accordance with university requirements. ii For Warren & Irene Wilson iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It is my pleasure to acknowledge the contributions of Michael Ruse to my academic development. Without his direction, this dissertation would not have been possible and I am indebted to him for his patience, persistence, and guidance. I would also like to acknowledge the efforts of Sherry Southerland in helping me to learn more about science and science education and for her guidance throughout this project. In addition, I am grateful to Piers Rawling and Justin Leiber for their service on my committee. I would like to thank Stephen Konscol for his vital and continuing support.
    [Show full text]
  • Does Intelligent Design Postulate a “Supernatural Creator?” Overview: No
    Truth Sheet # 09-05 Does intelligent design postulate a “supernatural creator?” Overview: No. The ACLU, and many of its expert witnesses, have alleged that teaching the scientific theory of intelligent design (ID) is unconstitutional in all circumstances because it posits a “supernatural creator.” Yet actual statements from intelligent design theorists have made it clear that the scientific theory of intelligent design does not address metaphysical and religious questions such as the nature or identity of the designer. Firstly, the textbook being used in Dover, Of Pandas and People (Pandas ), makes it clear that design theory does not address religious or metaphysical questions, such as the nature or identity of the designer. Consider these two clear disclaimers from Pandas : "[T]he intelligent design explanation has unanswered questions of its own. But unanswered questions, which exist on both sides, are an essential part of healthy science; they define the areas of needed research. Questions often expose hidden errors that have impeded the progress of science. For example, the place of intelligent design in science has been troubling for more than a century. That is because on the whole, scientists from within Western culture failed to distinguish between intelligence, which can be recognized by uniform sensory experience, and the supernatural, which cannot. Today we recognize that appeals to intelligent design may be considered in science, as illustrated by current NASA search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). Archaeology has pioneered the development of methods for distinguishing the effects of natural and intelligent causes. We should recognize, however, that if we go further, and conclude that the intelligence responsible for biological origins is outside the universe (supernatural) or within it, we do so without the help of science." 1 “[T]he concept of design implies absolutely nothing about beliefs normally associated with Christian fundamentalism, such as a young earth, a global flood, or even the existence of the Christian God.
    [Show full text]
  • Irreducible Complexity (IC) Has Played a Pivotal Role in the Resurgence of the Creationist Movement Over the Past Two Decades
    Irreducible incoherence and Intelligent Design: a look into the conceptual toolbox of a pseudoscience Abstract The concept of Irreducible Complexity (IC) has played a pivotal role in the resurgence of the creationist movement over the past two decades. Evolutionary biologists and philosophers have unambiguously rejected the purported demonstration of “intelligent design” in nature, but there have been several, apparently contradictory, lines of criticism. We argue that this is in fact due to Michael Behe’s own incoherent definition and use of IC. This paper offers an analysis of several equivocations inherent in the concept of Irreducible Complexity and discusses the way in which advocates of the Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC) have conveniently turned IC into a moving target. An analysis of these rhetorical strategies helps us to understand why IC has gained such prominence in the IDC movement, and why, despite its complete lack of scientific merits, it has even convinced some knowledgeable persons of the impending demise of evolutionary theory. Introduction UNTIL ITS DRAMATIC legal defeat in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC) had been one of the most successful pseudosciences of the past two decades, at least when measured in terms of cultural influence. It is interesting to explore the way this species of creationism had achieved this success, notwithstanding its periodic strategic setbacks as well as its complete lack of scientific merits. Of course, a full explanation would include religious, socio-political, and historical reasons; instead, in this paper, we will take a closer look at the conceptual toolbox and rhetorical strategies of the ID creationist.
    [Show full text]
  • Intelligent Design: the Latest Creationist Pseudo-Science
    © 2009, Dustin J. Penn III. Intelligent Design: The Latest Creationist Pseudo-Science "The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism… ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID." - U.S. District Judge Jones, 20061 Summary Evolution is not only problematic for religious fundamentalists, it is also unpopular among many who dislike its implications that God is distant and even unnecessary. The rise of a new form of creationism, called "intelligent design" (ID), has been popular because it retains a belief in a divine creation of humans, while abandoning fundamentalists' notions that the universe was created in six days and the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.2 ID's central claim is that life is too complex to explain by chance, and can only be explained by an "intelligent designer." This is merely a restatement of the Teleological argument for the existence of God, popular during the 18th and 19th centuries and the basis for Natural Theology (see Section V.). In other words, ID advocates are creationists who have substituted the word "God" with "intelligent designer". Nevertheless, ID triggered a popular resurgence of creationism in the USA, and it has become a global movement.
    [Show full text]