INTELLIGENT DESIGN SHOULD BE TAUGHT IN BIOLOGY CLASSES
By O. R. Adams Jr.
Ó
O. R. Adams Jr., 2006
Intelligent Design should be taught in biology classes and in all other classes where evolution is taught. That is because it is a study of facts of nature as is the study of Darwinian Evolution. They should be studied together because it would help students get to the truth about the development of plant and animal life.
In this paper, I will submit material supporting this argument. I will also be criticizing the article, "Accepting 'intelligent design' in science classrooms would have disastrous consequences," warn Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne, published in The Guardian, September 1, 2005. (I will refer to this article as D&C).
First, I would like to point out that the D&C article failed to even admit that Dawkins himself had previously quite publicly recognized that things in nature studied in biology have the "appearance" of having been designed for a purpose. (The reference for this will be given below in material from the Teleological article.) This in itself shows a recognition of the evidence of intelligent design in nature. I will also show in detail that a number of other things were not fairly presented in the D&C article.
(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments) A discussion of this article follows.
----------------------------------------
Although this article forms the argument on the side of design as an argument for the existence of God, with which I disagree, it contains a fair presentation of the arguments on both sides.
The following are some excerpts:
Some phenomena
within nature exhibit such exquisiteness of structure, function or
interconnectedness that many people have found it natural - if not inescapable -
to see a deliberative and directive mind behind those phenomena. The mind in
question, being prior to nature itself, is typically taken to be supernatural.
…
Although
enjoying some prominent defenders over the centuries, such arguments have also
attracted serious criticisms from a number of major historical and contemporary
thinkers. Both critics and advocates are found not only among philosophers, but
come from scientific and other disciplines as well. In the following discussion,
major variant forms of teleological arguments will be distinguished and
explored, traditional philosophical and other criticisms will be discussed, and
the most prominent contemporary turns (cosmic fine tuning arguments, many-worlds
theories, and the present Intelligent Design debate) will be tracked. Discussion
will concluded with a brief look at one historically important non-inferential
approach to the issue. ***
… there is precisely
the same proof that the eye was made for vision as there is that the
telescope was made for assisting it. (Paley 1802 [1963] 13)[6]
***
… Richard
Dawkins characterized biology as:
Day-to-day
contemporary biology is rife with terms like ‘design’, ‘machine’,
‘purpose’ and allied terms. And that is not just arbitrary convention, but
may be virtually inescapable. Indeed, Kant, although a critic of design
arguments, saw design as a regulative principle of science—that is, a
principle which, whether true or not, science could not operate without. As
historian of science Timothy Lenoir has remarked:
Teleological
thinking has been steadfastly resisted by modern biology. And yet, in nearly
every area of research biologists are hard pressed to find language that does
not impute purposiveness to living forms. (Lenoir 1982, ix)
Whether or not
particular biological phenomena are designed, they are frequently enough design-like
to make design language (resisted or not) not only fit living systems
extraordinarily well, but to undergird generation of fruitful theoretical
conceptions as well.[10]
(Advocates of design arguments claim that the reason why theorizing as if
organisms are designed meets with such success is that organisms are in fact
designed.) ***
… For
instance, if just bare complexity is cited, then although complexity is in many
respects easily demonstrable, that complexity does not just uncontroversially
speak of intent. On the other hand, although the exhibiting of genuine purpose
and value might constitute persuasive and even compelling evidence of a
designer, establishing that the empirical characteristics in question really do
betoken genuine purpose and value—and not just, say, functionality—seems to
many to be difficult if not impossible. ***
… Some
advocates see design arguments as inferences to the best explanation, taking
design explanations—whatever their weaknesses—as prima facie superior
to chance, necessity, chance-driven evolution, or whatever.[15]
***
Historically,
design cases were widely understood to allow for indirect intelligent
agent design and causation, the very causal structures producing the relevant
phenomena being themselves deliberately designed for the purpose of producing
those phenomena. … Paley himself, the authors of the Bridgewater
Treatises and others (including even Augustine, earlier) were explicitly
clear that whether or not something was designed was an issue largely separable
from the means of production in question. Historically it was insisted that
design in nature did track back eventually to intelligent agency somewhere
and that any design we find in nature would not—and could not—have been
there had there ultimately been no mind involved. But commentators at least from
the early 17th century on (e.g., Francis Bacon, Robert Boyle) very clearly
distinguished the creative initiating of nature itself from interventions within
the path of nature once initiated. ***
In fact, a
decided preference for design cases not involving gaps and
supernatural intervention was common long before Darwin. A quarter century prior
to the Origin, Charles Babbage expressed a typical position:
We cannot for a
moment hesitate in pronouncing that that which, after its original adjustment,
no superintendence was required, displayed far greater ingenuity than that which
demanded, at every change in its law, the intervention of its contriver.
