SLTrib: BYU Biology prof's view on ID

[HiJolly]

BYU Biology Prof on ID

Intelligent Design fails as a pretense to science that tries to set religion and evolution at odds

By Steven L. Peck Article Last Updated: 05/09/2008 11:06:03 PM MDT http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_9213639

The movie "Expelled" is, once again, unfortunately bringing to the foreground the creationist flanking maneuver of so-called Intelligent Design.

First, I want to be clear where I'm coming from. I am a biology professor and a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I take particular delight in being raised a Mormon who was taught that education and knowledge are among our highest ideals.

Many are surprised to find that I am also an evolutionary biologist. I am also a member of the Society for the Study of Evolution, the United States' leading evolutionary science organization, and have published papers in its journal Evolution. I have published numerous scientific papers on the topic of evolution and believe that it is the best explanation for the diversity of life we see around us.

Evolution is at the heart of the biological revolution that has transformed everything from genetics, and medicine, to drug discovery and managing antibiotic resistance. As the great 20th century biologist Dobzhansky said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

As a biologist, I could not agree more. BYU has a number of faithful evolutionary biologists and evolutionary science is taught at Brigham Young University just as it is at any other accredited university. Intelligent Design has no place in BYU's science curriculum.

Let me be blunt. I find nothing of value in Intelligent Design for both scientific and religious reasons. Intelligent Design posits that evolutionary theory cannot explain the origin of biological complexity. This is nonsense. Evolution is the best explanation for complexity. The purveyors of Intelligent Design argue that complex structures like the eye cannot be explained by bouts of mutation and selection; they call this irreproducible complexity. However, the truth is the eye has been explained exactly in those terms, by many evolutionary thinkers.

The argument is tantamount to saying that skyscrapers are impossible to build because there is no crane large enough to construct one. In fact, the crane was part of the building as it was raised and finally was dismantled when no longer needed. In the evolutionary history of life, this happened again and again. We see the remnants of these "cranes" all over the place. The history of life is full of things being used and retooled, then lost. A whale's leg being turned into flippers, for example.

My next complaint about the Intelligent Design fiasco is its pretence to science. Exactly what makes it a science is not clear. It offers no testable hypotheses. It has established no research program. The theory of evolution has offered testable hypotheses that have been confirmed again and again. The theory of evolution says that we should find certain things in the fossil record, the genetic code of our genes, the distribution of plants and animals on the earth. We find those things.

Do not be detracted by supposed missing transitional forms. Fossilization is a rare process and we expect to find few transitional forms. But consider the recent lovely fossils coming out of China detailing the evolution of flight in birds from bird-like reptiles.

My last complaint about Intelligent Design is that it sets religion and science against each other. It puts forward a false dichotomy in students' minds that suggests that evolution and faith are incompatible. It makes people of religious faith suspicious of science. When students genuinely think that science and religion are incompatible, one of two things typically happens. They embrace science and, since it is incompatible to religion, religion is abandoned. The other is that they maintain their faith but remain inappropriately suspicious of science and dismiss its methods and findings, inclining themselves to superstition and pseudoscience.

I have to wonder if the reason science education in the U.S. is falling behind that of other countries is because misinformed people of faith have been dissing science to the point that many students are choosing other paths.

Faith and science need not be enemies. I embrace both fully and without reservation. My religious convictions are part of who I am. My science and faith reciprocate and inform one another. They are part of the way I understand my place in the universe.

Intelligent Design does nothing to promote the search for understanding and cooperation between these two vital ways of knowing. It is a darkening of the mind on every level, both religiously and scientifically. Please do not let it be taught to my children as a science. It is bad for both religion and science.

Faith and science need not be enemies. I embrace both fully and without reservation. My religious convictions are part of who I am. My science and faith reciprocate and inform one another. They are part of the way I understand my place in the universe. Intelligent Design does nothing to promote the search for understanding and cooperation between these two vital ways of knowing.

---

* STEVEN L. PECK is an associate professor in the Department of Biology at Brigham Young University. E-mail: steven [email protected]

[HiJolly]

"We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true Mormons." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 316.)

HiJolly

[sgallan]

I was heartened that the responses to this piece were/are overwhelmingly positive.

[utcowboy]

I don't see where people can look around themselves and say that evolution does not or can not exsist. We have all evolved some what over time. You can see the changes in almost everything, but I don't think that we evolved from some micro organism. I don't see where my religion and science cannot coexsist, yes there is evolution in the world, we adapt to our enviroment, but I believe that a loving God put the first man and woman on this earth too. Why is that a problem for people, why is it a hard thing to understand?

