 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
Unintelligent Designs on Science
Thursday, September 1, at 1 p.m., U.S. Eastern time
Advocates of intelligent design, the theory that an intelligent agent shaped the origins and history of the earth and life, have drawn increased support in the four years since a Colloquy on The Chronicle's Web site discussed the issue.
School boards in a number of states are considering whether ID should get equal time in the classroom with Darwinian evolution, which enjoys overwhelming support among scientists around the world. Leading politicians, including President Bush, have said that students would profit from being taught about "the debate" between ID and evolution. And banking on the financial support of the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank, academic advocates of ID have continued to promote their views, which they insist are not just warmed-over creationism.
That's nonsense, write three scientists in this week's Chronicle Review. Not only does ID draw no support from science, they say, but "teaching the debate" between it and evolution robs students of classroom time that should be spent on real science.
Is their criticism on target? Can ID ever be considered science? Are advocates of ID winning a rhetorical argument while losing a scientific one? How should academe respond? Should academics not dignify ID with a response, any more than flat-earth theorists merit a response, or does that only make mainstream science seem arrogant or fearful?
» Intelligent Design Has No Place in the Science Curriculum (9/2/2005)
» Darwinism Under Attack (12/21/2001)
James Trefil, the Clarence J. Robinson professor of physics at George Mason University, is a co-author of the Chronicle Review essay. He is also a co-author of Science Matters: Achieving Scientific Literacy (Doubleday, 1991) and The Sciences: An Integrated Approach, a textbook originally published in 1995 and now in its fourth edition. He has written regularly for popular audiences and consulted on the development of a new science curriculum for middle-school students.
Lila Guterman (Moderator):
Greetings and welcome to Colloquy. I'm Lila Guterman, a science writer at The Chronicle. I'm pleased to have James Trefil as our guest. If you haven't seen the thought-provoking article in this week's Chronicle Review that he wrote with two other scientists from George Mason University, I encourage you to check it out using the link above. With that, let's get started.
Question from Lila Guterman, Moderator:
Professor Trefil,
Thanks for joining us today. In your essay, you and your co-authors argue that because of its scientific shortcomings, intelligent design should not be taught to students. But more and more political heft is leaning toward requiring that students "learn the debates."
I am presuming that means that some of the undergraduates you now teach have learned ID in their high schools. How do you discuss evolution's place in science with these students?
James Trefil:
Every instructor deals with the problem of creationist students in a different way. Since my course has a large lecture format, I ussually offer to discuss these issues 'off line', but don't divert class time for it. I tell students that, although as a human being I care what they think, as the person making out their grades, all I care about is whether they understand what the theory of evolution is, whether they choose to accept it or not.
Question from Anonymous:
When God doesn't flesh out like we would prefer, we tend to deny His existence. Is it possible that God's ways are not our ways? In order to be academically honest, it seems, at least, that the concept of ID is a viable one, and should be discussed. I realize we all come in with our different biases, but why are we afraid of a good open discussion on the subject of ID? Isn't it good to be exposed to new ways of looking at things? So, what are we afraid of? The truth is going to prevail in the end anyway!
James Trefil:
I think the point of our article was that if ID is to be taken seriously, it has to make specific predictions that can be examined. To date, all of those predictions have proved false. Why teach an incorrect theory? How do you exclude the Flat Earth?
Question from Brad Keele, Baylor University:
Proponents of intelligent design claim that ID belongs in a science classroom (i.e., ID is a scientific theory) because it offers an alternative to modern scientific theories of origin. Scientific theories are by definition falsifiable. If ID is to be taught as science, explain how it is falsifiable theory.
James Trefil:
It makes falsifiable claims-- e.g. that a particular feature of a living system can't be explained in Darwinian terms. Explain the feature and you falsify ID
Question from Eastern Illinois University:
I am always puzzled why we feel we have to "defend" evolution as though it might be defeated by some other concept. Language Arts, Math, etc. do not seem to have to defend their disciplines. Why do you think that science is different? Thanks!
James Trefil:
The difference between science and other disciplines is that in science there is an outside objective test of ideas-- they either match what we observe in nature or they don't. ID is not like another interpretation of a standard text. It makes specific claims that, up to now, have been wrong.
Question from Frank Forman, U.S. Dept. of Education:
My own inclination is to teach creationism along with Darwinism and get the kids to argue about which are genuine sciences. In fact, knowing what a science is is part of the Kansas State curriculum standards, even if Darwinism was, for a while, about to be dropped. Getting kids engaged is far more important, I think, than learning specific facts. But how many high school biology teachers, I wonder, are really prepared to moderate such a discussion (if not fist fights) about the merits of creationism and Darwinism as sciences? (I am not speaking for the Department, needless to say, as it has not authority over curricula.)
