DOCSLIB.ORG

Evolution, Natural Selection, and Intelligent Design by Emiliano Navarrette

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evolution, Natural Selection, and Intelligent Design by Emiliano Navarrette Evolution, Natural Selection, and Intelligent Design By Emiliano Navarrette The evolution of organisms is a central concept in biology. Yet theories concerning evolution have provoked passionate debate far beyond the scientific community. In my view, the debate over biological evolution is a focal point in a much broader conflict between two basic worldviews, one scientific and one religious. A full treatment is beyond the scope of this essay. I will instead focus on three concepts- evolution, natural selection, and intelligent design- as they figure into the current debate over what ought to be the proper curriculum for biology. It is important to note that contention over the teaching of evolution is a separate debate from the contention over issues in evolution among biologists. The two become muddled in public discourse, both by semantic accident and rhetorical design. Intelligent design is, in my estimation, given undue weight by factors outside the scientific community. Specifically, it is used as a tool by a sizable minority of evangelical Christians who wish to undermine a worldview they deem detrimental to their own. I will not argue against this as a moral position, but I do believe that if we wish to teach science in public schools, the scientific consensus ought to shape the curriculum rather than political pressure. Intelligent design, lobbied for as a valid scientific theory equal to evolution by natural selection, is in fact a lever for this political pressure. On the basis of scientific merit, intelligent design should not be given equal treatment with evolution and natural selection in the biology classroom. Evolution can be defined as "changes in gene frequency in a population over time" (Postlethwait and Hopson 1992). Genes are the blueprints of organisms, so evolution entails fundamental change. Observation of living animals and the fossil record gives ample evidence that evolution is a fact. Thus the commonly used phrase "theory of evolution" is misleading; biologists theorize about the mechanism of evolution- the fact that evolution has occurred and continues to occur is agreed upon by the vast majority of biologists (Moran 2002). The use of the word "theory" confuses public discourse on the topic as well. The scientist uses the word to mean something like a systematic and plausible explanation for an observation or set of observations (Moran 2002). In general speech, "theory" can have much less rigorous application- it is most often used as a synonym for "speculation" or "conjecture." The human imagination being what it is, all sorts of "theories" in the loose sense abound. Some who rail against the theory of natural selection would have you believe it shares equal footing with wild conspiracy theories- a deliberate confusion of the terms. Natural selection may be understood intuitively by artificial selection- dog breeding by humans, for example. Favorable traits are more likely to be passed on, whether man or nature is doing the selecting (Gould 1977). Natural selection proposed by Darwin and elaborated by biologists ever since, is a scientific theory: it proposes an explanation of how the observed phenomena of evolution came to be. It is broadly accepted as one mechanism, if not the only, by the vast majority of biologists (Moran 1997). If the scientific consensus holds the concepts of evolution and natural selection as valid and central to the science, it stands to reason that a biology curriculum should reflect this. There were, and are, objections to natural selection. Among the first was the concept of intelligent design. The meat of the argument of is that there are creatures in nature that possess a form so perfect or uniquely suited to their surroundings that a series of gradual changes, such as natural selection would entail, would be hard pressed to account for their existence. We have seen examples on video in this class : a fish that looks exactly like a stone, or an insect that looks exactly like a bird dropping- how would natural selection work on an ancestor that looked nothing like a stone or a dropping and without any intelligent plan end up with such creatures? How would the intermediate animals survive? The natural selection advocates refute the objection easily, if not intuitively: the intermediate adaptations serve a different purpose than the final form (Gould 1977). Is intelligent design a scientific theory? I would say it can be dressed up, in a pinch, to look like one, but it is a weak one at best. It is more accurately a collection of objections that have been already been answered. If the vast majority of biologists favor natural selection over intelligent design, a biology class or textbook ought to reflect this, rather than putting them on an equal footing. Scientific consensus changes. Perhaps someday the consensus will be something along the lines of intelligent design, though the intelligent designer would most assuredly not be the god featured in the creation myth of Genesis. I believe that proponents of intelligent design know this well; they argue for equal consideration in the classroom not to further scientific debate, but to undermine the scientific worldview with an eye to increasing the persuasive power of their own. References Gould, SJ. 1977. Ever since Darwin. New York: W.W. Norton and Co. 285p. Moran, L. 1997. What is evolution? Talk Origins website. available from: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html. Accessed 2004 Nov 15. Moran, L. 2002. Evolution is a fact and a theory. Talk Origins website. available from: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html. Accessed 2004 Nov 15. Postlethwait, J and Hopson J. 1992. The Nature of Life. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc. 792 p. .
