Does Intelligent Design Have Merit?

There are well-credentialed scientists who support intelligent design (ID) and are conducting scientific research into ID and publishing it in mainstream scientific venues.? But I am not surprised that the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) tried to insinuate, in the title of its second opening statement ("Scientists See No Scientific Merit in ID"), the bluff that?all scientists reject ID.? As a graduate student hearing NCSE's executive director Eugenie Scott speak at Scripps Institution for Oceanography, I first learned that the NCSE routinely employs these kinds of bluffs to oppose ID, including:

• (1) Appealing to Authority
• (2) Blatantly Twisting and Misrepresenting ID
• (3) Puffing about the Glory of Evolution
• (4) Rewriting History
• (5) Promoting False Conspiracy Theories about ID
• (6) Hypocritically Harping on the Religious Associations of ID while Ignoring Their Own Side’s Use (and Abuse) of Religion
• (7) Evading the Real Issues

Apparently little has changed since I heard Dr. Scott speak.  Sometimes I get the feeling that the NCSE’s primary goal is this: to make ID look as un-cool, un-mainstream, un-authoritative, and un-scientific as possible so that you won’t take the time to investigate the scientific evidence and arguments at stake in this debate.  Tactics #1 and #7 seem to be the NCSE’s primary tactics in its second opening statement because...

The NCSE Appeals to Authority and Wrongly Turns Science Into a Voting Contest
The NCSE's intent in its second opening statement is to convince the reader to oppose ID by appealing to authority.? The subtle presumption in their argument, which needs to be exposed to that readers don't accidentally accept it, is the notion that science should be viewed like a voting contest.? Because a supermajority of scientists apparently would vote for neo-Darwinian evolution, they want to banish any doubts about Darwin from your mind through repeated appeals to authority.

The truth is that in science, numbers don't matter; only the evidence matters.  So how do we decide what is true?  We don't look at numbers or votes.  We look at the evidence and evaluate the data for ourselves.  This is how scientists operate on an individual level.

Rather than discussing the details of the scientific evidence, the NCSE prefers to insinuate that since most of the scientific community believes that "the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor" of neo-Darwinism, that therefore you should accept it. Their strategy has one, and only one goal in mind: to get you, the reader, to not think for yourself, to not look closely at the scientific evidence, and to oppose ID simply because other scientists say you should do so. Whatever you think about neo-Darwinism and ID, think for yourself, and don’t let the NCSE’s subtle presuppositions about what counts as "evidence" in this debate close your mind.

In science, all that matters is the evidence. Scientific debates are determined by the evidence, not a voting contest. The fact that a scientific view is in the minority does not imply that it is therefore necessarily wrong. Those who live under the naivety that scientists are always objective, or are always granted the academic freedom to follow the evidence wherever it leads, should remember that not too long ago, the famous historian of science Thomas Kuhn explained that scientists are often intolerant of ideas that challenge the reigning paradigms:

"No part of the aim of normal science is to call forth new sorts of phenomena; indeed those that will not fit the box are often not seen at all. Nor do scientists normally aim to invent new theories, and they are often intolerant of those invented by others."(1)

As a new theory that challenges the reigning paradigm of neo-Darwinian evolution, ID faces this very type of intolerance in the academy. (I discuss some of this intolerance in my sixth opening statement.)? In fact, this very form of intolerance is?exposed in the blanket condemnations of ID issued by various scientific organizations cited by the NCSE.

For example, as part of its appeal to authority, the NCSE appeals to a 2002 press release statement issued by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) against ID and similar statements by other scientific organizations. The NCSE then boasts, "Many other scientific societies have echoed these statements."

So what? When scientific organizations issue press releases or bold proclamations against ideas, it’s clear that politics, rather than the evidence, is driving their behavior. 

Unfortunately for the NCSE, these statements do not demonstrate what they want them to demonstrate.? I anticipated that the NCSE would use the tactic of appealing to the authority of scientific groups who have condemned ID in my first and sixth opening statements.? As I wrote, "Nothing critics can say—whether appealing to politically motivated condemnations of ID issued by pro-Darwin scientific authorities, or harping upon the religious beliefs of ID proponents—will change the fact that intelligent design is not a 'faith-based' argument. ... Opponents of ID may quote these blanket statements as if they demonstrate that ID has been rejected by the scientific community.? Rather, what these statements actually document is the fact that much of the opposition to ID from the scientific community is not scientific in nature, but political, and is based upon fundamental misunderstandings and misrepresentations of ID.? After all, since when do leading scientific organizations issue press releases and edicts against an idea? "?

