ORIGINS:
INTELLIGENT DESIGN & THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION

Intelligent Design & the Theory of Evolution

At first glance there appears to be a common acceptance of 'The Theory of Evolution' as fact rather than theory amongst scientists. This is despite the persistent and awkward gaps in the fossil record, and more recent scientific developments which cast some doubt on the validity of the theory. To this day, these issues have made it impossible to actually prove 'The Theory of Evolution'

One supporter of evolutionary theory, Steven Stanley, realised that the standard concept of 'gradualism' (a slow, smooth progression of evolution over long geological timescales) had a major flaw. As he pointed out,
"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."

Stephen Jay Gould (one of the highest-profile of all evolutionists) acknowledged the problem, and in response to this difficulty developed, with Niles Eldredge, the Theory Of Punctuated Equilibrium in the early 1970's. The Theory Of Punctuated Equilibrium would have been acceptable - IF it had been based upon scientific principles. However, Gould and Eldredge actually addressed this difficulty of reconciling the lack of evidence in the fossil record by turning to naturalistic philosophy - building upon earlier work by Ernst Mayr. The Theory Of Punctuated Equilibrium is based upon the idea of an erratic rate of evolution for sexually reproducing species, with long periods without change 'punctuated' by episodes of environmental pressure leading to accellerated evolution. (Richard Dawkins argued, in 'The Blind Watchmaker', that 'punctuated equilibrium' is simply a form of 'gradualism', with 'varying speed' as one of the variables involved.)

'INTELLIGENT DESIGN'

When Stephen Jay Gould surveyed scientists working in the field of Evolutionary Theory, he discovered that about half of the scientists believed not in 'The Theory of Evolution', but in an alternative model: 'Intelligent Design' (which embraces creationism and also other models).

DISSENTING SCIENTISTS / PUBLIC OPINION

The many dissenting scientists find themselves in a difficult position. Some of them consider the issue to be of such importance that they are willing to stand up and be counted. One such dissident group has a membership of more than 700 scientists, represented at www.dissentfromdarwin.org. These scientists state that they are "skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life", and believe that "careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged". These scientists are not necessarily saying that any particular alternative theory is true - but more aggressive high profile evolutionists have attempted to silence them through ridicule rather than through reasoned scientific debate.

The Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity (PSSI) website reports: "Sadly, academic freedom is no longer assured in many countries. This is especially true when it involves espousing views contrary to the theory of Darwinian macroevolution. Numerous instances have been documented where scientists and teachers have either been censored or removed from their positions for allowing or facilitating open discussion of the empirical problems of macroevolution."

A survey conducted on behalf of the BBC (see figures at the end of article) demonstrated that the British public were divided in a similar pattern to the scientists surveyed by Stephen Jay Gould.

In Britain we. as a nation. appear content to allow the one-sided force-feeding of an uproven theory as fact, both in schools and in the media.

In America, parents have shown more concern. In 2005 a school board in western Pennsylvania voted to teach the ninth grade biology class that there are gaps and problems with the theory of evolution, and to present intelligent design as an alternative. There was outrage. After a 40 day trial the Judge concluded that Intelligent Design was not science and that it was too closely linked with religious views to be taught in schools.

A DECLINE IN CRITICAL THINKING

Stephen Jay Gould has even taken it upon himself to re-define the scientific use of the word 'fact' for us. Whereas the word was originally an 'absolute', in his re-definition of a scientific fact Mr. Gould has turned it into something much less. Gould explains his stance:
"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent'."

In light of this statement, thinking people should be asking themselves some very serious questions about which goal posts might be on the move next - and what the long term implications might be.

Critical thinking rejects the view that something is true merely on the basis that the majority of people believe it, or because it is held to be universally true. Without proof this is just is a fallacy of human thought, known as the "fallacy of consensus gentium". Without scientific proof there is room to argue that the Theory of Evolution should be regarded as Naturalistic Philosophy rather than as science.

