CREATIONISM,
EVOLUTION,
AND
INTELLIGENT DESIGN
A seminar given to the Department of
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology,
University of Louisville School of
Medicine, Dec. 14, 2005
Revised and updated, March 2006
Thomas J. Wheeler, PhD
Associate Professor of Biochemistry
and Molecular Biology
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Some slides (especially concerning
intelligent design) are based on slides provided by:
• Eugenie C. Scott, National Center for Science
Education
• Glenn Branch, National Center for Science
Education
• Chris Thompson, University of Washington
• Karen Bartelt, Eureka College
Some slides are based on overhead transparencies
originally prepared with Frank Lovell.
"More on Creationists and
Meteoritic Dust”
Creation/Evolution Newsletter 7,
No. 4, 14-15 (1987)
In: Reviews of Creationist Books (L.R. Hughes,
ed.), pp. 97-102. National Center for Science
Education, 1992. Reprinted in Appleman, P. (ed.)
Darwin (3rd ed.) (Norton Critical Editions), 2000
Creation/Evolution 13(2), 25-35 (1993)
Reports of the National Center for Science
Education 19(5), 17-19 (1999)
OUTLINE
• Introduction – position statements, polls and news
• Definitions – evolution, creationism; views of some
religious groups
• Creationism – young-Earth, old-Earth
• The evidence for evolution
• Creationist arguments
• Creationism and the public schools
• Intelligent design –positions, critiques; Dover trial
• Conclusions – impact on teachers; political activities
• Resources
INTRODUCTION: POSITION
STATEMENTS
Professional organizations in the biological
sciences stand firmly behind teaching of
evolution, and against teaching of
“intelligent design.”
Letter to President Bush from Judith Bond,
ASBMB President, Aug. 4, 2005:
“Intelligent design" is not a theory in the scientific sense, nor is it a
scientific alternative to the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution
has survived rigorous scientific scrutiny ever since it was promulgated in
the mid-19th century, and is now recognized as one of mankind's
greatest intellectual achievements. By contrast, "intelligent design" is
not science since it is based on a belief that is inherently untestable-that is, that some unknown intelligence created life on earth…
The overwhelming majority of scientists, including many who are people
of faith, strongly support teaching the theory of evolution as how life
developed on earth. Injecting untestable explanations for this highly
complex phenomenon into science classrooms only confuses the
distinction between theology and science, to the detriment of both.
Board resolution on intelligent
design, Oct. 2002:
Recognizing that the "intelligent design theory" represents a challenge to the
quality of science education, the Board of Directors of the AAAS unanimously
adopts the following resolution:
Whereas, ID proponents claim that contemporary evolutionary theory is
incapable of explaining the origin of the diversity of living organisms;
Whereas, to date, the ID movement has failed to offer credible scientific
evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically
accepted theory of evolution;
Whereas, the ID movement has not proposed a scientific means of testing its
claims;
Therefore Be It Resolved, that the lack of scientific warrant for so-called
"intelligent design theory" makes it improper to include as a part of science
education;
Therefore Be Further It Resolved, that AAAS urges citizens across the nation
to oppose the establishment of policies that would permit the teaching of
"intelligent design theory" as a part of the science curricula of the public
schools…
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml
From “Position Statement: The Teaching of Evolution” (2003)
Policy makers and administrators should not mandate policies requiring
the teaching of "creation science" or related concepts, such as so-called
"intelligent design," "abrupt appearance," and "arguments against
evolution." Administrators also should support teachers against pressure
to promote nonscientific views or to diminish or eliminate the study of
evolution.
This position statement reprinted courtesy of the National Science Teacher’s
Association, Arlington, VA, http://www.nsta.org/position
Press release, Dec. 22, 2005
http://www.kyacademyofscience.org/news/intelligent-design-12-22-05.html
INTRODUCTION: POLLS
AND NEWS
Polls and News
• CBS poll reported Oct. 23, 2005: “51% of
Americans say God created humans in
their present form.”
• Louisville Courier-Journal poll, Feb. 2000:
among Kentuckians, biblical creationism
was preferred to evolution by 63% to 23%.
• October, 1999: Kentucky Education
Department substitutes “change over time”
for “evolution” in curriculum guidelines.
“STATE OF STATE SCIENCE
STANDARDS”
• Released by Thomas B. Fordham Institute, Dec. 2005
http://www.edexcellence.net/institute/publication/publication
.cfm?id=352
• Concerning Kentucky’s standards: “The gravest lack is
the absence of the word ‘evolution.’… We must conclude
that the writers tried to get the needed content into the
standards and, by omitting that politically fulminating Eword, to suggest to suspicious persons…that it isn't
there. For this reason the grade could have been
reduced to ‘F,’ but the effort elsewhere, including the
actual content of evolutionary biology provided, is strong
enough so that we allowed the score-determined grade
‘D’ to stand.”