(Babbage 1838, 40)
Boyle had
expressed the same idea as far back as the 1680s, and Whewell and others
expressed related sentiments in the 1830s.[23]
This popular conception was neatly summarized by Mother Cary in Charles
Kingsley's Water Babies:
[A]nyone can
make things, if they will take time and trouble enough, but it is not everyone
who, like me, can make things make themselves (Kingsley 1890, 273)
Indeed, even
Darwin himself endorsed this view—a relevant quote from Whewell appears in the
frontispiece of the Origin itself (Darwin 1859 [1966], ii)[24]
—and he expressed related sentiments in his own words both in his pre-Origin
notebooks and in his personal correspondence even after publication of
the Origin.[25]
This sort of pre-Darwin move (relocating design from intervention back one level
to created laws and deliberately chosen initial conditions) was thus obviously
not just a forced retreat from Darwin, as frequently claimed.[26]
***
The focus must
now become whether or not the laws and conditions required for the indirect
production of life, intelligent life, etc., could themselves be independent of
intention, design and mind at some deep (perhaps primordial, pre-cosmic) point.
In recent decades, exactly that question has arisen increasingly insistently
from within the scientific community. ***
It was
recognized centuries back that conditions necessary for the flourishing of life
were fairly tightly constrained (making the move to design in natural conditions
and laws inherently attractive), but not until quite recent times has it been
revealed through science itself just how wildly tight the constraints actually
are, and just how many separate things have to converge, each within a miniscule
value interval. For instance, here are two examples taken from Robin Collins:
1. If the
initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by as little as one
part in 1060, the universe would have either quickly collapsed back
on itself, or expanded too rapidly for stars to form. In either case, life would
be impossible. (As John Jefferson Davis points out, an accuracy of one part in
1060 can be compared to firing a bullet at a one-inch target on the
other side of the observable universe, twenty billion light years away, and
hitting the target.)
…
3. Calculations
by Brandon Carter show that if gravity had been stronger or weaker by one part
in 1040, then life-sustaining stars like the sun could not exist.
This would most likely make life impossible. (Collins 1999, 49.)[28]
***
A high-profile
development in design arguments over the past decade or so involves what has
come to be known as the “Intelligent Design” (ID) movement. Although there
are variants and unclarities, the movement involves efforts to construct design
arguments taking cognizance of various contemporary scientific developments
(primarily in biology, biochemistry, mathematics and cosmology)—developments
which, as most ID advocates see it, both reveal the inadequacy of mainstream
(naturalistic Darwinian) explanatory accounts and offer compelling evidence for
design in nature at some level. ***
The movement has
elicited vociferous criticism and opposition. Opponents have pressed a number of
objections against ID including, inter alia contentions that ID advocates
have simply gotten the relevant science wrong, that even where the science is
right the empirical evidences cited by design advocates do not, in fact,
constitute substantive grounds for design conclusions, that the existence of
demonstrably superior alternative explanations for the phenomena cited
(Darwinian, many-universes, etc.) undercuts the cogency of ID cases, and that
design theories are not legitimate science, but are just disguised
creationism, God-of-the-gaps arguments, religiously motivated, etc.
I will not
pursue that dispute here except to note that even if the case is made that ID
arguments could not count as proper science (and arguments for that more general
claim are controversial[34]),
that would not in itself demonstrate some deeper rational or inferential defect
in design arguments as such. Science need not be seen as exhausting the space of
legitimate conclusions from empirical data.
