Small God, Bad Science

Intelligent design is the belief that the universe is too complex to have developed entirely according to scientific principles—especially, that biological systems are too complex to have developed according to Darwinian evolution—and that therefore a god must necessarily exist if one is to explain the creation and development of such complex systems. ID is bad religion and bad science.

George Bush and Bill Frist have recently announced, after much deep thought, that ID should be taught in public schools as an alternative to scientific theories. But ID is not a scientific theory. It is, as physicist Sean Carroll points out, scientific nonsense and religious propaganda.

The Religion

First, the religion. Advocates of ID are guilty of the sin of pride, because they claim to understand precisely how their god works. They know that their god could not have chosen to create the universe by natural forces over billions of years. They know that their god could not have chosen to create biological systems by an evolutionary process. And certainly human beings, so different in every way from all other life forms, could not possibly have developed through natural selection from a population of apes in east Africa. They look in the mirror and see perfect creatures, the climax of creation.

In short, they cannot imagine any being who is more intelligent than themselves, who might know enough to understand complexity that they cannot imagine: an Einstein, for example, or a Darwin, or even a god. They prefer to interpret the poetic images of ancient Hebrew writers as literal, scientific descriptions of physical processes. They think that god cannot be any smarter than they are.

As long as they are taking their ancient writings so seriously, they might consider what their god told Job when he became too prideful (Job 38.1–7):

Then the Lord answered Job
     out of the whirlwind, and said,
Who is this that darkeneth counsel
     by words without knowledge?
Gird up now thy loins like a man;
     for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?
     declare, if thou hast understanding.
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest?
     or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened?
     or who laid the corner stone thereof
When the morning stars sang together,
     and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

The deity imagined by advocates of intelligent design is small, no larger than they are.

The Science

Second, the science. Intelligent design uses the language and forms of science, but it is not a scientific theory, because it is not falsifiable. There is no new data that would change the conclusions that advocates of ID have already agreed upon. Any new data, any new empirical observations, would simply be subsumed within the unchanging framework they have constructed, the dogma that complexity requires a god.

Stephen Hawking is an exceptional scientist who in the 1970s developed a theory of black holes. Last year he announced that he had made a significant error and is proposing necessary corrections. New data had falsified his theory, and he changed it. There is nothing unusual about such a change. The scientific endeavor is, by its very nature, full of false steps and corrections. Umberto Eco calls it the principle of "fallibilism":

According to this principle, science progresses by continually correcting itself, falsifying its hypotheses by trial and error, admitting its own mistakes — and by considering that an experiment that doesn't work out is not a failure but is worth as much as a successful one, because it proves that a certain line of research was mistaken and it is necessary either to change direction or even to start over from scratch.

Jodi Wilgorin writes in today's New York Times: "Mainstream scientists reject the notion that any controversy over evolution even exists." The controversy has been manufactured by fundamentalist Christians, funded by millionaires like the odious Richard Mellon Scaife, and publicized through the so-called Discovery Institute as though it were a free-speech issue rather than fact-free propaganda.

Writing in the San Francisco Chronicle, Jon Carroll explains: "Intelligent design is not science. It is not even a field of study. It is a belief system wrapped up in 'scientific' language." Carroll describes the process of falsification and the periodic crises of science as new data require large changes. However, he points out:

The intelligent design people have never suffered such a crisis. They have never changed their minds based on new evidence. That's because they started with the desired results and worked backward.

The satirists at The Onion have captured the ID spirit perfectly: "Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held 'theory of gravity' is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling."

In time, Darwinian natural selection will certainly weed out those among us who are so uninformed that they believe in intelligent design—unless, of course, their disbelief in gravity kicks in first. Perhaps that's what the Rapture is all about: gravity doesn't really exist, and if your faith is strong enough, you can break those paltry scientific bonds tying you to earth and ascend into the stratosphere. What happens next is beyond belief.

Narcissistic religion and superstitious science: those letters ID might more accurately stand for ignorant design.

Comments

[Simon P. Canard]

Grist for the mill, eh? Rather, why not lobby for public school curricula requiring thoroughgoing examination of religion{s} and/or cultural mythologies. This would give kids a leg up on understanding how local tribal dieties evolve into mighty dangerous movers and shakers, and perhaps give them a fighting chance of growing up distinguishing fact from phantasmagoria. Who knows but what they might even become savvy enough to savor the irony of the Pope's condemnation of the Harry Potter books for "manipulating young minds."

[Greg Bass]

The argument actually is not that "the universe is too complex to have developed entirely according to scientific principles", it is that development of increasing complexity from nothing VIOLATES scientific principles.

If Darwinism is true, the fossil record should show a growing tree of life from a common ancestor. The "Cambrian Explosion" and the succeeding die off is the exact opposite.

I'm afraid you seem to put a lot of words in the mouth of those Christians. I have found that misrepresentations and name calling however arrived at are often signs of an advocate with limited understanding, holding to a belief for reasons other than whether or not it is supported by the facts.

Try:

• Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong
  

He went to Berkley!