Indeed, Discovery Institute senior fellow John West polled some AAAS board members and found that they had "voted to brand intelligent design as unscientific without actually reading for themselves the academic books and articles by scientists proposing the theory" of ID.(2)? Indeed, the committees that issue these statements do not necessarily speak for all member scientists.? For example, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released a similar edict against ID that proclaimed that “Evolutionary biology has been and continues to be a cornerstone of modern science.”(3)? But NAS member Philip Skell would seem to take great issue with the NAS’s proclamations of support for neo-Darwinism, as he wrote in The Scientist in 2005:

"Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. This becomes especially clear when we compare it with a heuristic framework such as the atomic model, which opens up structural chemistry and leads to advances in the synthesis of a multitude of new molecules of practical benefit. None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false. It does, however, mean that the claim that it is the cornerstone of modern experimental biology will be met with quiet skepticism from a growing number of scientists in fields where theories actually do serve as cornerstones for tangible breakthroughs."(4)

The blanket condemnations of ID issued by scientific organizations are actually a travesty of intellectual freedom, for they create a climate of intolerance against those scientists who do support ID.  Stephen Jay Gould, writing with other scientists in an amicus brief submitted to the United States Supreme Court in the landmark 1993 case, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, warned against such totalitarianism within science:

"Judgments based on scientific evidence, whether made in a laboratory or a courtroom, are undermined by a categorical refusal even to consider research or views that contradict someone’s notion of the prevailing "consensus" of scientific opinion. . . . Automatically rejecting dissenting views that challenge the conventional wisdom is a dangerous fallacy, for almost every generally accepted view was once deemed eccentric or heretical. Perpetuating the reign of a supposed scientific orthodoxy in this way, whether in a research laboratory or in a courtroom, is profoundly inimical to the search for truth. … The quality of a scientific approach or opinion depends on the strength of its factual premises and on the depth and consistency of its reasoning, not on its appearance in a particular journal or on its popularity among other scientists."(5)

Making "acceptance" by the scientific community a valid test for whether an idea is scientific would jeopardize progress of science since it would rule most new theories to be unscientific, not just ID.

Based upon the arguments of my co-participants, ID holds scientific merit in biology, paleontology, and physics and cosmology. For those who are willing to investigate the facts of this issue for themselves and not engage in blind adherence to the pronouncements of scientific authorities, it seems clear that legitimate scientific support for ID is possible.

In the end, the NCSE claims "Scientists See No Scientific Merit in ID," but this is a false and misleading statement. While ID may be a minority view, it is supported by well-credentialed scientists. Indeed, 85 scientists supporting academic freedom for ID wrote in their Kitzmiller amicus brief to Judge Jones:

"Intelligent design, while admittedly a minority view, is currently being vigorously debated by scientists. For example, Cambridge University Press recently published a volume entitled ‘Debating Design,’ in which scientists on both sides of the issue stated their respective cases. Whether or not intelligent design is ultimately widely accepted as the most persuasive explanation for particular scientific phenomena, design theorists have formulated their theory based upon a scientific evaluation of the empirical evidence. The current formulation of intelligent design theory by its proponents, and its application to recent scientific discoveries, is still in its youth compared to many other scientific theories. For that very reason it is premature to conclude that one side has triumphed and the other has lost. Simply because one group of scientists favors one interpretation, we must not relegate the other side to a category of ‘non-scientists’ who are ineligible to state their case."(6)

Whether you agree with those 85 scientists is up to you. Just make sure that you base your decisions upon your own examination of the evidence and arguments—not blindly following appeals to authority because the NCSE tells you to do so.

NCSE Evades the Real Issues While Attacking the "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" List.
As discussed above, the NCSE behaves as if science were a voting contest and people should not think for themselves, but should simply adopt the position that gets the most votes from the scientific community. Because of this misapprehension, the NCSE wrongly presumes that Discovery Institute’s "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" list is likewise intended to persuade people to similarly doubt Darwinism.  Thus, the NCSE attacks the list harshly. 

Before rebutting the NCSE's attacks on the list, some background on the list is necessary.

Discovery Institute’s "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" list (see www.dissentfromdarwin.org ) is a list of doctoral scientists who agree with the following statement:

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

To date, over 750 Ph.D. scientists have signed the list. Signers include members of the national academies of science in the United States, Russia, Poland, the Czech Republic, and India (Hindustan), as well as faculty and researchers from a wide range of universities and colleges, including Princeton, MIT, Dartmouth, Ohio State, Tulane, and the University of Michigan. Contrary to what many Darwinists would have us believe, there is significant, legitimate, and highly credible scientific dissent from neo-Darwinism.

