cdesign proponentsist

The title of this post is a transitional form - it is the missing link between creationism and intelligent design.

This week the PBS program NOVA aired an excellent account of the controversy resulting from the Dover, PA school board's efforts to insert Intelligent Design into the school's science curriculum. Two years ago this week the controversy culminated in a Federal District Court case brought by some Dover parents to enjoin the introduction of Intelligent Design along-side evolution. (Thanks to BABlog for letting me know it would be on the air, and I encourage everyone to watch the program either on the tube or at the PBS website.)

Intelligent Design (ID) is the belief that certain features of life as we observe them today are so complex that they could not come about through natural processes like evolution. Rather, this 'irreducible complexity' is a clear sign that these features and the creatures who possess them were designed and created whole cloth by some 'intelligent agent'. Savvy proponents of ID are careful not to equate 'intelligent agent' with a particular religious deity, but True Christians(tm) tend to view ID as an acceptable belief system because of the perceived compatibility with a literal interpretation of Genesis. True Scientists(tm), such as the science teachers in Dover, view it as a philosophical proposition that neither makes any testable predictions nor guides further inquiry. Consequently, it doesn't belong in the science classroom. If anywhere, it belongs in a Philosophy or Theology class. I first encountered it in Philo 101 where it was referred to as the Teleological Argument - not a theory, an argument.

Back to Dover: The parents' claim was that the School Board violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment which states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." The requirements of this amendment trickle down to the states and all of their subdivisions, including public school boards. To show a violation of the establishment clause, the parents needed to show that the actions of School Board were either motivated by a desire to promote a religious view or had the effect of promoting a religious view.

Their case took the form of two separate inquiries which the show cleverly presents in parallel. The first inquiry delved into the meaning of science and the theory of evolution to demonstrate to the court how ID fundamentally fails to stand up as a genuine scientific alternative to evolution. The second inquiry was an exploration of the motivations behind proponents of ID and those on the Dover School Board who wished to bring it into the science classroom. One inquiry was scientific and the other was legal, but both used similar methods to arrive at knowledge that could be presented convincingly to the court.

Inquiry 1: Evolution v. Intelligent Design

The problem with ID is that it is merely a critique of evolution. Proponents of ID point to gaps in the evolutionary understanding of life, declare that these gaps can never be explained by science, then conclude by saying that the only other alternative is that this 'intelligent agent' did it.

A difficulty for these ID proponents is that these "gaps" that can never be explained are routinely explained by new discoveries. For example, ID proponents and creationist often say, if one type of animal descends from another type, why don't we have "transitional forms," fossils of creatures somewhere between the two known animals? If you get your science from Kirk Cameron (Mike Seaver from Growing Pains) you will believe that "Science has never found a genuine transitional form..."

Somehow he overlooks Archaeopteryx, pictured above, which is considered the first known bird. It was feathered, but it had teeth and is likely a relative of the velociraptor of Jurassic Park fame. The program walks the viewer through several of these, including Tiktaalik which was discovered during the Dover trial.

Tiktaalik is a transitional species between fish and amphibians (one of the first 4 legged land creatures). Based on the fossil record, scientists knew that the first land creatures lived about 370 million years ago. So, they decided to look for rocks of that age to search for transitional fossils of the first land critters. They found some exposed rocks of that age in Northern Canada, and after three years of looking (Topeka!) they found fossils of Tiktaalik. This critter has scales like a fish, a flat head with eyes on top like an amphibian, and appendages that have fin-like webbing and the beginnings of shoulder, elbow, and wrist joints.

In short, we have a theory (evolution) that gives rise to a testable prediction (fish gave rise to amphibians ~370 mya) and a test (guys went out to rocks that old and they find evidence that the theory was correct). This happens all the time!

Suppose you are a proponent of ID. What used to be a "gap" that could never be explained by science gets explained by science. What do you do? You should just pack up and call it a day, but instead you either ignore it or pick another gap and claim that gap #2 can never be explained by science.

Inquiry 2: Intelligent Design = Creationism

Beginning with the Scopes "Monkey Trial" in 1925, evolution and creationism had been hot topics in the courts until the Supreme Court found that Creation Science "embodies [the] particular religious tenant" that we were created by a divine creator. Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987). Consequently, the promotion of "Creation Science" was thereafter prohibited in public school classrooms.

However, the Dover School Board wasn't attempting to teach "Creation Science." They wanted to present Intelligent Design to their students as an alternative to evolution. To do so, they proposed a companion book called Of Pandas and People. According to the School Board this was neither a Creation text nor even a religious text. Instead, they argued that this is a legitimate scientific viewpoint that happens to resonate with them because of its compatibility with their own independent religious views.

Now, this is where lawyers become Archaeologists. Pandas came out in 1989 after several years of development. The Parents subpoenaed all the old drafts of the book from the publisher. This amounted to about 7000 pages. However, they had a theory to guide their search. They compared the pre-Edwards drafts of Pandas with the post-Edwards drafts. This is what they found:

Pre-Edwards: "Creation means that various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent Creator with their distinctive features already intact - fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.

Posts-Edwards: "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact..." [emphasis added]

Two words, same definition. They even found instances in the drafts where the authors were careless in their efforts to cleanse the text. For example, in one case they inserted 'design proponents' without taking out all of 'creationist' leaving "cdesign proponentsist."

In short, we have a theory (ID is merely creationism repackaged) that gives rise to a testable prediction (creationists relabeled their theory after the Supreme Court ruling) and a test (diligent lawyers look at texts from that period and find that they were right). Now that is how you win a court case!

And they did. Judge John E. Jones, III, ruled that "it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school classroom," the school was ordered to pay the parents' legal fees, the city voted out the entire school board, and Pat Robertson told them not to turn to God if a disaster strikes Dover. All is right with the world!

Anyway, this post is no spoiler. You should still watch the program. It does a great job of chronicling the turmoil and division in the town during the controversy, with many interviews with people from both sides. It was an amazing event that was not without costs.

If you would like to learn more, I recommend that you read this excerpt from the trial transcript. It is the testimony and cross examination of Kevin Padian, a paleontologist from U.C. Berkeley and expert witness for the parents. He does an amazing job of laying out the depth and breadth of evolutionary theory and contrasting it with ID.

The program mentions how the reporters who sat through the trial wondered why they didn't learn this stuff in school. The reason: evolution has been so controversial, even after 1987, that text book publishers have chosen to gloss over it so their sales won't be threatened. In the words of the Judge: "In an era when we're trying to cure cancer, where we're trying to prevent pandemics, where we're trying to keep Science and Math education on the cutting edge in the United States, to introduce and teach bad science to 9th grade students makes very little sense to me. Garbage in, garbage out. It doesn't benefit any of us."