James Trefil:
I would agree with you if there was enough time in the curriculum to devote to these kinds of side issues. In my own class, I can put in less than a week on the development of life, and that's barely enough to get across the ideas of natural selection and some sense of how things happened. Teaching about creationism (or the Flat Earth, for that matter) is a luxury we can't afford if we are to turn out scientifically literate graduates in the time allotted to us.
Question from John Maguire, Maguire Associates,Inc. a higher education research/consulting firm:
Could Intelligent Design be used to explain observations we don't yet completely understand in physics--for example, phenomena in quantum mechanics like the double slit experiment or "spooky action-at-a-distance"? And if/when these phenomena are finally fully explained using laws of physics, what does that say about ID? Will it be "wrong" or simply "not applicable"?How can we ever prove that ID is right--or wrong?
James Trefil:
If by 'explanation' you mean a picture of the quantum world that is like the familiar world of everyday objects, you'll never get it. The quantum world is different, and our intuition is no guide there. As I tell my students, if you want to play the quantum game, you have to play by the quantum rules.
Comment from Taz Daughtrey, James Madison U.:
I see Brad from Baylor is online. Didn't Baylor recently lose a leading ID advocate (head of an ID-oriented institute there) ... who moved to a theological seminary instead? Is the university still supporting that institute?
Question from Carol Bresnahan, U of Toledo:
Intelligent design has no place whatsoever in science classes. By hosting this discussion, The Chronicle is giving stature to those who argue that there IS a debate, when there is no debate among any legitimate biologists about this topic. There could be debate in a class about contemporary American culture, or - preferably - about hoaxes and idiotic ideas held dearly through the ages. I teach my students that the passion with which they hold a viewpoint has no necessary connection to that viewpoint's objective truth. My question is, why dignify the upholders of so-called intelligent design by inviting debate on a settled issue?
James Trefil:
I agree completely with your first statement. I'm afraid, though, that the "too proud to answer" strategy just won't work in the present political climate. Schoolteachers and parents around the country really need the support of the scientific community, and there's no way to give that without taking on ID.
Question from Shunkichi Matsumoto, Tokai University in Japan:
As an outsider committed to Darwinism, I am curious about this cultural phenomenon ongoing in the US. My basic question is how come ID is catching on now in the first place? For, in my understanding, the bottom line of ID theory is nothing more than the natural theology put forward by William Paley in the early 19th century, which has supposedly been refuted by the idea of natural selection as a 'blind watchmaker' put forward by Darwin.
James Trefil:
Fundamentalist religion is an old and integral part of the American culture (I actually grew up in it). ID is just the latest of a long line of attempts to bring the fundmentalist views into the public schools.
Question from Karen, Research U in the Northeast:
I am an assistant professor in the earth sciences. I view any attempt to re-define the definition of science as even more alarming than the attempts to push a particular viewpoint. How serious is the effort to change the philosophical underpinning of science?
James Trefil:
If you read the serious ID people carefully, they try to keep their arguments within the normal paradigms of scientific discourse. People who want to substitute faith based arguments don't get far in the US courts.
Question from Alison, Canada:
Doesn't the issue go beyond the scientific validity of ID to the nature of the university as an institution? (or the nature of schools in general...) To the extent that students are defined as "stakeholders" or even "customers," hasn't that created an atmosphere in which students think they have a right to hear what they want to hear? In other words, I think it's possible to see the push to force ID into classrooms as part of a more general challenge to the idea that teachers possess some kind of authoritative knowledge that gives them the right and the obligation to shape what goes on in classrooms. Isn't ID thus part of a more general challenge to the idea that there can be such a thing as higher levels of knowledge and more complex forms of thinking that come from formal education? The news media now talk about "citizen journalists"--is ID part of a move towards "citizen professors?"
James Trefil:
I hope not. I don't see this push coming from students, but from ideologically driven adults outside of the school system. Anybody else have thoughts on this?
Lila Guterman (Moderator):
We're approaching the halfway point of our chat. Please keep sending in your questions or comments!
Question from Taz Daughtrey, James Madison U.:
Might "teaching the controversy" make sense in a science-methods course? I teach an introductory science processes class to preservice teachers, and want to make a strong representation of acceptable ways of doing science.
James Trefil:
Hi Taz Yes, I think this is precisely where the ID controversy belongs. My argument is that so little of the curriculum is allotted to scientific literacy for most students that it shouldn't be taught in the normal courses
Question from Charles J. Kunert, Concordia University, Portland, Oregon:
What are the SCIENTIFIC benefits of an ID approach to science?