But the floods
of vitriol in the current ID discussion suggest that much more than the
propriety of selected inferences from particular empirical evidences is at
issue. Although there is indeed much more that energizes the squabble on both
sides (political, cultural, philosophical and, in some instances, religious)
there is one further aspect of the ID attempt which ties in here, but which is
also relevant to one final larger question. ***
A number of
prominent figures historically in fact held that we could determine more or less
perceptually that various things in nature were candidates for design
attributions—that they were in the requisite
respects design-like. Some held that we could perceptually identify some
things as more than mere candidates for design. For instance, according to
William Whewell:
When we collect
design and purpose from the arrangements of the universe, we do not arrive at
our conclusion by a train of deductive reasoning, but by the conviction which
such combinations as we perceive, immediately and directly impress upon the
mind. ‘Design must have a designer.’ But such a principle can be of no avail
to one whom the contemplation or the description of the world does not impress
with the perception of design. It is not therefore at the end but at the
beginning of our syllogism, not among remote conclusions, but among original
principles, that we must place the truth, that such arrangements,
manifestations, and proceedings as we behold about us imply a Being endowed with
consciousness, design, and will, from whom they proceed. (Whewell 1834, 344)
The world, says
Whewell, impresses us with a perception of design. Thomas Reid also held
a view in this region,[36]
and Hume's Cleanthes made suggestions in this direction.[37]
If something
like that were the operative process, then the ID movement, in trying to forge a
scientific link to design in the sense of inferences from empirically
determined evidences would be misconstructing the actual basis for design
belief, as would be design arguments more generally. It is perhaps telling, in
this regard, that scientific theorizing typically involves substantial
creativity and that the resultant theories are typically novel and unexpected.
Design intuitions, however, do not seem to emerge as novel construals from
creative grappling with data, but are embedded in our thinking nearly
naturally—so much so that, again, Crick thinks that biologists have to be
immunized against it. Indeed, design structures seem to be part of the very
fabric of science itself. According to physicist Paul Davies
Science began as
an outgrowth of theology, and all scientists, whether atheists or theists …
accept an essentially theological worldview. (Davies 1995, 138)
All of that
suggests to some that we are dealing with a different category of belief
formation and acquisition. And it also suggests that design thinking may be
natural to our sorts of intellects.
Perception and
appreciation of the incredible intricacy and the beauty of things in
nature—whether biological or cosmic—has certainly inclined many toward
thoughts of purpose and design in nature, and has constituted important moments
of affirmation for those who already accept design positions. The status of the
corresponding arguments of course, is not only a matter of current
dispute, but the temperature of the dispute seems to be on the rise. And
regardless of what one thinks of the arguments at this point, so long as nature
has the power to move us (as even Kant admitted that the ‘starry heavens
above’ did), design convictions and arguments are unlikely to disappear
quietly.
---------------------------------------------
The above
article shows that over the centuries great philosophers and scientists have
recognized intelligent design in nature, just as Einstein did, and it is even
more so now.
Getting back
to the D&C article. I think the statement in the title that teaching
intelligent design in science classrooms would have "disastrous
results" is certainly true. If it were taught along with other valid
criticisms of Darwinian evolution, it would relegate all of the unsupported
speculation that is now taught as fact to the dust heap and the trash can where
it belongs. It would restore the quest for truth in science to the classroom.
It is not a quest for truth when reasonable inferences drawn from well supported facts are barred from discussion. My comments on the D&C article are:
They state:
" It is simply creationism camouflaged
with a new name ... ." This is false, and they know it. In my 2006 paper , "Evidence of Intelligent Design in Nature,"
I explain the reproduction designs of certain plants and animals. No one can
deny that reasonable inferences of intelligent design can be drawn from those
undisputed facts of nature. It is my opinion that the evidence supporting the
conclusion is overwhelming.
If the
evolutionists claim that the appearance of intelligent design is merely an
illusion, and that it was actually brought about some way by natural selection,
then they should present evidence to back up their mere speculative statements.
All of the available evidence points to design. Also, with the plants,
for example, there are elements working in harmony with the design of the plants
themselves, such as animals, wind, lightning and rain, that have no connection
with the plants themselves. I do not believe that evidence can be presented that
would show that the design for the reproduction was brought about by natural
selection or any thing else without intelligence behind it.
Also of great importance is the fact that the evolutionists have to know that their claim " it is simply creationism camouflaged with a new name" is patently false. Evidence of intelligent design is not evidence of who the designer was or how many designers there may have been. Whereas, "creationism" implies biblical creation by God. This is something that must be accepted on Faith, and can neither be proved nor disproved.