In the Light of Evolution Volume I: Adaptation and Complex Design (2007) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 285-304
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 285... ...
, which rejects a natural origin for biological complexity. The content of ID is a subset of the claims made by the older ‘‘creation science'' movement.
|
From page 286... ...
however, an analysis of iD shows that in both content and history, it is a subset of an earlier antievolution movement known as creation science. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: FUNDAMENTALIST OPPOSITION TO EVOLUTION EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES The creationism/evolution battle began in the 1920s as a by-product of the acrimonious split of American Protestantism into ‘‘fundamentalist'' and ‘‘modernist'' camps.
|
From page 287... ...
. Morris's creation science was his literal interpretation of Genesis (including a young earth, global flood, and special creation of plants and animals)
|
From page 288... ...
. Although the Discovery institute has vociferously claimed that iD is a scientific research program and ‘‘not creationism,'' in reality, many of the movement's claims are derived directly from creation science with no modification.
|
From page 289... ...
hence, irreducibly complex structures, like human machines, are the product of an intelligent agent, not natural selection. Dembski's ‘‘design inference'' resembles Behe's iD criterion, but Dembski's arguments tend to be conducted at a high level of abstrac tion, ornamented with mathematical notation of dubious utility.
|
From page 290... ...
20 / Eugenie C Scott and Nicholas J
|
From page 291... ...
The artifact analogy proposes that a structure like the flagellum ‘‘looks'' designed, evolution cannot explain it, and therefore it is designed. The indicators of design are complexity and/or a ‘‘purposeful arrangement of parts.'' But complexity is not a reliable marker of intelligent agency: A paperclip is also the product of an intelligent agent, but it is certainly not complex.
|
From page 292... ...
iD offers none of this. it invokes an unidentified, unconstrained agent (the intelligent designer)
|
From page 293... ...
The answer is found in its historical origins. DESIGN IN CREATION SCIENCE long before the iD movement arose, creation scientists constantly invoked design arguments.
|
From page 294... ...
. like the irreducible complexity argument, the other prominent claims made by the iD movement, and often the specific terminology, trace back to creation science.
|
From page 295... ...
. The denial of common ancestry is unsurprising in creation science, but it is a common misconception that iD advocates accept common ancestry and ‘‘macroevolution.'' in fact, the vast majority of iD proponents deny the common ancestry of humans and apes.
|
From page 296... ...
in the January 1982 decision, the judge wrote that creation science was biblical literalist Christianity in disguise, and that to teach it would be to promote a sectarian religious view, which he held to be unconstitutional under the First Amendment of the Constitution (1982)
|
From page 297... ...
The louisiana bill was drafted with more deliberation and was more vague about the tenets of ‘‘creation science,'' leaving out explicit mention of the young earth and global flood. Furthermore, the state of louisiana deputized the creationist lawyer Wendell Bird, ensuring that a highly motivated expert would defend the law from the inevitable American Civil liberties Union challenge (larson, 2003)
|
From page 298... ...
The book presented the problem of the origin of life as a scien tifically unsolvable mystery and, in a postscript, endorsed divine creation as a better answer. Although iD proponents point to The Mystery of Life's Origin as being the foundational publication for the movement that came to be called intelligent design, it was just one of many books written in the early 1980s that represented attempts by believers in biblical inerrancy to develop a creationist science that avoided the pitfalls of more traditional creation science, such as hostility to an old earth (Pun, 1982; Wiester, 1983; lester et al., 1984; Pitman, 1984)
|
From page 299... ...
Aguillard that teaching creation science was unconstitutional. Although Wendell Bird argued strenuously before the Court that Kenyon's expert witness affidavit showed that creation science was scientific and nonreligious, the justices voted 7–2 that supernatural creation was a religious view and that the louisiana legislature had violated the establishment Clause by promoting it in public schools.
|
From page 300... ...
in the 1986 manuscript Biology and Creation, a paragraph appears that reads: Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact -- fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, etc. (emphasis added)
|
From page 301... ...
evidently, the editor of the drafts was deleting the word ‘‘creationists'' and inserting the phrase ‘‘design proponents'' throughout the document. During the tedious procedure, the editor evidently forgot to delete the ‘‘c'' and ‘‘ists'' from the word ‘‘creationists.'' FiGUre 15.2 The missing link between creation science and intelligent design.
|
From page 302... ...
Arkansas, so iD will continue after Kitzmiller, even if in a reduced form. INTELLIGENT DESIGN AND EDUCATIONAL POLICY Despite its scientific shortcomings, the iD movement should be taken seriously because it has been disquietingly effective in reinforcing the sen timent, originally exploited by proponents of creation science, that evolution is inadequate science and that creationism is a valuable approach that students deserve to learn about in public school science classes.
|
From page 303... ...
The final, reduced bill provided that ‘‘no local school board, school superintendent or school principal shall prohibit a public school classroom teacher from discussing and answering questions from individual students on the origin of life.'' Although there are still rare attempts to promote creation science at the state level, most of the school board or legislative antievolutionism today is directed toward promoting iD and/or promoting the teaching of alleged ‘‘evidence against evolution.'' The latter strategy consists of taking the creationist objections to evolution and stripping them of any mention of a positive explanation of biology, such as creation or design. By avoiding explicit or implied reference to God or a Designer, creationists hope to survive constitutional challenges.
|
From page 304... ...
, focusing on the supposed impossibility of the natural origin of biological complexity. in addition to its unsuitability for the public school classroom because of its promotion of a sectarian religious position, iD is also a failure as science and has not earned the right to be taught in precollege classrooms.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.