Nature Methods | Methagora

An intelligently designed response

Sooner or later, any scientist is likely to be confronted by a supporter of “intelligent design” (ID), or questioned by a student, friend or neighbor intrigued by the concept of ID. Check out our idea of a response here and share your thoughts on what yours would be.

Comments

  1. Report this comment

    Veronique Kiermer said:

    A shortened version of the letter below by Lee Turnpenny was published as a Correspondence in Nature Methods in response to the Editorial mentioned in this post:

    “Although your recent Editorial, ‘An intelligently designed response’ [Nat Meth (2007), 4 (12): 983] was apposite, an important omission was apparent. Yes, debunking ID by scientific reasoning requires good lay communication skills. Yes, merely (correctly) dismissing ID as nonsense will only fuel charges of scientific arrogance. And yes, the point about the nature of science has to be made, because doing so makes palpable that ID is not science. However, the advice to avoid a religious discussion is questionable – particularly as so doing does not necessarily entail an atheistic rant.

    As well as emphasizing what ID is not, we also need to consider what it is. ID proponents might eschew its association with literalist creationism, but are happy to couple religious conservatism with a technology-friendly modernity. In the UK, we have a Christian organization, absurdly-named ‘Truth in Science’, which has distributed glossy paraphernalia to the science departments of secondary schools and sixth form colleges, advocating ID inclusion in science lessons. Despite contravening the national curriculum, this marketing ploy has apparently proven effective in persuading a number of schools it has scientific credentials. ID appeals to fundamentalists of other religions. Harun Yahya, the pseudonymous vehicle for Muslim creationist propaganda, has distributed a lavish, 800-page tome to schools and universities, scientists and museums in France and the US, the latter also pandering to a literalist mindset through a number of ‘Creation Museums’. Thus, referring to religion is both unavoidable and necessary to understand the strategy at work here.

    The ID movement is exploiting the assumption that the lay public is cognitively incapable of differentiating between science and pseudoscience, reflected by its proneness to advertising that frequently resorts to the authority of science whilst conveniently misrepresenting it. As the marketing industry well knows, science sells. And selling us something we think we need is easy. The preservation and promotion of a worldview has become just as amenable to marketing, and it should not be assumed that religious groups who convey themselves as bastions of moral integrity would never resort to such tactics.

    By proposing that evolution is deficient in its account of gaps in the fossil record, and what it considers the ‘irreducible complexity’ of certain natural features, ID reveals a theology as old as the hills, and long since discredited. Attempt to dislodge a scientific paradigm like evolution requires equivalent explanatory power. ID, then, should presumably be able to address those other ‘gaps’, which evolution also explains: the extinction of over 95% of species that have ever inhabited the earth; and the numerous imperfections that afflict extant living organisms (including humans). A designer that engineered bodies with built-in flaws would expose a deficient, imperfect intelligence. This is where ID backfires: an attempt to blend evolution with occasional supernatural intervention to give the process a bit of a shunt now and again is a resurrection of the ‘God of the Gaps’, rejected by the majority of thinking religious people who comfortably reconcile evolut ion with their beliefs. ID is, therefore, not only pseudoscience, but also shallow religion (and consequently has no legitimate place in religious education classrooms either).

    The enclave of pro-ID scientists, who first and foremost are committed theists, is fully aware that a lack of an actual research program and peer-reviewed literature prevents competition in the scientific domain. But in this media age, they can disingenuously inculcate doubt in the public domain, establishing a veneer of ‘scientific’ controversy. The generated publicity consequently affords ID undue credibility in a supposedly balanced debate, giving it a platform from which to hypocritically denounce scientific arrogance, and so garner sympathy from a laity largely ignorant of how science actually works.

    ID does not have a pentadactyl limb to stand on when it comes to scientifically debating evolution. Its proponents know this full well, and that they must therefore adopt more clandestine tactics. ID is nothing more than sexed up creationism for the media age, a realization necessary for an effective refutation of its scientific posturing."

  2. Report this comment

    Samer Helal Zaky said:

    After having read the launched “Science, Evolution and Creationism” by the National Academy of Sciences (https://www.nap.edu), let me quote a bunch of its statements. “Because of this immense body of evidence, scientists treat the occurrence of evolution as one of the most securely established of scientific facts. Biologists also are confident in their understanding of how evolution occurs.” “The atomic structure of matter, the genetic basis of heredity, the circulation of blood, gravitation and planetary motion, and the process of biological evolution by natural selection are just a few examples of a very large number of scientific explanations that have been overwhelmingly substantiated.” “Scientists are actually disputing some aspect of how evolution occurs, not whether evolution occurred.” “Evolution has been and continues to be one of the most productive theories known to modern science.” “There is no scientific controversy about the basic facts of evolution.” “Scientific knowledge itself is the result of the critical thinking applied by generations of scientists to questions about the natural world. Scientific knowledge must be subjected to continued reexamination and skepticism for human knowledge to continue to advance.” (This latter statement, doesn’t it contradicts the previous ones?)

    I just was wondering how the authors dare to compare the science behind evolution to the one behind the atomic structure of matter and the circulation of blood. What evidence did they observe to assure the occurrence of species macroevolution as securely as development of bacterial antibiotics resistance and viral (composed of a single or double genetic strand) mutation.

    Did natural selection – by definition a spontaneous repeatable process- answer how from a single unicellular ancestor emerged worms, reptiles, hedgehogs, elephants, apes and “me” without the interference of an intelligent will!!?? If it did not, aren’t these confirming strong statements a kind of intentional scientific abrogation for any further research?

    Admitting the presence of this non-specialized intelligent power that decided laws for planet trajectories as well as for DNA duplication (a one-time decision and not a repeatable process) represents a no-way-out fear in confront of this omnipotence. (It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Book of Hebrew chapter 11 verse 31) Believing in nature – the spontaneous – does not present any discomfort while it is an obvious threat to admit the presence of the living God without communicating with him. Are we seeking comfort or truth?

  3. Report this comment

    Noah Gray said:

    Samer, why is it that you and so many others are convinced that there is a centuries-old, worldwide conspiracy in the scientific realm to pretend that God doesn’t exist and thus induce an “intentional abrogation for any further research”? Evolution, natural selection, and other anthropological studies are conducted regularly, with the results tweaking our view of the past.

    As for whether scientists and non-believers seek comfort or truth, as a scientist, I would have to say that I seek truth. Even those who do not believe in evolution or adhere to scientific principles seek truth. Comfort has nothing to do with it. If it was comfort that I wanted, I certainly wouldn’t be wasting my time trying to figure out whether God existed (as this is an impossible task to prove or disprove).

    Taking the facts we currently have in hand and arriving at the most plausible hypothesis or theory, is the best that any scientist (or creationist, for that matter) can do.

    If you are interested in the intersection of “science” and creationism, you may be interested in this post.