|
Intelligent Design:
A Renewed Attack on Science
by Don Monjure & Mark Ostapiak / December 2005 issue of
Socialist Action newspaper
The
heated national debate between so-called intelligent design and Charles
Darwin’s theory of evolution has been spotlighted during the recent six-week
trial in a Pennsylvania federal court concerning the legality of actions by
the Dover, Pa., school board. The trial’s final arguments were delivered on
Nov. 4.
A
required statement, read in Dover’s ninth-grade science classes, sparked a
lawsuit naming the school board. The statement questioned the scientific
theory of evolution and argued that "[i]ntelligent design is an
explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view." It
also referred students to the school library copies of "Of Pandas and
People," a book challenging Darwin’s theories.
The suit was filed in December 2004 by 11
parents contending that intelligent design was repackaged "creation
science"—the view that a supernatural being created humankind, as it
is written in the Bible—and maintained that the board was imposing its
religious views on students.
Stephen
S. Russell, the Dover school board’s lawyer, delivered a memorandum to his
clients reminding them of their "lengthy public record of advocating
‘putting religion back in the schools,’" according to the Nov. 4 New
York Times.
However,
the contentious issue is not likely to be resolved even after the judge
weighs in, which is expected sometime in January. For example, 20 states have
proposals at various levels of government that are hostile to teaching
evolution.
The
Kansas state school board recently approved new high school science standards
that admit religious and supernatural explanations as a component part of
the scientific method. These explanations degrade scientific inquiry in
that, rather than attributing natural phenomena to processes that are
subject to observation and verification, they are simply
explained
away as having come from an "intelligence."
Voters
in Dover rejected such obscurantist sentiment in a Nov. 8 election in which
eight proponents of teaching evolution in science classes replaced all eight
pro-intelligent-design school-board members. Jill Reiter, joining a rally of high school students supporting
the new board members, explained in an AP dispatch, "My kids believe
in God. I believe in God.
But
I don’t think it belongs in the science curriculum the way the school
district is presenting it."
A
1987 Supreme Court decision, Edwards v. Aguillard, found that the teaching
of creation science in public schools violated the Establishment Clause of
the First Amendment "because it lacks a clear secular
purpose." For many proponents
of creation science, this marked the death-knell of overt religious terminology
and the transformation of creation science into so-called intelligent
design.
For
example, the primary creation science textbook, "Of Pandas and People,"
used variants of the word "creation" in earlier editions. Shortly
after the 1987 Supreme Court ruling, a new addition of the same book included
variants on the term "intelligent design," which crudely replaced
references to creationism. Accordingly,
Biblical literalism is more and more
becoming
an outmoded alternative to evolution.
Personalities
like William Jennings Bryan, famous for fire-and-brimstone explanations of
the earth’s origins in the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, have been swept aside.
Sophisticates like Michael Behe and Phillip E. Johnson have replaced them.
These
two leading opponents of Darwinian theory argue for intelligent design and
have doctorate degrees, credentials that for many lend creditability to a concept
that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community considers
pseudo-science.
A
change in form only Despite its relatively sophisticated new spokespeople, the
intelligent design movement maintains the long-held fundamental disdain
that reactionary forces have had for science. History has many examples in which
authoritative bodies embraced such views. The Catholic Church burned
Giordano Bruno at the stake in 1600 for concluding that the stars are suns.
Galileo was put on "trial" in 1633 for stating the Copernican view
that the Earth revolves around the sun.
Michael
Behe, author of "Darwin’s Black Box," invokes his concept of
"irreducible complexity" as a justification for believing in
intelligent design. He uses the mousetrap as an example of an irreducibly complex
system. The mousetrap consists of five pieces that must all be present for
it to work. If any piece is
missing, it can’t catch mice. Therefore, it’s not a
mousetrap.
He
argues that the "trap" could not be the result of successive
modifications, as held by the theory of evolution. Rather, it had to spring
into existence, already complete, without evolving. According to Behe, "natural
selection can only choose among systems that are already working," and
therefore must have been designed.
Behe
also asserts that certain biological systems are irreducibly complex. As
examples, he points to flagella (organs that some bacteria use for propulsion)
and the "exquisitely coordinated mechanism that causes blood to
clot." Thus, if any of the biochemical parts are missing or their
function is not timed properly then these processes will not work.