[WillowTheWhisp]

I believe that there is evolution within a species but that each species remains separate. Like when a horse and a donkey mate the offspring is sterile. We do not see evidence of things evolving from one species to another.

When God created all creatures they were commanded to multiply after their own kind, each after its own kind.

[HiJolly]

I believe that there is evolution within a species but that each species remains separate. Like when a horse and a donkey mate the offspring is sterile. We do not see evidence of things evolving from one species to another.

When God created all creatures they were commanded to multiply after their own kind, each after its own kind.

Not to argue or anything, but I for one have seen scientific evidence that things DO evolve from one species to another. I'm not sure the command was meant to violate the laws of nature, since they essentially come from the same source...

HiJolly

[prisonchaplain]

I don't see where people can look around themselves and say that evolution does not or can not exsist. We have all evolved some what over time. You can see the changes in almost everything, but I don't think that we evolved from some micro organism. I don't see where my religion and science cannot coexsist, yes there is evolution in the world, we adapt to our enviroment, but I believe that a loving God put the first man and woman on this earth too. Why is that a problem for people, why is it a hard thing to understand?

.

I'm no learned scientist, and I've not seen the movie in question. Further, I'm well aware that I.D. folk are very good at debating in front of general audiences, but have gained little traction in the scientific community, thus far.

That said, I.D. is not a repudiation of species adapting to their environment (sometimes distinguished as 'micro-evolution'). Rather, the heart of the question is, do we develop and even transform by random selection or by design. The latter seems to be orthodoxy in the scientific community, whereas the hypothesis that there is design to the world is deemed heresy. Orthodoxy and heresy are religious words, not scientific ones. And yet, it is the I.D. proponents and sympathizers who are condemned for being religious.

I have no problem with the prevalence of atheism amongst biologists, but wonder at what sometimes appears to be anti-theism.

[sgallan]

I'm no learned scientist, and I've not seen the movie in question. Further, I'm well aware that I.D. folk are very good at debating in front of general audiences, but have gained little traction in the scientific community, thus far.

First, any good debater can debate pretty much anything..... either side of an issue.

Second, if you want an insight as to why it isn't good science, read what the Judge in Pennsylvania had to write in his decision. It is over 100 pages long (start on pg 28 to get past the legalize stuff at the beginning). The Judge who wrote that decision was a Bush appointee, a Christian, and a conservative. Yet he shredded the whole ID concept in a science venue. It was brutal.

http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

[Hemidakota]

Not to argue or anything, but I for one have seen scientific evidence that things DO evolve from one species to another. I'm not sure the command was meant to violate the laws of nature, since they essentially come from the same source...

HiJolly

If you are referring jumping life forms, I haven't seen a plant propagate to a four-legged animal [example] and this is where I personally believe Evolutionist made a mistake. Yes, there is no testable science that can account for this for now. Now, I am easily corrected if someone can show evidence.

For now, I would stick with Abraham account where each layer of life supports the greater. However, outside forces are required to start and supervise the new layer added.

[Moksha]

.

I'm well aware that I.D. folk are very good at debating in front of general audiences, but have gained little traction in the scientific community, thus far.

Only in front of audiences used to the end of sentences being punctuated by "Praise the Lord" and "Hallelujah".

The same sort that filled the courtroom in the movie Inherit the Wind.

On the Intelligent Design trial covered by the PBS television special, the ID folk looked unconvincing.

[HiJolly]

.That said, I.D. is not a repudiation of species adapting to their environment (sometimes distinguished as 'micro-evolution'). Rather, the heart of the question is, do we develop and even transform by random selection or by design. The latter seems to be orthodoxy in the scientific community, whereas the hypothesis that there is design to the world is deemed heresy. Orthodoxy and heresy are religious words, not scientific ones. And yet, it is the I.D. proponents and sympathizers who are condemned for being religious.

This is NOT the question for scientists. The scientific method is bound by strict rules. One of these is, if you cannot perform multiple independent, controlled and measurable tests to prove or disprove your hypothesis, then it cannot be studied, and therefore it is not science.

Since scientists are unable to control or measure Gods involvement, they cannot address any hypothesis that involves Him. It is not that they are biased against God, but simply that their methodology and tools CANNOT apply to Him. Scientific tools are useless, so they tend to ignore Him IN PRACTICE. Nevertheless, many scientists personally do believe in God and religion.