Gallup Poll results (1982, 1993, 2004)
show that Americans’ views on
creationism and evolution have not
changed in this period
• 44 to 47% agreed with the statement that
humans were created in their present form
within the last 10,000 years
• 35 to 38% agreed with evolution guided by God
• 9 to 13% agreed with evolution without God
“Creationism Proponents Already in
Classrooms”
• A story in the Baltimore Sun by Arthur Hirsch
(Nov. 27, 2005) documented sympathy for
creationism and intelligent design among high
school teachers.
• Randy Moore (University of Minnesota): “There’s
a consistent, a significant number of biology
teachers in public schools who are creationists.”
• More than 2/3 of Kentucky teachers support
teaching creationism along with evolution.
• In 5 states, nearly 20% of teachers do not
accept evolution.
This 1976 Kentucky law is still on the books:
President Bush comments on
intelligent design
• According to a story in The Washington Post, by Peter
Baker and Peter Slevin (Aug., 2005), President Bush told
reporters “that he believes that intelligent design should
be taught alongside evolution as competing theories.”
• “Both sides ought to be properly taught…so that people
can understand what the debate is about,” he said.
But according to presidential science advisor John
Marburger: “evolution is the cornerstone of
modern biology…intelligent design is not a
scientific concept”
DEFINITIONS
EVOLUTION vs.
EVOLUTION THEORY
• Evolution, the diversification of life from
earlier forms (common descent) is
something that has happened beyond any
reasonable doubt.
• Evolution theory is the set of explanations
(mutations, natural selection, geographic
isolation, etc.) for how this diversity has
come about. It is well-established, but fine
points are debated.
http://www.ncseweb.org/graphics/continuum.gif
EVOLUTION IS NOT
ANTI-RELIGIOUS
View of some religious groups
Some religious groups that have taken positions
defending the teaching of evolution and/or attacking
inclusion of creationism or intelligent design (from
NCSE web site):
American Jewish Congress
Central Conference Of American Rabbis
General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church
(USA)
The General Convention Of The Episcopal Church
Roman Catholic Church
Today, almost half a century after the publication of the
Encyclical, fresh knowledge has led to the recognition
that evolution is more than a hypothesis. It is indeed
remarkable that this theory has been progressively
accepted by researchers, following a series of
discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The
convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the
results of work that was conducted independently is in
itself a significant argument in favour of this theory.
Pope John Paul II
Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences (1996)
Intelligent design rejected by
leading Vatican astronomer
According to an Associated Press story (Nov.
18, 2005), Rev. George Coyne, director of the
Vatican Observatory, said that “’intelligent
design’ isn’t science and doesn’t belong in
science classrooms.”
Francis Collins, director of the Human
Genome Project, and an evangelical
Christian, said: “From my perspective as a
scientist working on the genome, the
evidence in favor of evolution is
overwhelming.”
www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf
Creationists (and intelligent design advocates)
attack evolution for its “materialism” or “naturalism.”
This attack is inappropriate. Science relies on
methodological materialism: when doing science,
only naturalistic explanations are considered.
There is also philosophical materialism: rejection of
the existence of the supernatural. But evolution
(like other areas of science) takes no position for or
against the supernatural.
CREATIONISM
• Young-Earth
• Old-Earth
Young-Earth Creationism
• A leading organization promoting youngEarth creationism has been the Institute
for Creation Research in California.
http://www.icr.org/
• Henry Morris, former president of the ICR,
wrote the creationist textbook, Scientific
Creationism.
Young-Earth Creationism
• More recently, Answers in Genesis, based
in northern Kentucky, has become
prominent in the young-Earth creationist
movement.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
• This group is led by Ken Ham.
• Answers in Genesis is currently building a
Creation Museum, scheduled to open in
2007.
“SCIENTIFIC” CREATIONISM MODEL
•Sudden creation of universe, Earth, and living things
a few thousand years ago.
•Changes only with major “kinds” of life
(microevolution); no evolution from one “kind” to
another (macroevolution).
•Humans are a distinct “kind,” unrelated to any other
animal.
•A worldwide flood created most of Earth’s geological
strata and fossils.
These points are not based on scientific evidence, but on religious faith
in the literal truth of Genesis.
The major claims of young-earth
creationism have been disproved
• The Earth and universe are billions of years old, not a few
thousand years old. Evidence comes from geological
features, radiodating of rocks, and distant astronomical
objects.
• There has not been a worldwide flood that created most of
the fossil record. It cannot explain the order of the fossil
record, and many features could not have formed under flood
conditions or in only a few years.
• All forms of life did not appear suddenly at about the same
time. They appeared at many different times over billions of
years.
• Humans are not a distinct “kind” of life. We are closely
related to apes.
Old-Earth Creationism
One leading old-Earth creationist is
Dr. Hugh Ross, of the
Reasons To Believe ministry
http://www.reasons.org/
OLD-EARTH CREATIONISM
• Accepts the scientific evidence that Earth
and universe are billions of years old.
• Rejects the idea of common descent.
• However, if common descent is not true,
there must have been thousands of
creation events spread over billions of
years in a pattern that looks like evolution.
THE EVIDENCE FOR
EVOLUTION (COMMON
DESCENT, MACROEVOLUTION)
(Among nearly all experts in the
biological sciences, there is no doubt
that evolution has occurred.)
