The False Dichotomy of Evolution versus Intelligent Design

College honors courses provide an opportunity to tackle controversial topics in an atmos- phere that encourages active learning, critical thinking, and open discussion. This venue is particularly appropriate for examining the debate about teaching intelligent design (ID) in public school science classes. A one-credit honors enrichment seminar taught at the University of North Carolina Wilmington provides a model, with associated successes and challenges, for addressing the controversy. This interdisciplinary course consisted primarily of discussions based on a set of weekly readings that presented contrasting viewpoints on evolution and naturalism, ID, theology, and educational issues. In prepara- tion for each class, students constructed charts contrasting the views of each writer on key points presented in the readings and summarizing their own responses. Discussion focused on a set of questions arising from the readings and designed to provoke debate. The Kitzmiller v. Dover deci...

Science Education, 2006

The social movement known as creationism has had a long history and a variety of manifestations through time. To understand it takes considerable study" (p. 135). So states the author in part three of this book. After reading this volume I could not agree more. Let me say at the outset that this is quite an extraordinary book, and one I predict is destined to become a classic. Eugenie Scott brings to bear her encyclopedic knowledge of the history of the conflict, passion for the subject, and deep understanding of the legal framework tempered by her long involvement as Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education. This work provides a well-balanced synthesis of the complexities of science, religion, jurisprudence, and education as they pertain to understanding the continuing dichotomy between evolution and creationism. Perhaps its greatest strength, however, is that all this information is so expertly brought together under one cover. Scott has made a concerted effort to write for an audience that includes "bright high school students and college undergraduates" (p. xvii). The book is organized into three main sections: Science, Evolution, Religion, and Creationism; A History of the Creationism/Evolution Controversy; and Selections From the Literature. In the third section, readers will find a plethora of information, including primary scientific literature, important legal opinions, legislative bills, committee reports, and obscure historical documents. Most of these selections are well chosen and provide the reader with a rich perspective of the ongoing debate. Unfortunately, many articles from the creationist literature were not included because permission to publish them was refused. Scott does her best to summarize those articles she considers important and encourages readers to explore them in their entirety. True to the spirit of the book, the final section contains an impressive and perhaps unparalleled collection of references for further exploration. In the Introduction, the author erects "three pillars of creationism" under which is claimed all arguments should fall: evolutionary theory is flawed, evolution and religion are incompatible, and fairness to both sides. As the book unfolds, all arguments do indeed appear to fall into one of these three categories. With Scott's scientific background, it is not perhaps surprising that the strongest sections are those which elaborate on the nature of science, evolutionary theory (chapters 1 and 2), and biological patterns and processes (chapter 8), although these are not without fault. The section that elaborates the principals of biological evolution is, in general, extremely well done and puts to rest any suggestion that "evolutionary theory is flawed." While the example illustrating natural selection using rabbits and myxomatosis is well presented, it should be pointed out that rabbits are not in fact rodents, but lagomorphs. Some other minor but important concerns include the correct use of terminology. A very important

The theories of Darwinian evolution and Intelligent Design appear to be locked in an intractable debate, partly because they offer rival scientific explanations for the phenomenon of descent with modification in biology. This paper analyses the dispute in two ways: firstly, it seeks to clarify the exact nature of the logical flaw that has been alleged to lie at the heart of Intelligent Design theory. Secondly, it proposes that, in spite of this error, the Intelligent Design theory advocated by Michael Behe takes at least one significant step in the right direction. Although Behe’s suggestion is promising, it is shown to be not nearly radical enough.

South African Journal of Science, 2007

I NTELLIGENT DESIGN, THE NEW INCARNATION of creationism, is appearing in schools and universities across the world. The stock response by scientists seems to be: 'It is not science'. What proponents of intelligent design and irreducible complexity have managed to do, however, is introduce enough of the scientific method into their arguments to make this stock response untenable. We argue that, in South Africa, students of biology are conflicted and confused over this issue and the reconciliation of their religious and scientific beliefs, and therefore need to learn about it in such a way that they are fully cognisant of what science and the scientific method is. In this way they can fully understand the weaknesses of the intelligent design position from a scientific point of view.

The Microscope 61 (1): 25–34, 2013.

"Many Americans claim to believe in intelligent design, and insist that life was created rather than evolving. What can science say on the subject? And what will the microscope say about the way life originated? This column examines the realities of life and shows that, rather than being shaped by an intelligent influence, life is poorly designed. Some of the most basic aspects of cellular metabolism are flawed and inefficient. The rules of anatomy are regularly flouted and we humans, in particular, are full of flaws that make us prone to disease and even death. God is not only an unnecessary influence when we consider how life originated, but clearly could not have been involved. Religions have many interpretations of God, but none of them claims that their own deity is an idiot. Yet only a fool could design life the way it is. Had we been created, we'd be in far better shape."

Evolutionary Biology-new York, 2010

The popular defense of intelligent design/creationism (ID) theories, as well as theories in evolutionary biology, especially from the perspective that both are worthy of scientific consideration, is that empirical evidence has been presented that supports both. Both schools of thought have had a tendency to rely on the same class of evidence, namely, the observations of organisms that are in

Zygon, 2008

Four arguments are examined in order to assess the state of the Intelligent Design debate. First, critics continually cite the fact that ID proponents have religious motivations. When used as criticism of ID arguments, this is an obvious ad hominem. Nonetheless, philosophers and scientists alike continue to wield such arguments for their rhetorical value. Second, in his expert testimony in the Dover trial, philosopher Robert Pennock used repudiated claims in order to brand ID as a kind of pseudoscience. His arguments hinge on the nature of methodological naturalism as a metatheoretic shaping principle. We examine the use of such principles in science and the history of science. Special attention is given to the demarcation problem. Third, the scientific merits of ID are examined. Critics rightly demand more than promissory notes for ID to move beyond the fringe. Fourth, although methodological naturalism gets a lot of attention, there is another shaping principle to contend with, namely, conservatism. Science, like most disciplines, tends to change in an incremental rather than revolutionary manner. When ID is compared to other non- or quasi-Darwinian proposals, it appears to be a more radical solution than is needed in the face of the anomalies.

Science Education, 2010

2011

Biology is a young science, and it cannot discern Truth. However, in its attempts to explain the world's biodiversity, it has gathered evidence for a remarkable theory of change, called evolution. This theory of organic change has been tested numerous times, and it has survived each challenge. Currently, a challenge is being made by Intelligent Design, a set of ideas that is not science, but which frequently masquerades as such. The Church, and indeed any intelligent person, should be highly suspicious of the claims of Intelligent Design. First, the proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) do not present a counter-theory to evolution. Second, they celebrate ignorance rather than knowledge. Third, proponents of!ntelligent Design ofren base their criticisms of evolutionary theory on assumptions or models that scientists have already disproved or abandoned (but which might sound reasonable to a person who has not been trained in science). And fourth, the rheological argument from design is limited to proving the existence of a skillful mechanic, and not a God of mercy or judgment.