Evolution, Intelligent Design & Origins

Evolution, Intelligent Design, and the Question of Origins

In early Spring 2005, I began an active discussion of the topic of evolution with colleagues in the UGA Christian Faculty Forum. This group, a faculty Christian organization, is a non-denominational organization for faculty, staff, and graduate students, as well as adjunct professionals affiliated with UGA. A few CFF members completely deny evolution as a phenomenon, another subset "mostly" reject it, while another subset is undecided. A few of us in the CFF are firmly in agreement with the scientific claims of evolutionary biology. This combination has provided grist for some vigorous discussions! After some months, the discussion diminished, but my interest in discovering some of the facts amidst lots of hyperbole only increased.
The above discussion resulted in my getting invited to make an evolution-oriented presentation to the Georgia Tech CFF, and participating in a Feb. 2007 public debate here at UGA with Dr. Paul Nelson, a leading advocate of Intelligent Design. The Powerpoint slides from the February 2007 debate, are here; the literature citations are available here. Our dialogue was on the theme of "Intelligent Design as a Theory of Origins: Pro and Con". My position is staunchly in the "con" side -- Intelligent Design is not science, it has no foundational theory, exceedingly few publications in peer-reviewed journals, no research program, and its major spokesmen make claims that are either grossly incorrect, out of date, or misleading.
Also, there are quite a few Christian authors who attempt to argue against evolution; many of these claims are much more poorly articulated than those of the "core" ID proponents. As a result of attempting to find out the evidential basis for claims on both sides, I have assembled this web page. I will examine the claims and writings of the Intelligent Desgin movement, as well as several (mostly) non-ID anti-evolution books, to expose their misleading, incorrect, and insulting claims.

What is science?

What is Intelligent Design?

Anti-evolution writing outside of the ID movement.

Predictive hypotheses

Fine-scale (Species-species transitions) in the fossil record

Coarse-scale (among-group transitions) in the fossil record

Walking to Atlanta

Genetics of Morphological Change

Increasing Genetic Information

How we define science

There have been a great many attempts to define science, none of which has been entirely satisfying to all parties. However, the common thread running through most of these definitions is the idea that in order for something to be considered "science", it must be possible for researchers to use that topic or idea to generate testable, or predictive hypotheses. This is a crucial point that must be remembered in discussing whether we can consider Intelligent Design to be science: if ID cannot generate testable or predictive hypotheses, then it is not science. Of course, it would be easy to manufacture trivial or ad-hoc hypotheses from any viewpoint; these are of no importance whatsoever, because they have no content. For more detail on generation of predictions and hypotheses in science, go here.

Another measure of the value of a concept or theory in science is the ability of that concept or theory to "make sense of" or explain a variety of patterns seen in nature. Thus the idea that Earth orbits the sun, and the moon orbits Earth, makes sense of the occasional lunar eclipse; the earlier concept that the Sun and moon both orbit Earth could not explain a lunar eclipse. Therefore, lunar eclipses offer support for the heliocentric model and do not support the geocentric model. Many patterns and processes of nature are readily understood if organisms evolve from ancestral precursors via descent with modification; these same patterns are not readily explained by alternatives such as Intelligent Design. This approach to validating scientific concepts and theories is called the inference to the best explanation. In fact, it has -- correctly! -- been pointed to by ID proponents as a way to justify the Intelligent Design ideas, although it typically does not work for that purpose. Further discussion of this aspect of science, and why it works for evolutionary thought but not for ID, is here.

An important additional point is that science must seek only for natural explanations of nature. Ultimately, science is neutral regarding the operation or existence of supernatural entities or agents; it must restrict itself to considering only natural causes of the phenomena seen in nature. Thus while a ring of mushrooms might show up in my lawn because some gnomes or fairies danced there last night while I was sleeping, science cannot consider such non-natural explanations, and must content itself with asking if there is some belowground fungal material that picked today to send up mushrooms in my lawn. Similarly, if current scientific knowledge does not have a ready explanation for the origin of a molecular machine, for example, it is inappropriate to fill that knowledge gap by filling it with a supernatural cause.

Intelligent Design

Intelligent Design is a recent movement that began to coalesce in the early 1990s around Phillip Johnson, a recently retired law professor from University of California at Berkeley. Although some trace the foundations of ID to earlier events, the publication in 1991 of Johnson's book, Darwin on Trial, surely was a major early milestone that put ID on the map. Today, ID appears to be predominantly based in the Discovery Institute of Seattle, although it is also supported by ID clubs on several university campuses. The major players in the Intelligent Design movement are (in addition to Johnson): At Discovery Institute: Jonathan Wells, Jonathan Witt, Casey Luskin, Stephen Meyer; At Lehigh University: Michael Behe; At Southern Baptist Theological Seminary: William Dembski; at Biola University: Paul Nelson. Below we will present a very brief bio on each of the major players in the ID movement, and after that, summarize the central claims of Intelligent Design.

