A religious foray into science
Intelligent design theory is now taught alongside evolution in science lessons. Bob Higson considers the implications of allowing religion into scientific theory
Evolution and Creationism have long been pitted against one another, crudely categorised as science battling against faith or simply ‘God vs Science’. The issue is a source of contention, particularly with regards to what should be taught in schools. Does Creationism belong in the religious studies classroom or in the science lab alongside the theory of evolution by natural selection?
For some, the two being taught in schools is not a problem, rather, they are competing theories to be explained alongside one another. There is, however, an increasingly vocal argument that evolution should not be taught to children in schools as ‘fact’, but as one possible theory amongst others, such as intelligent design. Opponents feel that teaching intelligent design as ’science’ lends it undue credibility, believing that the theories are nothing more than indoctrinating pseudoscience.
Intelligent design theories have been a source of both controversy and increasing popularity of late. They are theories that President Bush thinks should be taught in schools, yet that the Archbishop of Canterbury feels shouldn’t be. Though modern conceptions of the argument stem from the 1980s, the theories have stretched over millennia: from Plato, through Aquinas and Paley (author of the watchmaker theory).
Proponents of intelligent design maintain that life on Earth is too complex to have evolved randomly. Natural systems, it is argued, display characteristics that cannot be attributable to natural order and evolution. Scientists behind the anti-evolution movement cite a number of specific examples, including the vertebrate blood clotting cascade, the immune system, the cilium, and most notably, the bacterial flagellum.
Intelligent design does not necessarily imply a Creator in the traditional theistic sense, but merely that one, or more, must exist. Furthermore, they point to the fact that ‘evolution is only a theory’ and should be valued as nothing more. However, intelligent design is branded by its harsher opponents as blatant neo-Creationism circumventing evolutionary biology, in order to lend scientific kudos to pre-held religious beliefs.
A negative argument against evolution is not a default argument in favour of intelligent design
But describing evolution as being ‘only a theory’ undermines the scientific usage of the term. As Dr. Paul Elliott, postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Chemistry at York explains, ‘evolution is both a fact and a theory, just as gravity is both a fact (you are pulled down to the floor) and a theory (explained by Einstein by the mass of the Earth warping space-time in the theory of general relativity)’ he offers. ‘The facts of evolution are that we can observe it happening with a great many examples of speciation by natural selection having been observed both in the lab and in the wild. The fossil record shows that fossils of a given species are only ever found within specific bands of rock, none are found out of place, suggesting they were in existence for a finite period of time. Further, for several groups of species, sequential lineages can be seen where one species follows the disappearance of and precedes the appearance of related species.’
‘Discarding evolution’ was the topic of a recent lecture held on campus. Entitled ‘The theory of evolution proved false,’ it attempted to prove the impossibility of evolution, using disputed claims and contentious sources that were challenged by many in attendance.
To some students the lecture itself bordered on the farcical. Albi Furlan - who describes himself as a committed atheist - viewed the event disparagingly. “When challenged with contrary facts, the lecturer tried to avoid confrontation: Even people I sat near who had various different beliefs - agnostic, Christian and atheist - felt embarrassed,” he says.
Literature handed out at the lecture, with copyright owned by the ministry of Creation Science Foundation Ltd., included such propaganda as, “Atheism kills, because without God there are no rules - anything goes! Atheists are at the forefront of efforts to legitimize euthanasia, abortion, drug-taking, prostitution, pornography and promiscuity. All these things cause misery, suffering and death. Atheism is the philosophy of death.”
So is there any scientific validity to intelligent design theories? “Intelligent design and the argument from design are not theories, they are opinions at best,” says Dr. Elliott. “They are based on no evidence, merely an argument from personal incredulity and, as such, are not science. Intelligent design arguments basically rest on the notion that life is complex and therefore has to have been designed, i.e. ‘I personally don’t understand how this could happen therefore it can’t', which as you can see is hardly scientific; Not one argument in favour of intelligent design has ever been made, only negative arguments against evolution. A negative argument against evolution is not a default argument in favour of design.”
Just recently, the exam board OCR announced its new GCSE biology syllabus, including the debate on Creationism and intelligent design. Critics argue, however, that it should only be discussed in lessons on religion, as teaching Creationist theories in science lessons affords them unwarranted plausibility.
Supporters of such theories in America were dealt a heavy blow in December when, in the case of Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District, courts ruled that intelligent design should not be taught in schools as it was essentially “Creationism re-labelled.” The trial included testimony from both sides and from experts on philosophy, Creationism and evolutionary biology. Summarising the verdict, the judge stated that, “the intelligent design argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution.” Accusations of a lack of judicial objectivity were easily overcome, the judge having been appointed by President Bush, a lifelong church-goer himself. As Dr. Elliott puts it, “on the public stage with the world press watching and given the opportunity to justify itself as science, intelligent design found itself utterly devastated by the weight of evidence against its claims.”
But must evolution and Creationism be seen as necessarily contradictory? Perhaps evolution can be viewed as God’s ‘guiding hand’ after his original Creation? “There is no suggestion of a guiding hand and so no justification for suggesting that there is one involved”, says Dr. Elliott.
“The theory of evolution explains many things just fine without the need to invoke God. To include God in science, He must be observable and testable. Since He is not, by the definition of ‘being supernatural’, it is not by choice but by necessity that the notion of God is excluded.”
There are those who feel that by even confronting arguments from those practicing intelligent design and those that dismiss the science behind evolution, Creationist theories are being given a platform that they do not deserve, elevating their respectability and plausibility.
Others feel that Creationism is an issue to be confronted head on: only by exposing its faults will it wither away. Still, the issue remains contentious: by engaging in debate are we breathing respectability into a position that should be marginalised, or acknowledging the lack of certainty that we have over how the world came to be?
Belief in a six-day Creation, Adam and Eve and the story of Genesis has been disputed by scientists of many faiths for years. Need we therefore worry about elevating theories of Creationism and intelligent design? Given a recent BBC Horizon poll which showed more than 40% of those surveyed believe that alternative theories to evolution - such as Creationism and intelligent design - should be taught in science lessons, the answer is probably yes. In truth, it is an issue that comes down to faith, not science. Indeed, many scientist opponents of intelligent design have been devoutly religious, drawn from all Christian denominations. But, religious beliefs aside, to put God into the equation because of a lack of certainty does an incredible disservice to science; science is observable and testable; God, by definition, is not.