SOME CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE THAT
EVOLUTION HAS OCCURRED
•The hierarchy of living things – comparative anatomy, DNA sequences,
etc.
•The fossil record – gradual appearance of living things over billions of
years, including intermediate (transitional) forms
•Biogeography – the distribution of living and fossil plants and animals
•Vestigial features – useless or altered features reflecting evolutionary
history.
•Embryology – stages of development reflect evolutionary history.
Creationism cannot explain these observations.
Evolutionary
Developmental Biology
(“Evo-Devo”)
“Evo-Devo can trace the modifications of structures
through vast periods of evolutionary time – to see how
fish fins were modified into limbs in terrestrial
vertebrates, how successive rounds of innovation and
modification crafted mouthparts, poison claws,
swimming and feeding appendages, gills, and wings
from a simple tube-like walking leg, and how many
kinds of eyes have been constructed beginning with a
collection of photosensitive cells.”
--Sean B. Carroll, Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The
New Science of Evo Devo
Evolutionary Developmental
Biology (“Evo-Devo”)
“…all complex animals…share a common
‘toolkit’ of ‘master’ genes that govern the
formation and patterning of their bodies and
body parts…The discovery of the ancient
genetic toolkit is irrefutable evidence of the
descent and modification of animals,
including humans, from common ancestors.”
Sean Carroll
EXAMPLE – HUMAN EVOLUTION
PHYLOGENY: comparative features show that
humans are closely related to the great apes, and,
among the great apes, most closely related to the
chimpanzees.
In 2005, the sequence of the chimpanzee genome
was reported.
“The papers confirm the astonishing molecular similarities
between ourselves and chimpanzees. The average
protein differs by only two amino acids, and 29% of
proteins are identical…The total genetic difference
between humans and chimps, in terms of number of
bases, sums to about 4% of the genome.”
Science 309, 1468-9 (2005)
HUMAN EVOLUTION: FOSSIL RECORD
The fossil record documents an abundance of
forms that, over millions of years, gradually
change from more ape-like to more human-like.
See, for example, the chart found in Nature 422,
849-857 (24 April 2003).
BIOGEOGRAPHY: As Darwin predicted, these
fossils are found in Africa, near our closest
relatives, the great apes.
HUMAN EVOLUTION - EVIDENCE FROM:
EMBRYOLOGY
•The embryo has a notochord, which later disappears
•Pharyngeal pouches, similar to gill pouches, develop
•Three separate sets of kidneys develop
•The eyes form at the side of the head, then shift to the
front
•A tail develops, then regresses
VESTIGIAL FEATURES
•Muscles to move our tails
•Appendix
Creationism is not
supported by evidence
• For the most part, creationists do not
attempt to present positive evidence for
creationism.
• Mostly they present negative arguments,
attacking evolution
• The only positive argument is that living
things appear to be well-designed.
(Discussed later with intelligent design)
Popular creationist arguments have
been refuted by experts
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
No transitional forms
Gaps in the fossil record
Second Law of Thermodynamics
Probability arguments
Humans and dinosaurs living together
Out of sequence geological strata
Dust on the moon
Decline in Earth’s magnetic field
Salt in the ocean
Evolution is in chaos
Scientists have considered the
hypotheses proposed by creation
science and have rejected them
because of a lack of evidence.
Furthermore, the claims of creation
science do not refer to natural
causes and cannot be subject to
meaningful tests, so they do not
qualify as scientific hypotheses.
National Academy of Sciences, 1999
Creationism vs. evolution: a
religious and social controversy,
not a scientific controversy
• There is no significant doubt within the scientific
community that evolution has occurred.
• Creationists take their case to the general public, not
the scientific community
• Creationism is promoted largely by religious
organizations
• Creationist materials are filled with religious
arguments and Biblical references.
CREATIONISM AND
THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
• Arkansas and Louisiana cases
• Kansas standards
• Georgia stickers
• Santorum amendment
• Academic freedom
(Intelligent design, Dover later)
The First Amendment (1791):
…Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …
The Lemon Test (1971):
• the government’s action must have a secular purpose;
• the primary effect of the government’s action must
neither promote nor inhibit religion; and
• the government’s action must not excessively entangle
it with religion
1. Banning evolution
Antievolution laws 1919-1927
1968 - Epperson vs Arkansas - invalidated Arkansas statute
that prohibited teaching of evolution.
2. Seeking “equal time”
“Creation science”
1961-1987
Judge Overton in McLean v. Arkansas (1982):
… the evidence is overwhelming that both the purpose and
effect of Act 590 is the advancement of religion in the
public schools.
Ruled that creation “science” is not science.
Edwards v. Aguillard,
1987 – struck down
Louisiana law
requiring“equal time”
for creation science. The
law was endorsing a
particular religion.
Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987
… teaching a variety of
scientific theories about
the origins of humankind
to schoolchildren might
be validly done …
--Justice Brennan
The people of Louisiana … are
quite entitled, as a secular matter,
to have whatever scientific
evidence there may be against
evolution presented in their
schools…
-Justice Scalia (dissenting)
Consequences of Edwards Decision
“Scientific alternatives to evolution”
- “abrupt appearance theory”
- “intelligent design theory”
(but these are not scientific)
“Evidence against evolution”
(but there is no evidence that casts
serious doubt on evolution)
“Teach the controversy”
(but evolution is not controversial
among scientists)
Politics and ID: Kansas
1999 – Kansas Board of Education deletes evolution
from science curriculum
2001 – changes in Board lead to restoration of evolution
2002 and 2004 – elections lead to more conservative
Board
2005 – after months of deliberation, in November the
Board votes 6-4 to institute changes that are critical of
evolution. The Board also decides to redefine science,
so that it would not be limited to natural explanations.
2006 – candidates on both sides prepare for the next
round of elections.
Disclaimers/Textbooks
• 1995 - Alabama - "This textbook discusses evolution,
a controversial theory…No one was present when life
first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement
about life's origins should be considered as theory,
not fact."
• 1997 - Texas - BOE proposed replacing all biology
textbooks with new ones that did not mention
evolution.
• 2000 - Oklahoma disclaimer- similar to Alabama's
• 2001 - Mattoon, IL - school board rejects textbooks
because of evolutionary content (later reversed)
• 2001 Cobb County, GA - disclaimers in HS biology
and middle school science texts.
This textbook contains material on
evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a
fact, regarding the origin of living things.
This material should be approached with
an open mind, studied carefully, and
critically considered.
Cobb County, GA, 2002
Cobb County, Georgia, stickers
Subject of federal court case.
Outcome: stickers ruled unconstitutional, January
2005
(hearing of appeal begins, December 2005)
Politics and ID: Santorum Amendment
June 2001 - Sen. Rick Santorum (R, PA) proposes amendment
to the No Child Left Behind bill. (Amendment drafted by Phillip
Johnson, a leader of the intelligent design movement)
It is the sense of the Senate that–
(1) good science education should prepare students
to distinguish the data or testable theories of
science from philosophical or religious claims that
are made in the name of science; and
(2) where biological evolution is taught, the
curriculum should help students to understand why
this subject generates so much continuing
controversy, and should prepare the students to be
informed participants in public discussions
regarding the subject.
The Santorum amendment
• Passed 98-1, but went to conference
committee, where it was deleted. Some
language from the original amendment
is in a committee report, which has no
force of law.
• However, creationists sometimes cite
this amendment as if it were a law.
Academic freedom issues
• Considered to apply to right of college and university
professors to perform research and publish in areas of
choice. “Academic freedom is not a license to teach
anything you like.” – Kenneth Knight, AAUP.
• For high school science classes, issues are
appropriateness (e.g., must be science, not religion) and
competence (in accord with what the scientific
community considers good science)
• Peloza case (1991): “Teachers do no have a
constitutional right to teach or not teach certain subjects
based on their personal views.”
Evolution of Creationism
Flat-Earthism Geocentricism
YECism
OECism
Intelligent
Design
Bible Free
Old Earth
Heliocentricism
TIME
Earth Round
Last Common Ancestor
TRAITS
The argument from design
(William Paley, Natural
Theology, 1802)
Refutation of the design argument
• Design is only apparent, and can be
explained by evolution.
• There are many things in biology that do
not appear to be well designed.
Refutation of the design argument
• The biological arms race
• Parasites
How does “intelligent design” differ
from the classical design argument?
• Discoveries in biochemistry and molecular
biology reveal far greater complexity than
previously thought, and it is claimed this
could not have evolved. (Behe)
• Claims based on information theory.
(Dembski)
Intelligent design: other general
aspects
• Takes no position on the identify of the designer.
• Takes no position on the age of the Earth
(though most leading advocates are old-Earth).
• Could include progressive creationism
(intervention at multiple times to create new
species or features) and theistic evolution
(common descent, but with special intervention
needed to create some complex features).
• Component of “cultural renewal,” seeking to
remove strict naturalism from science.
Minor players in ID
Paul Nelson – Young-Earth creationist
Stephen Meyer – Exec. Dir. Of the C(R)SC
Guillermo Gonzalez – Astronomer at Iowa State
Alvin Plantinga – Theologian at Notre Dame
David DeWolf – Law Professor at Gonzaga U.
John Calvert – Lawyer, Dir of ID Network
Scott Minich – Microbiologist, University of Idaho
But mostly we just hear about
four individuals:
• Philip Johnson – lawyer
• Michael Behe – biochemist
• Jonathan Wells – trained in molecular and
cell biology
• William Dembski – mathematician
Only two of these have trained in relevant
areas (one of them only to the postdoc level).
Is this a scientific movement that deserves to
be included in high school science classes?
Major players in ID
The Discovery Institute
• Conservative Seattle think tank run by former Reagan adviser Bruce
Chapman
• 1996 - DI establishes the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture funds whole ID movement - $1 million/year
• $2.8 M through 2003 from Howard Ahmanson and Fieldstead and Co.
(Christian reconstructionist movement)
Center for Science and Culture
(previously Center for the Renewal of
Science and Culture)
Goals:
•To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and
political legacies.