This is why Intelligent Design is not science. In fact, ID utilizes the 'god of the gaps' logical fallacy. That is antithetical to science.

I have no problem with the prevalence of atheism amongst biologists, but wonder at what sometimes appears to be anti-theism.

Some, like Dawkins, are definitely anti-theist, and it is a personal choice. It tends to come easily to scientists, since theism doesn't directly apply to their work in the lab.

I personally believe in God's involvement in creation, I just don't think it has anything to do with science. Science is a flawed tool at use in a flawed world. By God's purposeful design. Until we can measure and control God's involvement in the world around us, it'll stay that way. And SHOULD stay that way. The first principle of the Gospel is FAITH in the Lord Jesus Christ.

HiJolly

[Hemidakota]

If only we have the talent of being a 'Seer'.

[Hemidakota]

This is NOT the question for scientists. The scientific method is bound by strict rules. One of these is, if you cannot perform multiple independent, controlled and measurable tests to prove or disprove your hypothesis, then it cannot be studied, and therefore it is not science.

Since scientists are unable to control or measure Gods involvement, they cannot address any hypothesis that involves Him. It is not that they are biased against God, but simply that their methodology and tools CANNOT apply to Him. Scientific tools are useless, so they tend to ignore Him IN PRACTICE. Nevertheless, many scientists personally do believe in God and religion.

I concur with the background for science method of study. Test Engineers use the same logical approach.

I have seen some notable archeologists bend the rules, as it was during a finding in Africa couple of years ago, a grandson of a known fraud [i will not post his name]. I made a curious discovery in comparing his skull to a known living primate and there was a slight difference based on decay. He was claiming his discovery as another form of earlier humanoid; now this is a problem. Also, his dating of the skull was less than a science approach when trying to use a nearby volcano as a form of dating. I still have a image a 90-feet tree, standing upright exposed on the Grand Canyon wall that disproves the layer dating techniques that is practice by some.

What start as a hypothesis, later found as a fraud, becomes science teachable truths down through the years. I am sure you may know who I am talking about.

[WillowTheWhisp]

As far as I am aware there is no accepted evidence of a missing link - there are things which have been disproven, such as Piltdown Man. I also recall watching something on TV which explained that we have not evolved from Neanderthal Man but that Homo Sapiens and Neanderthal coexisted and the latter died out.

[Hemidakota]

The gospel according to the History Channel. [humor]

I watched it. Love the violent scenes.

[HiJolly]

I concur with the background for science method of study. Test Engineers use the same logical approach.

I have seen some notable archeologists bend the rules, as it was during a finding in Africa couple of years ago, a grandson of a known fraud [i will not post his name]. I made a curious discovery in comparing his skull to a known living primate and there was a slight difference based on decay. He was claiming his discovery as another form of earlier humanoid; now this is a problem. Also, his dating of the skull was less than a science approach when trying to use a nearby volcano as a form of dating. I still have a image a 90-feet tree, standing upright exposed on the Grand Canyon wall that disproves the layer dating techniques that is practice by some.

What start as a hypothesis, later found as a fraud, becomes science teachable truths down through the years. I am sure you may know who I am talking about.

In both science and in religion, there are many regretable instances of fraud. Must be the human condition.

"In science, there is never the last word, only the latest."

HiJolly

[Hemidakota]

Thanks HJ...sorry for my rantings.

[prisonchaplain]

Hi Jolly...personally, I WANT to believe God made the world intimately, by design, preferably, literally a few thousand years ago. On the other hand, if God anointed the evolutionary process, and it took Sagan's "billions and billions of years," my spiritual bubble would not be burst.

It could be that there is no merit whatsoever to I.D. On the other hand, the campaign against seemed so over-reacted to, it was almost communist in flavor.

MOKSHA...you may be right about the I.D. debaters. I've seen a couple that sounded convincing, but my background is hardly appropriate to make an intelligent assessment. And, I am very biased towards theistic interpretations.

[Moksha]

And, I am very biased towards theistic interpretations.

Well, how about the theistic interpretation that God sets evolution into motion? I think that is where Dr. Steven Peck, quoted in the initial article, is coming from.

[HiJolly]

Well, how about the theistic interpretation that God sets evolution into motion? I think that is where Dr. Steven Peck, quoted in the initial article, is coming from.

I agree, and that is my own personal view, as well.

HiJolly