Phillip Johnson is a distinguished legal scholar, with a specialization in rhetoric. His first book, Darwin on Trial (1991) really put ID on the map, and his many speaking and debating engagements, interviews, magazine articles, and op-ed pieces have further presented the ID claims to the public. He also has authored several other books about ID, including Reason in the Balance, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, and The Wedge of Truth. Johnson has no training or background in the sciences, and his writings show a substantial lack of knowledge of the field that he attempts to critique. The edited volume Darwinism Defeated? contains a written debate between Johnson and Christian evolutionist Denis Lamereaux, with commentary chapters by several others involved in the evolution-ID issue. Several of the contributors to this volume point out that Johnson simply does not know the basic evolutionary biology that he tries to undermine.

Dr. William Dembski has diverse training, in philosophy, mathematics and theology. He has also been prolific in output of ID publications. His 1997 book, The Design Inference, provided a putative theoretical foundation for detecting design. The core was his explanatory filter, which will be described below, although it has been repeatedly and resoundingly criticized and found wanting in numerous publications. Dembski also edited the 1997 anthology, Mere Creation which now serves somewhat as benchmark of the early ID movement. Dembski later published No Free Lunch, in which his explanatory filter idea is further developed. Formerly at Baylor University, Dembski is now on the faculty of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. To my knowledge, Dembski has engaged in no scientific research and has no publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals. His latest work, along with Discovery Institute colleague Jonathan Wells, is a revision of the ID textbook, previously called Of Pandas and People, but now called The Design of Life.

Biochemist Michael Behe is a professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. His 1996 publication, Darwin's Black Box presented Behe's case that modern biochemistry is a serious challenge to neo-Darwinian evolutionary biology. His central thesis was that several molecular machines or molecular cascades show something Behe called irreducible complexity. Most recently, Dr. Behe has published The Edge of Evolution, another attempt at critique of modern evolutionary biology. This book has been resoundingly criticized in reviews in the mainstream science literature, by Miller, Dawkins, Coyne, and others. Unlike almost all of the rest of the ID movement, though, Dr. Behe is a practicing scientist whose research focuses on the structure of alternative forms of DNA, and who publishes in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals. Oddly, despite being one of the foremost proponents of the idea of ID as a science, he has published no research that explicitly supports ID.

Embryologist and theologian Dr. Jonathan Wells has advanced degrees from Yale University and Univ. of California, Berkeley. He is currently a Senior Fellow in the Center for Science and Culture of the Discovery Institute in Seattle, the de facto home base of the Intelligent Design movement. Dr. Wells gained wide recognition with his 2000 book, Icons of Evolution. He later wrote The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design (in 2005), and most recently collaborated with William Dembski in the latest revision of the controversial textbook, Of Pandas and People, now (2007) called The Design of Life. To my knowledge, Dr. Wells has only two publications in peer-reviewed science journals, neither of which explicitly supports ID.

Philosopher of science, Dr. Stephen Meyer, earned his PhD in history and philosophy of science at Cambridge University in England. While there, he met Philip Johnson, and because both were interested in critiquing evolution, a fruitful partnership developed that led to the modern ID movement. Currently Dr. Meyer serves as the Director of the Center for Science and Culture of the Seattle-based Discovery Insitute. While Dr. Meyer does not conduct any scientific research and has not published in any peer-reviewed science journals, he has published in prominent philosophical and religious journals, and as edited a number of ID anthologies. The most prominent is probably the edited volume, Darwin, Design, and Public Education, published in 2003 by Michigan State University Press. Dr. Meyer is prolific in producing op-ed pieces and letters to the editor of newspapers, although many of these seem to recycle the same or very similar text. A major milestone of the ID movement was the publication of an article in 2004 by Dr. Meyer, in the peer-reviewed mainstream science journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. This publication appeared under questionable circumstances, because the editor apparently approved it withouth the normal peer-review process, and as the last publication to be approved during his tenure as editor of the journal. The journal has since disavowed the article.

Dr. Jonathan Witt is writer-in-residence at the Center for Science & Culture at the Discovery Institute. His background appears to have not even a distant connection to science, since Witt's advanced degree is in Literary Studies, and his previous position was in creative writing at Lubbock Christian University. Nevertheless, Witt maintains the anti-evolution blog at the Discovery Institute, and is the co-author of The Meaning-full Universe, and Traipsing into Evolution, the latter a response to the defeat of ID in the December 2005 decision of the Dover, PA trial.

What is the core claim of ID?

According to the Discovery Institute website, the core claim of Intelligent Design is this -- "The theory of intelligent design holds 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." Oddly, the ID movement will not provide any 'official' hypotheses of the identity or characteristics of the Designer. Nevertheless, they somehow know that the Designer was intelligent. Moreover, ID proponents refuse to provide any suggestions at all about where, when, or how the Designer influenced the origins of organisms. The common thread across all of ID, though, appears to be that the naturalistic evolutionary process could not have been the cause of the patterns we see in nature today. Advocates of ID have therefore been profuse in their attempts to disprove or discredit evolutionary biology, and one gets the impression that attempts to criticize evolutionary biology is the entire intellectual content of ID.