•To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding
that nature and human beings are created by God.
CRSC web site, Oct. 1999
The Wedge
• A document detailing the plans and
strategies of the CRSC to reform science.
• “If we view the predominant materialistic
science as a giant tree, our strategy is
intended to function as a ‘wedge’ that, while
relatively small, can split the trunk when
applied at its weakest points.” (Wedge
document)
• Phases: 1. Research; 2. Publicity and
Opinion-Making; 3. Cultural Confrontation
and Renewal
Foundation for Thought
and Ethics
• Publisher, Of Pandas and People, the intelligent
design textbook
• Has other intelligent design publications as well
• William Dembski, Senior Fellow, Center for
Science and Culture, is Academic Editor.
http://www.fteonline.com/
Major players in ID: Philip Johnson
Professor of Law (emeritus), Berkeley
Books: Darwin on Trial
The Wedge of Truth
Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds
Reason in the Balance
Presumed author of the “wedge document”
Role in ID: Tear down the
“evil” that is naturalism
Major players in ID: Jonathan Wells
Book: Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?
PhD from Berkley, Yale
Reverend in the True Parents Organization
(Unification Church)
Role in ID: Poke holes in the best
known examples of evolution
“Icons of Evolution” Logic
1.
Textbooks illustrate evolution with
examples
2. Examples are flawed/misleading or
fraudulent
3. Therefore evolution is false/bad science
#3 does not follow from 2;
#2 is not generally true!
http://www.natcenscied.org/icons/
Major players in ID: William Dembski
•Books: The Design Inference; No Free Lunch
•Doctorates in mathematics and philosophy, and
master of divinity degree
•Recently joined the Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary in Louisville, where he heads a new Center
for Science and Theology
•Accepts that the Earth is billions of years old
William Dembski’s
“Explanatory Filter”
• The filter is presented as a flowchart for assessing the
cause of an event.
• If the event is “highly probable” it could be due to natural
law.
• If it is of “intermediate probability” it could be due to
chance.
• If it is of “small probability” but not “specified,” it could be
due to chance.
• If it is of “small probability” and “specified,” it must be due
to design.
Some flaws in the explanatory filter
(Mark Perakh, Skeptic, Nov. 2005)
• We can’t assign probability without knowing the
cause
• Most events arise from a combination of
causes
• Specification is related to probability, not a
separate feature
• Hasn’t been shown to work; only examples are
where answer already known.
• It is simply an argument from improbability.
Another book by Dembski:
No Free Lunch
“In No Free Lunch I argue that material systems are not
capable of organizing themselves into complex specified
structures apart from intelligence.”
NFL refers to certain theorems in optimization theory,
related to search algorithms and fitness functions.
NFL says that a given algorithm does no better than
another when averaged over all fitness landscapes.
Dembski claims that, therefore, evolution can do no better
than a random search – which isn’t good enough.
But an algorithm can do better than random in specific
fitness landscapes, such as encountered in evolution.
Moreover, evolution does not have a prespecified target.
Critique by David Wolpert, co-author
of the No Free Lunch theorems:
• "…his (Dembski's) arguments are fatally flawed and imprecise…All
one can do is squint, furrow one's brows, and then shrug."
• "…neo-Darwinian evolution of ecosystems does not involve a set of
genomes searching the same fitness function, the situation considered
by the NFL theorems…recent results indicate that NFL results do not
hold in co-evolution."
Lack of peer review:
Dembski claims to have made revolutionary discoveries. “He has
even been hailed by one of his allies in the Discovery Institute as
‘the Isaac Newton of information theory.' Yet his work on these
subjects has not appeared in any journal of statistics or information
theory, and, as far as I can determine, not one professional
statistician or information theorist has approved of this work.“ –
Richard Wein
http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/
Conclusion of philosopher
of science Michael Ruse:
“Dembski is ‘just plain
wrong.’”
Pennock, Science 301, 1051 (2003)
Major players in ID: Michael Behe
Book: Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical
Challenge to Evolution
Professor at Lehigh University
Popularized “Irreducible Complexity”
(Supports common descent)
Major argument in ID:
Irreducible Complexity
“By irreducibly complex I mean a single
system composed of several well-matched,
interacting parts that contribute to the basic
function, wherein the removal of any one of
the parts causes the system to effectively
cease functioning."
Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box
The Bacterial Flagellum: ID’s mascot
BEHE’S EXAMPLES OF
IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY
•
•
•
•
•
Molecular motors: bacterial flagella; cilia
Blood clotting cascade
Protein trafficking
Immune system
Metabolic pathways
Despite his claims in Darwin’s Black Box, there were many
papers on the evolution of the systems he discusses.
Plausible evolutionary pathways have been proposed, even
if all of the steps are not known.
Scientists respond to Behe
• Simpler systems may exist in some organisms, showing
that the structures are not irreducibly complex.
• Complex features can arise from simpler precursors.
Eventually all parts may be indispensable, but this need
not have been true in earlier stages.
• Co-optation: structures that have one function can be
recruited to take on new functions. Considerable
evidence indicates that proteins involved in complex
pathways and structures have evolved from other
proteins.