Our children need to be taught critical thinking skills

Whether in the USA or the UK, if school children are taught the 'Theory of Evolution' as scientific fact, rather than as a theory, there will be serious consequences. Such a cavalier - not to say careless - use of scientific terminology undermines the concept of scientific method and discourages both open-mindedness and clear 'critical thinking'. Our children need to be taught critical thinking - how to weigh the factual evidence, evaluate statements and recognize the originator's purpose and point of view. For instance, when reading this feature they will understand that it is written by Christians trying to redress the balance of thinking.

Our scientists need to practise critical thinking, too. The closed-minded attitude displayed by the more aggressive evolutionists deals a body blow to the open minded inquisitiveness, thoroughness, effectiveness and integrity of our future scientists.

A BBC report about Intelligent Design stated: "its many critics, including Professor Richard Dawkins and Sir David Attenborough, fear that it cloaks a religious motive — to replace science with god." This may be sloppy reporting - no evidence is offered for either of these scientist acknowledging 'fear' as one of their motivating factors - but it raises an interesting possibility of why Professor Richard Dawkins, in particular, sometimes resorts to ridicule rather than to reasoned argument.

Richard Dawkins, on the first page of his book, "The Blind Watchmaker"says: "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose". But if the empirical evidence suggests something has been designed for a purpose, why does he favour the theory that it wasn't designed?

The War on Science

A BBC 2 "Horizon" science documentary on intelligent design theory, 'The War on Science' (26th Jan 2006), did a terrific job of confusing the issue at every turn, according to Peter S. Williams in his article: "How Horizon got 'Intelligent Design' wrong". He said: "Dawkins' critique fundamentally misunderstands the nature of scientific explanation (which is worrying considering that he is Oxford University's 'Professor of the Public Understanding of Science')".

Evolutionary Psychology

Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould were two key figures in the disagreements over evolutionary psychology, which Dawkins supported and Gould opposed. Evolutionary psychology seeks explain psychological mechanisms by attributing to them functions necessary for survival and reproduction, as required for evolution. Gould argued that sociobiologists, evolutionary psychologists and evolutionary biologists such as E. O. Wilson may be heavily influenced, perhaps unconsciously, by their own prejudices and interests. But in a field by dominated theory, with few provable facts, the opportunity for argument is immense. Gould and Dawkins and their various supporters did not only fight over evolutionary psychology - they also disagreed over matters such as the importance of gene selection in evolution. The 'energetic' public debates between Gould's proponents and detractors earned them the title "The Darwin Wars" in some quarters.

DOES ANY OF THIS MATTER?

• The Bible teaches the value of a man
• 'The Theory of Evolution' devalues a man - makes him - and his life - worthless, disposable and of no consequence.
• The Bible explains that there is a purpose and a plan - not just random chance and pointlessness.

The Bible tells us that we are "fearfully and wonderfully made"; that we are made in the image of God; that our lives are of immeasurable value to God; that God loves us to the utmost.

The Bible explains what God's purpose and plan is. It tells us that we are "fearfully and wonderfully made"; that we are made in the image of God; that our lives are of immeasurable value to God; that God loves us to the utmost.

The Bible tells us that we are of great value to God - he made us and he loves us and he was willing to pay the highest price possible to save us - even before we cared about Him at all.

But 'The Theory of Evolution' denies all those points - and therefore cheapens life. The killers in the Columbine school massacre wore shirts that blared out, "Natural Selection". Jeffrey Dahmer, who commited 17 horrific murders - later became a Christian, and said that he had "believed in the evolution theory which cheapens life".

If the Bible is true, it does matter - a lot.

Despite the teaching of science in the National Curriculum and despite wide media coverage of the subject, lots of people who hold a strong opinion actually prove ignorant of both 'The Theory of Evolution' and alternative models, including 'Intelligent Design' or 'Creationism'. Many people are also very unclear about the difference between fact and theory - despite the extreme importance of the distinction.

---

BBC Survey figures: (reported Thursday, 26 January 2006). Over 2,000 participants took part in the survey, and were asked what best described their view of the origin and development of life: 22% - creationism; 17% - intelligent design; 48% - evolution theory; 13% - did not know.

---