Another pillar of ID thinking is Behe's notion of "Irreducible Complexity". According to Behe, IC is found when a biological entity (e.g. a molecular machine like the bacterial flagellum) is made up of multiple parts, each of which is essential to the functioning of the entity. Behe said that because these IC entities were composed of several to many parts, each of which was required for the entity to function, they could not have formed via an undirected process such as natural selection. The reasoning was that intermediates could not build up because the intermediates would have no function and thus could not be favored by natural selection. Thus, Behe claimed that these entities -- such a the bacterial flagellum, the blood clotting cascade, the eukaryotic cilium -- were irreducibly complex and could not be explained by evolutionary biology. All of his examples have since been shown to have subsets of their components, with function, thus disproving Behe's claim of IC for these examples.

	Phillip Johnson is a distinguished legal scholar, with a specialization in rhetoric. His first book, Darwin on Trial (1991) really put ID on the map, and his many speaking and debating engagements, interviews, magazine articles, and op-ed pieces have further presented the ID claims to the public. He also has authored several other books about ID, including Reason in the Balance, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, and The Wedge of Truth. Johnson has no training or background in the sciences, and his writings show a substantial lack of knowledge of the field that he attempts to critique. The edited volume Darwinism Defeated? contains a written debate between Johnson and Christian evolutionist Denis Lamereaux, with commentary chapters by several others involved in the evolution-ID issue. Several of the contributors to this volume point out that Johnson simply does not know the basic evolutionary biology that he tries to undermine.
	Dr. William Dembski has diverse training, in philosophy, mathematics and theology. He has also been prolific in output of ID publications. His 1997 book, The Design Inference, provided a putative theoretical foundation for detecting design. The core was his explanatory filter, which will be described below, although it has been repeatedly and resoundingly criticized and found wanting in numerous publications. Dembski also edited the 1997 anthology, Mere Creation which now serves somewhat as benchmark of the early ID movement. Dembski later published No Free Lunch, in which his explanatory filter idea is further developed. Formerly at Baylor University, Dembski is now on the faculty of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. To my knowledge, Dembski has engaged in no scientific research and has no publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals. His latest work, along with Discovery Institute colleague Jonathan Wells, is a revision of the ID textbook, previously called Of Pandas and People, but now called The Design of Life.
	Biochemist Michael Behe is a professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. His 1996 publication, Darwin's Black Box presented Behe's case that modern biochemistry is a serious challenge to neo-Darwinian evolutionary biology. His central thesis was that several molecular machines or molecular cascades show something Behe called irreducible complexity. Most recently, Dr. Behe has published The Edge of Evolution, another attempt at critique of modern evolutionary biology. This book has been resoundingly criticized in reviews in the mainstream science literature, by Miller, Dawkins, Coyne, and others. Unlike almost all of the rest of the ID movement, though, Dr. Behe is a practicing scientist whose research focuses on the structure of alternative forms of DNA, and who publishes in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals. Oddly, despite being one of the foremost proponents of the idea of ID as a science, he has published no research that explicitly supports ID.
	Embryologist and theologian Dr. Jonathan Wells has advanced degrees from Yale University and Univ. of California, Berkeley. He is currently a Senior Fellow in the Center for Science and Culture of the Discovery Institute in Seattle, the de facto home base of the Intelligent Design movement. Dr. Wells gained wide recognition with his 2000 book, Icons of Evolution. He later wrote The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design (in 2005), and most recently collaborated with William Dembski in the latest revision of the controversial textbook, Of Pandas and People, now (2007) called The Design of Life. To my knowledge, Dr. Wells has only two publications in peer-reviewed science journals, neither of which explicitly supports ID.
	Philosopher of science, Dr. Stephen Meyer, earned his PhD in history and philosophy of science at Cambridge University in England. While there, he met Philip Johnson, and because both were interested in critiquing evolution, a fruitful partnership developed that led to the modern ID movement. Currently Dr. Meyer serves as the Director of the Center for Science and Culture of the Seattle-based Discovery Insitute. While Dr. Meyer does not conduct any scientific research and has not published in any peer-reviewed science journals, he has published in prominent philosophical and religious journals, and as edited a number of ID anthologies. The most prominent is probably the edited volume, Darwin, Design, and Public Education, published in 2003 by Michigan State University Press. Dr. Meyer is prolific in producing op-ed pieces and letters to the editor of newspapers, although many of these seem to recycle the same or very similar text. A major milestone of the ID movement was the publication of an article in 2004 by Dr. Meyer, in the peer-reviewed mainstream science journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. This publication appeared under questionable circumstances, because the editor apparently approved it withouth the normal peer-review process, and as the last publication to be approved during his tenure as editor of the journal. The journal has since disavowed the article.
	Dr. Jonathan Witt is writer-in-residence at the Center for Science & Culture at the Discovery Institute. His background appears to have not even a distant connection to science, since Witt's advanced degree is in Literary Studies, and his previous position was in creative writing at Lubbock Christian University. Nevertheless, Witt maintains the anti-evolution blog at the Discovery Institute, and is the co-author of The Meaning-full Universe, and Traipsing into Evolution, the latter a response to the defeat of ID in the December 2005 decision of the Dover, PA trial.