• Darwin's Black Box is nothing more than an argument
from personal incredulity: Behe can’t imagine how a
flagellum could have been produced via natural
selection, therefore, the flagellum is the product of
intelligent design!
Intelligent design arguments are simply
negative arguments against evolution:
• Supposed disproofs of evolution
(irreducible complexity, information):
experts agree that these arguments are
flawed and do not disprove evolution
• Probability arguments: but we cannot
assess the probability without knowing in
detail all possible evolutionary scenarios
Behe responds by changing
arguments:
• “’I quite agree that my argument against
Darwinism does not add up to a logical
proof,’ he says – though he continues to
believe that Darwinian paths to irreducible
complexity are exceedingly unlikely.
• “Behe and his followers now emphasize
that, while irreducibly complex systems can
in principle evolve, biologists can’t
reconstruct in convincing detail just how
any such system did evolve.”
– H. Allen Orr, The New Yorker, May 30, 2005
Bacterial flagella
Many flagellar proteins are homologous to
proteins in the Type III secretion apparatus.
(colors indicate conserved functions; proteins do not necessarily have homologous
sequences)
Blocker, Ariel et al. (2003) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100, 3027-3030
Copyright 2003 National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. Used with permission.
Possible evolutionary scenarios have been proposed in which a primitive export pore
changes to an active secretion system; acquires an adhesion function; develops a
pilus, which becomes a flagellum; acquires regulatory and switching mechanisms, etc.
Function changes from export to secretion to adhesion to motility.
Blood clotting
Prothrombin and factors X, IX, XI, and VII are homologous.
A proposed scenario (Miller, Finding Darwin’s God):
A plasma serine protease (zymogen form), when exposed to
damaged tissue, can get activated, cutting proteins nonspecifically
and producing clot.
Addition of an EGF domain allows cellular binding.
A fibrinogen-like protein is recruited to be the target of the
proteolysis.
The original protease is autocatalytic, but by gene duplication an
activating protease can be added.
The cascade is extended backward.
Further levels of control are added.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html
Immune system
• Innate immune system: found in all
multicellular organisms.
• Adaptive or antibody-based immune
system: restricted to jawed vertebrates.
Emergence of the organs, cells, and molecules of the AIS
during the evolution of chordates
Black = fully developed
Shaded = ancestral form
Light = not known
Klein, Jan and Nikolaidis, Nikolas (2005) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102, 169-174
Copyright 2005 National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. Used with permission.
Copyright ©2005 by the National Academy of Sciences
Hypothetical scenario for the emergence of the major histocompatibility, T cell receptor, and B cell
receptor molecules by gradual evolution, which encompassed modification of preexisting domains,
joining together of different domains, and possibly generation of new domain designs
Klein, Jan and Nikolaidis, Nikolas (2005) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102, 169-174
Copyright 2005 National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. Used with permission.
Copyright ©2005 by the National Academy of Sciences
Darwin on the
eye:
To suppose that the eye with all its
inimitable contrivances for adjusting the
focus to different distances, for admitting
different amounts of light, and for the
correction of spherical and chromatic
aberration, could have been formed by
natural selection, seems, I freely
confess, absurd in the highest degree…
Reason tells me, that if
numerous gradations from a
simple and imperfect eye to one
complex and perfect can be
shown to exist, each grade being
useful to its possessor, as is
certainly the case; if further, the
eye ever varies and the variations
be inherited, as is likewise
certainly the case; and if such
variations should be useful to any
animal under changing conditions
of life, then the difficulty of
believing that a perfect and
complex eye could be formed
by natural selection, though
insuperable by our imagination,
should not be considered as
subversive of the theory.
Evolution of the eye
Possible stages in evolution of the eye, as indicated by eyes in existing organisms.
1. Photosensitive epithelium
2. Simple eye cup (some gastropods)
3. A deeper cup, providing directional information (many annelids and gastropods)
4. Further toward a pinhole eye (some molluscs)
5. Refractive lens, resulting from increased protein concentration (some
gastropods)
6. Flat, pigmented iris surrounding the lens allows for better focusing (fish, squids;
some gastropods, annelids, and crustaceans)
(from Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology)
See figure at: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/futuyma_complex.html
Evolution of the eye: two recent
papers on eye proteins
1. C-Opsin found in lightsensitive cells in the brain
of Platynereis, a marine
worm (Arendt et al. (2004)
Science 306, 869-871)
r-opsin = rhabdomeric (invertebrates); c-opsin = ciliary (vertebrates)
Evolution of the eye: two recent
papers on eye proteins
2. βγ-Crystallin was found in Ciona, a urochordate (which does
not have a lens) (Shimeid et al. (2005) Current Biology 15, 16841689). http://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/archive/00000302/
“The conservation of the regulatory hierarchy controlling βγ-crystallin
expression between organisms with and without a lens shows that the
evolutionary origin of the lens was based on co-option of pre-existing
regulatory circuits controlling the expression of a key structural gene in a
primitive light-sensing system.”
Evolution of complex structures:
summary
• We do not know in complete detail how these structures
evolved.