Are these claims backed up by science?
Take the mousetrap example. Kenneth R. Miller, professor of biology at
Brown University, points out that if parts of the mousetrap are removed,
what’s left is not a mousetrap, but parts remain that are still functional:
a catch that’s a fish hook, a spring that’s a keychain, etc. Thus, Behe’s
position that the pieces
of
biological systems must spring into existence assembled in their final form
before they can perform a useful function is scientifically wrong.
Then
there’s the flagella. Behe points out that certain parts of the flagellum
cannot function
separate
from related parts. However, scientists have observed that these parts can
function alone and are used by many bacteria to inject poison into other cells.
Miller notes that although this is a different function, "it nonetheless
can be favored by natural selection."
The
proteins used to clot blood indicate a similar pattern of modification and
adaptation to a different system. Russell Doolittle, professor of biochemistry
at UCSD, has shown how proteins in the digestive system have been modified
by evolution to produce the blood clotting system.
Another
standard argument that one hears from supporters of intelligent design is
that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. The second law
states that there is a tendency for complexity to decrease. So, they ask,
how can evolution produce complex biological systems from primitive
ones? But this is a misapplication
of the second law since
it
only applies to closed systems, and biological systems are open systems—i.e.,
systems that allow for energy and matter to flow in or out.
Science or politics?
Is
the push for intelligent design motivated by a desire to further the
scientific search for truth or is it a political movement whose aim is to
weaken the scientific approach? Some of the methods and statements made by
its leading proponents would indicate the latter.
Phillip
E. Johnson’s book, "Darwin on Trial," acted as a catalyst in the creation
of what is now called the Center for Science and Culture—which is sponsored
by the Discovery Institute, a right-wing think tank. The CSC declared its
goal in an early mission statement:
"Nothing
less than the overthrow of materialism and its damning cultural legacies."
Johnson refers to the strategy of the CSC as the Wedge, whose aim is to
free science from the influence of "atheistic naturalism."
Intelligent
design advocates have published an article in only one peer-reviewed
journal (the August 2005 issue of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington),
which offered tenuous empirical data to support their claims. According to
Johnson, "this isn’t really, and never has been, a debate about science.
It’s about religion and philosophy."
Politically,
the CSC has a strong public-relations program that seeks alliances with
conservative Christians and influential politicians.
Jonathan
Wells, a biologist and CSC fellow, has stated that he earned his Ph.D.s in
religious studies and biology in order "to devote my life to
destroying Darwinism." Clearly, the interests of the intelligent design
movement are political and not scientific.
The
continued efforts of the intelligent design movement to gain a foothold in
society coincides with recent remarks by Pat Robertson, one of the most reactionary
mouthpieces of the capitalist class.
During a Nov. 10 "700 Club" TV broadcast, the multimillionaire
preacher lashed out at the newly elected pro-evolution school board in
Dover, Pa. Robertson warned Dover residents, "You just voted God out
of your city."
Such
irrational sentiments have recently manifested themselves in thuggery. On
Dec. 5, two religious zealots beat University of Kansas Professor Paul Mirecki,
while making hostile references to the class he had planned to offer
titled, “Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent design, Creationism, and
other Religious Mythologies.”
The
U.S. ruling class is divided on the issue of whether and to what degree
reactionary ideology should be allowed to impinge on scientific thought.
For example, while The New York Times and other major papers have generally
expressed themselves against the
teaching
of intelligent design, The Wall Street Journal printed an editorial earlier
in the year that was for it.
Many
capitalists in the United States realize that education cannot neglect
scientific progress if U.S. corporations are to stand up to the rapidly
advancing technology of their competitors abroad.
Frederick
Engels, co-founder of scientific socialism with Karl Marx, declared that
Darwinism gave us a dynamic view of nature in which "all rigidity was dissolved,
all fixity dissipated."
Darwinism
is both dialectical and materialist, showing that animal and plant species,
through natural selection, can undergo changes in accord with changes in
the environment, and that those unable to adapt themselves sufficiently can
die out and be superceded by species more suited to the new conditions.
This was accepted by Marx and Engels as "the basis in natural history
for our view.”
Just
as Marx explained how economic and class forces motivate change in society,
Darwin gave us a scientific and dialectical understanding of nature that
must be defended if we are "not to merely interpret the world but to
change it."
|
