Crib Sheet: Intelligent Design

The Evolution of the Creationist Agenda.

By Jonathan Moreno, Sam Berger and Jonas Singer, Center for American Progress
Friday December 16, 2005

Recently there has been renewed interest in the 1920s. Is it because more and more people are making bathtub gin? Is the flapper style making a comeback? No, this interest has been fueled by the unwillingness of creationists to give up their tired arguments against evolution, most famously made in the Scopes Trial of 1925. Some things have changed: there is a new challenger to evolution called intelligent design (ID), and it purports to be entirely secular; the battle is not being fought in Tennessee, but in Kansas and Dover, Pennsylvania; and the fight is not to outlaw evolution, but to give equal time to a “competing theory.”

But in reality there is no competition between evolution and ID among scientists. The 120,000-member American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has approved a resolution declaring intelligent design a "philosophical or theological concept" that should not be taught in science classes. In fact, the AAAS boycotted the Kansas school board hearings on re-writing the science standards to include ID, so as not to confer undeserved scientific legitimacy on intelligent design proponents who testified.

Backed by powerful conservatives and religious fundamentalists, right-wing think tanks like the Discovery Institute have been working to discredit evolution and change the definition of science. Unable to argue directly for the teaching of religious doctrines in schools, these activists have attached themselves to ID as a means to advance their agenda. While the ID movement does little more than point out unresolved questions in evolutionary theory without providing any viable science of its own, there has been growing support to “teach the controversy.” The recent ouster of eight incumbent ID proponents in the Dover, Pa. school board election shows that most people do not want religion taught in science class. But you can be sure that the creationists will continue this fight, so it’s important to understand just what it is they’re saying.

1. What is the Real Controversy?

Proponents of intelligent design argue that science, based as it is on natural explanations of phenomena, promotes materialism and atheism, undermining traditional religious beliefs. For years, neo-creationists have argued against evolutionary theory because of its conflicts with religious doctrine concerning the origin of life. Unable to make headway with creationism, they see ID as the vehicle to challenge materialist science. As the Discovery Institute’s Center for Renewal of Science and Culture stated in its infamous Wedge Strategy, “[the project] seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies… the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science… have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature.” In order to distance it from creationism, advocates of ID maintain, however transparently, that it is a scientific theory and not religion. The difference lies in the fact that ID is not materialist science, allowing for supernatural explanations for natural phenomena.

2. What is Intelligent Design?

Intelligent design states that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” Proponents of intelligent design argue that the so-called “random” working of natural selection, the underpinning of evolution, could not possibly produce the complicated and specific conditions necessary to sustain life or account for the development of increasingly complicated biological systems. While ID portrays shortcomings in scientific methodology as damning flaws of evolution, it fails to provide comparable evidence or theories. The theory does not explain the causal mechanisms of creation, save that they may be supernatural, and so cannot be tested. Unlike previous attempts by creationists to discredit Darwin, however, ID proponents have portrayed it as a secular theory by refusing to specify the intelligent designer.

3. Is Science Pitted Against Religion?

In a strange reversal of logic, the final report on intelligent design from Kansas’ State School Board argues that teaching only evolution is biased, because it “gives rise to implications that logically favor non-theistic religions and belief systems, and that are logically inconsistent with traditional theistic religions.” The report argues that materialist science is inherently biased against religion, and thus an objective curriculum requires teaching both ID and evolution. While science may undermine religious texts and reveal facts that contradict religious doctrine, science does not aim to usurp religion. Many great scientists, including Darwin himself, have been and continue to be believers. Science attempts to explain the world through natural causes, not to challenge individual faith. What undermines religion, rather, is the effort to make it into a competing scientific theory. Religion need not be concerned with empirical evidence, but should focus on faith, which requires no physical proof. We do not want theologians dictating our science any more than we want scientists dictating our religion.

4. Why Is Evolution a Scientific Theory and Why Is ID Not?

Rather than a criticism of evolution, ID is a critique of the scientific method, particularly the fact that no theory can be proven true—the problem of induction. Instead, theories are judged as more or less scientifically viable depending on how well they meet certain criteria, such as their predictive power, consistency with other established theories, and testability. Evolution is an extremely viable theory; it has been well tested, shown to have predictive power, is consistent with theories in geology, microbiology, paleontology and other sciences, and is extremely useful. ID fails to meet the majority of scientific criteria, because, among other reasons, it is not testable, useful, or supported by empirical evidence. The Kansas School Board, however, has found a way around this problem – they’ve redefined the definition of science so as to include non-natural explanations. As many scientists have pointed out, however, once the necessity of natural explanations is eliminated, almost any theory could be considered “scientific” (for example, the Flying Spaghetti Monster). Furthermore, ID proponents ignore the many examples of unintelligent design such as the non-functional wings of kiwi birds, superfluous eyes in cave animals and human metabolic pathways that are rendered useless by disabled enzymes. As the Vatican’s chief astronomer has said, “Intelligent design isn’t science even though it pretends to be” and should be taught in religion or cultural history class if at all. The debate between scientists and proponents of intelligent design is not a scientific controversy at all because ID does not meet the criteria of a scientific theory and it does not enjoy broad support among scientists.