Second, it's important to state what the list is not about:

• The list is not about ID. As seen in the list’s statement above, it is about skepticism of neo-Darwinism, not support for ID. So the NCSE’s usage of this list in a debate over whether "ID has merit" is actually misplaced.
• Second, the list is not about common descent. As the list states, its signers are "skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life." This says nothing about common descent, and the statement leaves open the possibility that signers may (or may not) accept common descent.
• Third, this list was not formed to argue that because lots of well-credentialed scientists doubt Darwin, that therefore you should too. Rather, the list is intended to rebut the common but false Darwinist claim that no well-credentialed scientists doubt neo-Darwinism.

Because the NCSE thinks science should be a voting contest, and behaves as if people shouldn’t think for themselves, they love to pick apart the list, trying to claim that it demonstrates the paucity of real scientific dissent from Darwinism. But this dodges and evades the point of the list: We've never claimed that neo-Darwinism is not the dominant?viewpoint in modern biology. But in their efforts to squelch dissent, Darwinists like to make false claims such as, "there is no controversy among professional biologists about fact of evolution."(7)? The "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism List" is not intended to change your mind about neo-Darwinian evolution—only the evidence should do that.? Rather, it helps rebut this flatly false Darwinist bluff about the alleged absence of any scientific dispute regarding the core claims of neo-Darwinian evolution. The list demonstrates that there are significant well-credentialed scientists who doubt neo-Darwinism.

Since the NCSE wishes to deny that there is any credible dissent from neo-Darwinism, they argue that it is "possible to discredit" the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism list by referring people to a YouTube video titled, "Evaluating an antievolution petition," created by some would-be internet critic.

That's right, the NCSE cites to a random YouTube video.

I don’t know anything about the person who created that video, but he clearly has major misunderstandings about the list.  His false claims and misrepresentations are too numerous to catalogue, not the least of which is the fact that the version of the list he attacks in the video is a long-outdated version that may be up to 7 years out-dated, taken from a time when the list first started and had only about 100 signatories.  Today the list has over 750 signatories.  For the latest public version of the list, please see:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

Just some of the outlandish and false claims about the list in the video include:

• The critic pulls a bait-and-switch by redefining evolution in a way that is clearly not intended by the list, and then claims that some list-members don’t belong under the definition that the list never intended to use. To be more specific, he defines evolution as "common descent," and then claims that some list-members don’t "doubt evolution," so defined and thus "shouldn’t be on the list." But the list has always been called "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism"—using a neo-Darwinian definition of evolution as the claim that "random mutation and natural selection [can] account for the complexity of life" (from the list’s statement). The list is plainly not about skepticism of common descent; it’s about skepticism of the sufficiency of the neo-Darwinian mechanism. The fact that the critic finds list-members who accept common descent but doubt neo-Darwinism is only unsurprising. The critic has given no good reason to explain why those list-members should be off the list.
  
• The critic touts a bogus survey by claiming the list is discredited because he contacted people on the list who didn’t want to be on it. But this critic only contacted biologists, and of those biologists, only 16 replied.  Of those 16, he only gives a couple examples of people who claimed that they didn’t want to be on the list. This means that he had contact with less than 2.2% of the total signers on the list.  That makes for a pretty meaningless analysis of the list, as far as survey statistics go. 
  
• This critic makes a false criticism of the list by claiming that it "dishonestly" misrepresents the credentials of list-members by listing either their current institution or the institution where they earned their Ph.D. There is no dishonesty here: the list clearly states at the top of the first page that list-members can be listed by EITHER current institution OR location of Ph.D., as it reads: "Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position." (emphasis in original)  It’s obvious which scientists are listed by current institution and which are listed by Ph.D. institution: those listed by "Ph.D." say, simply, "Ph.D." For example, the critic attacks one list-member who is listed as "Ph.D. Neuroscience-Case Western Reserve" and the critic incorrectly charges that the list says that he "worked" at Case Western. In fact, the list clearly lists this biologist by his "Ph.D." Even worse, the critic claims that this scientist only went to Case Western for "undergrad." Perhaps it is ironic that the video flashed the word "Lie" at this point—because in fact the scientist in question did get his Ph.D. from Case Western Reserve (his "undergrad" was completed at Michigan State University). Contrary to the critic’s false claims, there are no misrepresentations about the credentials of list-members in this regard.
  