• However, plausible scenarios have been proposed.
• Simpler systems are found in some organisms,
demonstrating that they are not irreducibly complex.
• Moreover, the molecular evidence indicates that these
structures did evolve.
• In no case have researchers reached an impasse to
further understanding of how the structures may have
evolved.
The problem with accepting the
evolution of complex features
• It is difficult (especially for people not trained in science)
to imagine the power of the immense number of
replicating organisms, taken over millions of years, to
produce cumulative changes.
• But there are many things that are true yet beyond our
ability to comprehend:
Examples: the universe is about 14 billion years old and
contains about 1076 atoms.
The human body has about 1014 cells.
An estimated 1030 bacteria live on Earth.
Recent books providing critiques of
intelligent design
• Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism
(Robert T. Pennock)
• Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical,
Theological, and Scientific Perspectives (Robert T. Pennock,
ed.)
• Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design
(Barbara Forrest & Paul R. Gross)
• Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction (Eugenie C. Scott)
• Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common
Ground Between God and Evolution (Kenneth R. Miller)
• Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New
Creationism (Matt Young and Taner Edis, eds.)
• Unintelligent Design (Mark Perakh)
Scientific problems with intelligent design:
• No concise definition of what is meant by "design.”
• No consensus on who the "designer” is.
• No position on when, or how many times, the
“designer” acted.
• No position on the age of the Earth
• No position on common ancestry. Did evolution
occur, with the designer just inserting complex
structures and pathways?
Scientific problems with intelligent design:
• No proposed mechanism for “design.”
Michael Behe in the Dover trial:
In an attempt to pin Professor Behe down, Mr. Rothschild
asked, “What is the mechanism that intelligent design is
proposing?”
Mr. Behe said: “It does not propose a mechanism in the
sense of a step-by-step description of how these
structures arose.” He added that “the word ‘mechanism’
can be used broadly” and said the mechanism was
“intelligent activity.”
Laurie Goodstein, New York Times, Oct. 19, 2005
Scientific problems with intelligent design:
•No theory:
“Easily the biggest challenge facing the…
intelligent design community, is to develop a fullfledged theory of biological design. We don’t
have such a theory right now, and that’s a big
problem. Without a theory it’s very hard to know
where to direct your research focus. Right now
we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions and a
handful of notions such as irreducible
complexity and specified complexity, but as yet
no general theory of biological design.”
---Paul Nelson, Touchstone Magazine,
Aug. 2004
Scientific problems with intelligent design:
• Many things in biology do not look well-designed.
(“Features that strike us as odd in a design might
have been placed there by the designer for a
reason – for artistic reasons, to show off, for
some as-yet undetectable practical purpose, or
for some unguessable reason – or they might
not.” – Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box.)
Scientific problems with intelligent design:
• No research in support. “In the nearly ten years since the
publication of Behe’s book…I.D. has inspired no nontrivial
experiments and has provided no surprising insights into
biology.” H. Allen Orr, The New Yorker. (In 2005, a peerreview paper was finally published in an obscure journal,
but it offered no new evidence or arguments.)
“The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects
seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after
providing a few grants for conferences and courses
related to debate intelligent design, they asked
proponents to submit proposals for actual research.
‘They never came in,’ said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior
vice president…’From the point of view of rigor and
intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people
don’t come out very well in our world of scientific review,’
he said.” – Laurie Goodstein, New York Times, Dec. 4,
2005
Scientific problems with intelligent design:
• Intelligent design is a “science stopper”: if we
give up and say something was designed, then
we will stop looking to see how it may have
evolved.
“Science is a philosophy of discovery. Intelligent
design is a philosophy of ignorance. You cannot
build a program of discovery on the assumption
that nobody is smart enough to figure out the
answer to a problem.” – Neil deGrasse Tyson,
director of Hayden Planetarium, Natural History,
November 2005.
Even if intelligent design qualified as
science, it is not appropriate to teach
in school science classes
• There is virtually no published research in
support.
• It is rejected by nearly all experts in the
relevant areas of science.
• In no other area of science do the schools
teach something with so little support
among scientists.
“…once you win the scientific consensus, quite
automatically you wind up in the curriculum, college
courses, and eventually in high school and grade
school classes. Intelligent design has been either
unable or unwilling to win the scientific consensus, so
what you see now is an end run around the scientific
process to use political means, state boards of
education, curriculum development to inject this into
the classroom without winning the scientific
consensus…”
--Kenneth Miller (Brown University), American
Enterprise Institute panel discussion on intelligent
design, Oct. 21, 2005
Intelligent design is a religious
movement
Johnson admits what ID is
really about
"This isn't really, and never has been, a
debate about science," said the [Biola]
conference's prime mover, law professor
Phillip Johnson of the University of
California at Berkeley. "It's about religion
and philosophy." [Jay Grelen, "Witnesses for the
Prosecution,“ World, 11-30-96, (11)26]
Intelligent design is a religious movement
Goals of the Discovery Institute, Center for Renewal of
Science and Culture (leading promoter of intelligent design):
--To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral,
cultural and political legacies.