James Trefil:
I can't think of any. What it does is waste a lot of people's time-- time that might better be spent doing real science
Question from Eastern Illinois University:
I truly do not believe we can make anyone believe anything...but if you allow them to search for themselves, they will, eventually, come up with truth. The key is "freedom" and "search." These are processes...which leads me to ask, why is any scholar offended when another doesn't hold the same "belief?" Shouldn't we allow the process of education to take it's course? Thanks for your input.
James Trefil:
The theory of evolution is not a religion-- you don't 'believe' in it. Like any other scientific idea, it has to be stated in such a way that it can be supported (or disproved) by data. There is an overwhelming amount of data supporing evolution by natural selection, none that I can see for ID. What would you search for in this situation?
Question from Leslie Johnson, small liberal arts college:
Since the basis of ID is a story from an ancient book of the Bible and therefore based solely on very limited information the authors had at the time and not on subsequent centuries’ worth of study and research, the onus is on those who take the Old Testament literally to prove ID belongs in science curricula. How is the theory of ID scientific? Isn't ID a religious belief that should be taught in classes on religion? Basing scientific theory on ancient writings would be like continuing to practice medicine based on the way it was practiced in the beginning, as if we weren't capable of learning new and improved practices that improve the human condition. If we believe in God, can't we also believe that He gave us the intelligence to gather evidence and information over the course of time to learn how we all came to be, intelligence to understand that the authors of the Old Testament were writing about history to the best of their ability given what they had to go on at the time? Do we feel any less religious for coming to understand that the Bible was never intended as a scientific tome?
James Trefil:
I couldn't agree more. What I see happening here is a reversion to the 'God of the Gaps' -- putting God into whatever places are (temporarily) left empty by science. This is a dangerous way to base any religious belief
Question from Lila Guterman, Moderator:
Professor Trefil,
You and your co-authors say that Intelligent Design "makes predictions that can be tested." You also say that the arguments of proponents of Intelligent Design "can be met with scientific, not legal, rebuttals."
But many of the others who have spoken out against ID have argued that it is simply not a scientific hypothesis. How would you explain your differences from their viewpoints?
James Trefil:
Unfortunately, I think many of our colleagues are fighting the last war on this issue. Old line creationism could, indeed, be shown to make untestable statements, and could therefore be identified as religious rather than scientific. ID is different in that it make s testable statements that are wrong. Instead of being bad theology it's bad science.
Question from Elaine Young, University of Florida, Gainesville:
More a comment: English literature or tennis or music are not taught in a science course because they are not science - ID is not science either and therefore should be taught in either a religious course or a philosophy course.
James Trefil:
Nice argument.
Question from Severyn Bruyn, Boston College:
Why are human history and natural history in separate departments of the university when we know that there is continuity between these two subjects? Is it time to begin setting up a vocabulary that allows these colleagues to talk with one another?
James Trefil:
I think the differences involve time scale and the types of processes at work. Natural history operates over millions of years through processes like natural selection and plate tectonics. Human history in only thousands of years old, and social processes are much more important. My sense, though, is that archeologists are starting to look at things like the effects of climate change on societies, so maybe your suggestion will be followed
Question from Constant D. Beugre, Delaware State University, School of Management:
Is ID a theory or a belief? For me ID is another way of saying that 'God created the universe.' What do you think?
James Trefil:
I guess I would say it is a theory driven by a belief. As I said before, if you read the main ID people carefully, they are really trying to put out scientific ideas. The existence of irreducible complexity, for example, is a perfectly good hypothesis, and it is testable. Of course, when it is tested it fails, so it turns out to be bad science. The motivation of ID people is something else. They are pretty up front about wanting to put God (or at least their God) back into the curriculum
Lila Guterman (Moderator):
We've got only about 15 more minutes. If you have other thoughts or questions, please send them in now!
Question from Anonymous:
Is there any degree of improbablity that random chance created life out of non-living materials that would be beyond the pale of acceptance?
James Trefil:
I have to admit that probability arguments about the origin of life seem a little silly to me. This is because they proceed from an unstated assumption-- the assumption that the arrangement of molecules in living systems had to come about by chance. If there are (as we believe) laws of nature that drive the assembly process, then this assumption is wrong and the calculation pointless.
Here's an example. It's easy to calculate the probability that 10^23(put the 23 in the exponent) atoms of gold came together by chance as the earth assembled. The odds against it are truly astronomical. Yet gold nuggets formed -- ask anyone wearing a wedding ring. Why? Because the asssembly was driven by the laws of chemistry and not by chance.