5. How Did Our Theory of Evolution Evolve?

Neo-creationists argue that evolution is an undisputed doctrine, whose proponents jealously guard it from any competitors. In fact, the theory we call evolution – properly called Darwinian evolution – emerged as the most rigorous, accurate, and empirically supported from many different theories of evolution, such as Lamarckian evolution. Darwinian evolution has not gone unchallenged or untested, but has proven time and again through extensive peer review that it is a superbly refined theory and a pinnacle of scientific thought that leaves little doubt about its accuracy and profundity. During the 20th century, Darwinian evolution has been challenged by genetics, molecular biology, cellular biology, and a range of other fields, only to be found fundamental to each. Far from being blindly accepted conjecture, Darwinian evolution is the pinnacle of the scientific process – constantly put to the challenge posed by new data and consistently found to accurately describe the world around us.

6. Why Teaching ID Alongside Evolution Makes No Sense

Presuming for a moment that ID is a legitimate competing theory, it should be able to advance other areas of science, as evolution has done. There have been no ideas or hypotheses of ID that can be used to improve medicine, study biological systems, or improve agricultural practices. Why should it be taught in science classes with evolution, which has a decorated history of improving our knowledge of the world, when it has no usefulness? Evolution has helped scientists understand how certain viruses, such as the AIDS virus, can become resistant to treatment through natural selection, and demonstrates ways to counteract this evolution through the use of multiple drugs, different doses and the duration of the application. In the recent efforts to prepare for an avian flu pandemic, scientists have studied the evolution of the virus in birds and animals in order to understand how to create vaccines to prevent it. Cutting edge research—including the human genome project, stem cells and biotechnology—all require knowledge of evolution and biological systems. In fact, the very changes in the common flu every year are evidence of the mechanisms of evolution at work!If America’s healthcare system, economy and military are to compete in the 21st century, we need to have students trained in biology, and grounded in the fundamental theory of evolution.

7. Why We Need More Time for Actual Science in the Classroom, Not Less

While ID proponents argue we should teach the controversy, it is more important that we teach our children real science. Today, America’s students are performing extremely poorly in science; U.S. high school seniors score near the bottom of industrialized countries on international math and science tests. Furthermore, a recent report from the Pew Research Center finds that 42% of people do not believe that humans have evolved. This information is particularly troubling because the National Science Teachers Association states that “evolution is a major unifying concept in science and should be included in the K-12 science education frameworks and curricula. Furthermore, if evolution is not taught, students will not achieve the level of scientific literacy they need.” By dedicating resources to ID, which will not lead to scientific advances, we handicap our scientific and technological progress.

8. The Growing ID Movement

There have been numerous recent challenges to evolution by ID proponents. Besides the school board actions in Kansas and Pennsylvania, there are plans to attack evolution in at least six other states. The ID movement has also expanded beyond high schools and has infiltrated college campuses. While evolution is not vacating university science departments any time soon, the ID movement, with the extensive support of the Discovery Institute, has begun to spring up on campus colleges in a systematic manner. The Discovery Institute has been championing Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Clubs, which argue that ID should be taught on college campuses, and has created clubs at more than 30 colleges and high schools. But all this promotional activity is revealing; the “success” of ID has come as a result of brilliant marketing, not brilliant experiments. ID is marketing dressed up as science, and has produced no new explanations for natural phenomena. Despite all the evidence of its failings, ID is gaining ground, an unfortunate step backwards in our evolution as a society.

Jonathan Moreno, Ph.D., is a Professor of Biomedical Ethics and Director of the Center for Biomedical Ethics at the University of Virginia and a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress. He is the author of “Is There an Ethicist in the House?” (Indiana University Press, 2005), about the role of the bioethicist and various ethical issues from the bedside to public policy.

Jonas Singer graduated with the class of ‘04 from Washington University in St. Louis with degrees in philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience. He is currently pursuing his Master’s in Government from Johns Hopkins while working with the Center for American Progress.

Sam Berger graduated with the class of ‘05 from Swarthmore College with a degree in philosophy. He is currently a research assistant for the Progressive Bioethics Initiative at the Center for American Progress.