• The critic claims that some people asked to be removed from the list but were not.  Again, his criticisms are misplaced because he uses a long out-dated version of the list.  For example, he claims Fred Sigworth was not removed from the list, but in fact Sigworth has not been on the list for years. The critic again asserts that there were people who wanted to be removed from the list "7 years ago," but he never gives any examples to back up his charges and accusations.  Had the critic used the current version of the list, he would have found that scientists like Sigworth were removed long ago.
  
• The critic claims that biologists such as Ralph Seelke and Michael Behe are not true skeptics of "evolution" and don’t belong on the list. ?It’s incredible that someone would cite Behe (one of my pro-ID co-participants in this debate) in an attempt to boast about scientific support for neo-Darwinism.? Moreover, Ralph Seelke just co-authored a textbook, Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism, that provides many potent criticisms of neo-Darwinism.? Such scientists who the critic claims are "pro-evolution" actually have huge doubts about the core claims of neo-Darwinian theory. Due to the fact that the critic claims that leading Darwin-skeptics like Ralph Seelke and Michael Behe don’t qualify as dissenters from Darwinism, it’s clear to me that this guy really has very little clue of what he’s talking about regarding the list and his objections are neither credible nor compelling.
  
• This video also makes false scientific claims. For example, the critic claims that molecular-based phylogenetic trees agree with phylogenetic trees based upon the fossil record "seamlessly."  Trisha Gura wrote an entire review article in Nature entitled "Bones, Molecules or Both?" devoted to examining the difficulties encountered by evolutionary scientists when trying to reconcile molecule-based phylogenetic trees with phylogenetic trees based upon bones.? In Gura’s words, the commonality of these conflicts has led to great "evolution wars" among evolutionary scientists over whether they should use "bones," "molecules," or "both" when constructing phylogenies. As Gura observes, there are "disparities between molecular and morphological trees."(8)? Similarly, a review article by Colin Patterson dimly concluded, "As morphologists with high hopes of molecular systematics, we end this survey with our hopes dampened. Congruence between molecular phylogenies is as elusive as it is in morphology and as it is between molecules and morphology."(9) Another science article likewise wrote, "That molecular evidence typically squares with morphological patterns is a view held by many biologists, but interestingly, by relatively few systematists. Most of the latter know that the two lines of evidence may often be incongruent."(10) Finally, Matthew Wills studied whether fossil data has helped improve the congruence of phylogenetic trees and concluded, "Despite increasing methodological sophistication, phylogenies derived from morphology, and those inferred from different molecules, are not always converging on a consensus."(11)? In contrast to the claims of the video critic, morphological, fossil,?and molecular data data do not fit together "seamlessly" when used to construct phylogenetic trees.
  
• The critic also claims that endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) provide unequivocal evidence for common descent, even though biologists are beginning to suspect ERVs have function and are not merely functionless genetic "junk."(12)
  
• Towards the end of the video, the critic performs a meaningless calculation which allegedly gives the list "every mathematical concession possible" and claims that only 0.00275% of scientists reject "evolution" (which he defines as "common descent"). But the calculation makes no reasonable "mathematical concessions" to the list since his statistic makes the unashamedly false assumptions that (1) all 3,661,320 scientists that he claims exist have been contacted to sign the list and therefore that number can be placed in the denominator to determine the total percentage of scientists who doubt Darwinism, and (2) that even among those scientists who were contacted, that all who doubted neo-Darwinism chose to sign the list. Assumption (1) is false because of course only a fraction of all scientists are probably even aware of this list. Assumption (2) is false because I personally know a significant number of Ph.D. scientists—particularly professional biologists—who doubt neo-Darwinism and would like to sign the list, but are afraid to do so because they fear what might happen to their careers if the sign it. So the statistic at the end of the video is meaningless.

Finally, it should be observed that the video constantly flashes irrelevant graphics referring to young earth creationist groups and personalities that have nothing to do with the narration.  At one point the video calls the U.S. the "United States of Jesus." Some people may find this kind of thing really funny, but the video is clearly not a serious or credible attempt to rebut the list.  Given the NCSE’s claim to be religion-friendly and the fact that NCSE’s executive director Eugenie Scott has admitted that "most ID proponents do not embrace a Young Earth, Flood Geology, and sudden creation tenets associated with YEC,"(13) it would seem that the NCSE is contradicting itself by promoting this video.  Apparently the NCSE is so desperate to deny the existence of scientific dissent from neo-Darwinism that it is resorting to relying upon this non-credible, inaccurate, and factually bankrupt YouTube video.