--To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic
understanding that nature and human beings are created by
God.
Intelligent design is a religious
movement
The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that “In the
beginning was the Word,” and “In the beginning God created.”
Establishing that point isn't enough, but it is absolutely essential to the
rest of the gospel message.
Phillip Johnson (2000). Forward to Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science, Probe Ministries,
Grand Rapids, MI. p. 5
"Father's words, my studies, and my prayers, convinced me that I should
devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow
Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. “
Jonathan Wells, Unification Church sermon
“…intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated
in the idiom of information technology.”
William Dembski, Touchstone, July/Aug 1999:84.
THE DOVER CASE
Dover, Pennsylvania
•In 2004, the school board adopted a policy in
which biology teachers were to inform students
about “gaps/problems” in evolution, and to
include intelligent design in the ninth grade
curriculum.
•The intelligent design textbook Of Pandas and
People was endorsed as a reference.
•A lawsuit was filed against the policy, with a
federal trial held in late 2005.
DOVER TRIAL
Evidence presented in the trial clearly
showed that:
•The school board wanted to teach
creationism.
•The school board knew that intelligent
design is a form of creationism.
In November, 2005, eight of the school board members
that had supported intelligent design were up for reelection. All were defeated.
DOVER TRIAL
• In December 2005, Judge John Jones
issued a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs.
• “After a searching review of the record and
applicable case law, we find that while ID
arguments may be true, a proposition on
which the Court takes no position, ID is not
science.”
We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of
which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID
is science. They are:
• ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science
by invoking and permitting supernatural causation;
• the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID,
employs the same flawed and illogical contrived
dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980’s;
and
• ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted
by the scientific community.
--Judge John Jones, decision in Dover case
As we will discuss in more detail below, it is
additionally important to note that ID has failed to
gain acceptance in the scientific community, it
has not generated peer-reviewed publications,
nor has it been the subject of testing and
research.
--Judge John Jones, decision in Dover case
IMPACT OF THE DOVER DECISION:
•It will now be more difficult to introduce intelligent
design in high school classes.
•In February, 2006, the Ohio Board of Education
reversed an anti-evolution policy, partly in response
to the Dover decision.
•Plans to introduce intelligent design legislation in
some states were modified after the decision.
LESSONS FROM THE DOVER TRIAL
Creationism provides the driving force.
Intelligent design provides a superficially intellectual
cover, supposedly free of religious content.
Proponents appeal to the idea that it is only fair to
admit alternative views.
CONCLUSIONS
• Impact on teachers
• Recent political activity
CONCLUSIONS: THE IMPACT ON TEACHERS
In many textbooks, evolution is placed in a chapter
near the end, where it is often rushed through (or left
out entirely) at the end of the school year.
NSTA Survey (March 2005)
When asked if they feel pressured to include creationism,
intelligent design, or other nonscientific alternatives to
evolution in their science classroom, 31% of teachers
responding said they did.
When asked if they feel pushed to de-emphasize or omit
evolution or evolution-related topics from their
curriculum, 30% agreed.
CONCLUSIONS: POLITICAL ACTIVITY
Reports of the National Center for Science Education, Nov-Dec 2004
ANTI-EVOLUTION ACTIVITY IN THE STATES
Antievolution legislation in 2004
Oklahoma HB 2194
Michigan HB 4946, HB 5005
Missouri HB 911
Minnesota HF 2003, SF 1714
Alabama HB 336
Mississippi HB 1288
Antievolution legislation in 2005
Alabama HB 352/SB 240
Arkansas HB 2607
Georgia HB 179
Missouri HB 35
Mississippi HB 2886
Montana HB 1199
Oklahoma SB 719
South Carolina SB 114
Texas HB 220 (textbooks)
New York A 3036
Politics: Kentucky
• In December, it was reported that Republican
members of the legislature were interested in
intelligent design legislation.
• In January, Governor Fletcher, in his “State of the
Commonwealth” address, said: “So I ask, what is
wrong with teaching ‘intelligent design’ in our
schools. Under KERA, our school districts have that
freedom and I encourage them to do so. This is not
a question about faith or religion. It’s about selfevident truth.”
• At a later news conference, Fletcher said that
teaching of intelligent design should be a local
decision.
• No bills related to evolution have been introduced in
the 2006 session.
Politics: Indiana
• A November story reported that some
Republican Indiana legislators were developing
legislation to require teaching of intelligent
design.
• Some of these legislators had met earlier with
Carl Baugh, a young-Earth creationist.
• A January story reported that as a result of the
Dover decision, the intelligent design idea was
replaced by a bill requiring “accuracy in
textbooks.”
RESOURCES
www.NCSEWeb.org
Crisis center
http://evolution.berkeley.edu
Resources
• The Talk Origins Archive: Exploring the
Creation/Evolution Controversy
http://www.talkorigins.org/
• TalkDesign.org: Critically Examining the “Intelligent
Design” Movement
http://www.talkdesign.org/
• The Panda’s Thumb: Group weblog on evolutionary
theory, the claims of the anti-evolution movement, and
the defence of the integrity of both science and
science education.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/