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]
  • 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]
  • Archons (Commanders) [NOTICE: They Are NOT Anlien Parasites], and Then, in a Mirror Image of the Great Emanations of the Pleroma, Hundreds of Lesser Angels
    A R C H O N S HIDDEN RULERS THROUGH THE AGES A R C H O N S HIDDEN RULERS THROUGH THE AGES WATCH THIS IMPORTANT VIDEO UFOs, Aliens, and the Question of Contact MUST-SEE THE OCCULT REASON FOR PSYCHOPATHY Organic Portals: Aliens and Psychopaths KNOWLEDGE THROUGH GNOSIS Boris Mouravieff - GNOSIS IN THE BEGINNING ...1 The Gnostic core belief was a strong dualism: that the world of matter was deadening and inferior to a remote nonphysical home, to which an interior divine spark in most humans aspired to return after death. This led them to an absorption with the Jewish creation myths in Genesis, which they obsessively reinterpreted to formulate allegorical explanations of how humans ended up trapped in the world of matter. The basic Gnostic story, which varied in details from teacher to teacher, was this: In the beginning there was an unknowable, immaterial, and invisible God, sometimes called the Father of All and sometimes by other names. “He” was neither male nor female, and was composed of an implicitly finite amount of a living nonphysical substance. Surrounding this God was a great empty region called the Pleroma (the fullness). Beyond the Pleroma lay empty space. The God acted to fill the Pleroma through a series of emanations, a squeezing off of small portions of his/its nonphysical energetic divine material. In most accounts there are thirty emanations in fifteen complementary pairs, each getting slightly less of the divine material and therefore being slightly weaker. The emanations are called Aeons (eternities) and are mostly named personifications in Greek of abstract ideas.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Do Creation and Flood Myths Found World Wide Have a Common Origin?
    The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism Volume 5 Print Reference: Pages 517-528 Article 47 2003 Do Creation and Flood Myths Found World Wide Have a Common Origin? Jerry Bergman Northwest State College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/icc_proceedings DigitalCommons@Cedarville provides a publication platform for fully open access journals, which means that all articles are available on the Internet to all users immediately upon publication. However, the opinions and sentiments expressed by the authors of articles published in our journals do not necessarily indicate the endorsement or reflect the views of DigitalCommons@Cedarville, the Centennial Library, or Cedarville University and its employees. The authors are solely responsible for the content of their work. Please address questions to [email protected]. Browse the contents of this volume of The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism. Recommended Citation Bergman, Jerry (2003) "Do Creation and Flood Myths Found World Wide Have a Common Origin?," The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism: Vol. 5 , Article 47. Available at: https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/icc_proceedings/vol5/iss1/47 DO CREATION AND FLOOD MYTHS FOUND WORLD WIDE HAVE A COMMON ORIGIN? Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. Northwest State College Archbold, OH 43543 KEYWORDS: Creation myths, the Genesis account of creation, Noah’s flood ABSTRACT An extensive review of both creation and flood myths reveals that there is a basic core of themes in all of the extant creation and flood myths. This fact gives strong evidence of a common origin of the myths based on actual historical events.