The application of this argument to the origin of life is obvious
Question from Julie, in New York:
I'm curious to hear about experiences of profs in the sciences who have taught students whose high school curricula promoted teaching of creationism/ID. How do they respond to college/university level sciences?
James Trefil:
I have had occasional students in my classes who were creationists, although I don't know what their high school background was. I tell them, basically, that I will not penalize them for their beliefs, but that I expect them to know what the theory of evolution is. It seems to work.
Question from Anonymous:
Do you have any insight into where the "power" behind ID is coming from? Does it boil down simply to the religiosity of our country, do you think? How is it that ID supporters have created a situation in which many lay people think there is a (widening) schism in the scientific community where in reality there is none? Why aren't mainstream scientists as vocal/persuasive as ID supporters?
James Trefil:
Let me answer the last question first. Scientists in this country, with a few notable exceptions, have never been very good at dealing with the public. Our training just doesn't make us good debaters. Couple this to the fact that most of the push for ID is coming at the level of local school boards, where scientists tend to be thin on the ground, and you have the makings of a bad situation.
I think the motivation for ID is, for most people, a sincerely held religious belief--again, something that scientific training doesn't really equip us to confront.
Question from L. G. Bloomquist, Ottawa, Canada:
It strikes me that while proponents of non-ID science focus on the mechanics of material generation, proponents of ID focus on what they assume is the mind behind the generation. The latter seem to see a parallel with the realm of that other world of material production, the humanities, in which for there to be a text or a painting, there must be an artist.
It is possible even in those worlds to imagine the equivalent of non-ID scientists who would focus on the text alone, and the techniques used in the text, whencever they arose.
Over against them, however, ID-scientist-equivalents would focus on the intention of the author, presuming that the author's product bears some recognisable resemblance to her/his intent. (That question doesn't even seem to occur to anyone on either side of the debate!)
Is this analogy helpful for advancing the discussion or not?
If so, my own query is whether ID scientists are in danger of making the same mistake as those literary and artistic scholars who assume that they CAN come up with the artist's intent from her/his product?
James Trefil:
'Reading the Mind of God' has been the historical motivation of many great scientists. I guess that trying to deduce things about God from studying his works is what literary scholars call the 'intentional fallacy'.
I would quibble with you on one point, though. When you encounter a painting, you know that there must have been an artist because you've seen many paintings and artists in the past. We only know about one universe, so this argument won't work for Creation.
Question from Torsten, UNH:
You said of irreducible complexity, put forward by ID proponents, “Of course, when it is tested it fails …” Please explain a little more. What would be such a test?
James Trefil:
In the Chronicle article we looked at two examples: the evolution of the whale and the flagellum of bacteria. The first has been completely resolved by discoveries in the fossil record. The way in which the second is on the way to being resolved is also explained in terms of the evolutionary concept of exaption.
The test goes like this: A proponent of ID says "Structure X cannot be explained by natural selection". The evolutionary theorist then finds a way to explain it. At this point the opriginal statement has been falsified. Sometimes, as in the case of the whale, you can actually prove what happened, but that is not necessary for falsification. All you have to do is produce a way that structure X could be produced.
Question from Bruce L. Rockwood, Bloomsburg University:
It is clear from the nature of the debate in the national (and our local) press that this debate is a shell game for a political/legal attack on the separation of church and state, in education, as well as on the hope that science can be objective. It ignores the difference between the scientific and lay use of the term "theory." I find it alarming in part because I see it as working in parallel with attempts to prevent stem cell research that might cure many diseases, and as moving the U.S. in the direction of a fundamentalist domination of government of the sort we worry about in other countries. As a result, I am using "Inherit the Wind" to start off my law and literature seminar this spring, and I ask that you think about the broader context of the ID assault on science education. (I do think one can usefully do interdisciplinary studies in which literature informs science as well as law. See the treatment of the ID debate in Terry Pratchett, et. al., Darwin's Watch: The Science of Discworld III.)
James Trefil:
It is true, I think, that proponents of ID are likely to oppose stem cell research and choice on the abortion issue. These are views guided by sincere religious beliefs. I don't see a conspiracy here, but I do see a lot of people who want to promote their particular views. This isn't a characteristic only of the right--there are plenty of ideologues on the left as well. How it will all play out remains to be seen
Lila Guterman (Moderator):
We're out of time. Thanks to everyone who joined us with questions, and a special thanks to James Trefil for discussing this important topic with us.
James Trefil:
Thank you all for your interesting and challenging questions. It's going to be interesting to see how this whole issue plays out in the next few years.