    [Show full text]
  • How the World Was Made a Cheyenne Creation Myth
    How the World Was Made A Cheyenne Creation Myth At the beginning of time, there was nothing but darkness. Maheo the All Spirit lived alone in this darkness. He was tired of the dark—there was nothing to see and nothing to hear. Maheo was very powerful and he decided to use his power to create the world. Maheo created water in the form of a great salty lake and decided that all life would come from this water. At first, he made animals that swim in the water like fish. Next, Maheo created the sand at the bottom of the giant salty lake. Then he created bottom-feeding creatures like snails, lobsters, and mussels to live on that sand. 1 © 2018 Reading Is Fundamental • Content and art created by Simone Ribke How the World Was Made Next, Maheo made animals that live on the water. These included many types of birds such as geese, terns, loons, and ducks. Maheo delighted to hear their wings flapping and their feet splashing on the water. But Maheo could only hear them, he could not see them. “I would like to see the things I created,” Maheo said to himself. So Maheo created light and delighted in seeing all the fish swimming in the water and all the birds swimming on the water. “How beautiful,” Maheo said to himself, for he was truly amazed by his creations. Soon, a goose called out to Maheo: “Great Maheo, thank you for making this wonderful world. We are so happy, but the birds are not fish.
    [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]
  • Every Creation Story
    Every Creation Story Creation from chaos Chaos (cosmogony) Enûma Eliš (Babylonian creation myth) Genesis creation myth (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) Greek cosmogonical myth Jamshid Korean creation narratives Kumulipo Leviathan (Book of Job 38–41 creation myth) Mandé creation myth Pangu Raven in Creation Serer creation myth Sumerian creation myth Tungusic creation myth Unkulunkulu Väinämöinen Viracocha Earth diver Earth-diver Ainu creation myth Cherokee creation myth Iroquois creation myth Väinämöinen Yoruba creation myth Ob-Ugric creation myth Emergence Emergence Hopi creation myth Maya creation of the world myth Diné Bahaneʼ (Navajo) Zuni creation myth ( creation of self ) Ex nihilo Debate between sheep and grain Barton cylinder Ancient Egyptian creation myths Kabezya-Mpungu Māori myths Mbombo Ngai Popol Vuh World parent World parent Coatlicue Enûma Eliš Greek cosmogonical myth Greek cosmogonical myth Heliopolis creation myth Hiranyagarbha creation myth Kumulipo Rangi and Papa Völuspá Divine twins Divine twins Proto-Indo-European creation myths Regional Africa Ancient Egyptian creation myths Fon creation myth Kaang creation story (Bushmen) Kintu myth (Bugandan) Mandé creation myth Mbombo (Kuba, Bakuba or Bushongo/Boshongo) Ngai (Kamba, Kikuyu and Maasai ) Serer creation myth (cosmogony of the Serer people of Senegal, the Gambia and Mauritania) Unkulunkulu (Zulu) Yoruba creation Americas Mesoamerica Coatlicue (Aztec) Maya creation of the world myth Popol Vuh (Quiché Mayan) Mid North America Anishinaabeg creation stories Cherokee creation
    [Show full text]
  • A Deeper Look at the Origin of Life by Bob Davis
    A Deeper Look at the Origin of Life By Bob Davis Every major society from every age in history has had its own story about its origins. For instance, the Eskimos attributed their existence to a raven. The ancient Germanic peoples of Scandinavia believed their creator—Ymir—emerged from ice and fire, was nourished by a cow, and ultimately gave rise to the human race. Those are just two examples. But no matter the details, these origin stories always endeavor to answer people’s innate questions: Where did we come from? What is our destiny? What is our purpose? Two widely held theories in today’s world are abiogenesis and the Genesis story. The first states that life emerged through nature without any divine guidance; the second involves a supernatural Creator. Abiogenesis Abiogenesis is sometimes called “chemical evolution” because it seeks to explain how non-living (“abio”) substances gave rise to life (“genesis”). Abiogenesis was added to the list of origin stories over one hundred years ago when Charles Darwin first speculated that life could have begun in a “warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes.”1 Many summarize abiogenesis—coupled with its more famous twin, Darwinian macroevolution—in a somewhat disparaging but memorable way: “From the goo to you by way of the zoo!”2 Let’s use this phrase to help us understand what is meant by “abiogenesis.” The “goo” refers to the “primordial soup” or “warm little pond” where non-life is said to have given birth to life.
    [Show full text]