Evolution and Intelligent Design:
Arguments in Science and Philosophy
Thesis: Recent years have seen a push in the concept known as Intelligent Design: the idea that a divine entity has inspired and guided the creation and direction of all life. This concept is being offered as an alternative scientific explanation to evolution. It is however, only an interesting philosophical concept that explains how God has used evolutionary processes to build his creations. Intelligent design, simply put, is not science.
Outline
I. Introduction
A. Overview of evolution, intelligent design, and religion.
B. Introducing the conflicts between science and religion.
III. EvolutionA. What is science?
B. Do science and religion actually conflict?
C. Where does the Christian Scientist fit in?
A. Defining the theory of evolution.
B. The questions surrounding evolution and the evidence to support it.
A. The belief structure of intelligent design.
B. Is intelligent design science and if so is there proof of an intelligent designer?
V. Evolution, Intelligent Design, and the Classroom
A. Evolution belongs in the sciences.
B. Intelligent design belongs in philosophy and/or religion.
VI. Conclusion
A.Evolution as the science.
B. Intelligent Design as the philosophy.
Since Darwin proposed his theory of evolution through natural selection in 1859, he and his ideas have been viewed by some to be at odds with Christianity as being an argument against the existence of God. During Darwin ’s life, creation science was the popularly held explanation for the existence of the species on Earth. That is, God created all life on the planet as it exists on the Earth and the animals and insects have remained static and unchanged since the time of his creation work(Wright, 2003). Thus, when Darwin proposed his theory of evolution it was at odds with the currently accepted beliefs about the origins of life on Earth. Though highly controversial, key friends in the scientific community supported Darwin and continued to defend and promote his idea of evolution. As a result of much investigation and collecting extensive data, evolution has become one of the most basic principles in biology, and in fact some argue that biology only makes sense in the light of evolution (Campbell & Meyer, 2003).
Despite the scientific community’s general and widespread acceptance of evolution, some theologians and religious sects still continue to argue against evolution. This argument seems to have lost most of its strength but has found a recent resurgence within the concept of Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is a new movement arguing that the existence of an intelligent creator can be detected within nature, and that the intelligent creator is the progenitor of life of earth (Wikipedia:ID, 2005). Intelligent Design proponents offer this idea as an alternative scientific theory to evolution, one that also gives strength to the argument of a creator God or other being. While proponents argue against evolution, they make a distinction between the theories of microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution is generally accepted by proponents of Intelligent Design, but macroevolution is generally seen as wrong.
So what is the debate between intelligent design and evolution really about? Scientists on both sides of the issue argue for critical examination of scientific data and theories, but differ on how these theories should be explained and taught (Campbell & Meyer, 2003). The general scientific community argues for interpretation of scientific data in a purely naturalistic fashion, arguing that metaphysical interpretation can’t be tested or further explored in research. Scientists who are pushing Intelligent Design argue that the data can be interpreted as being evidence for the metaphysical, such as the existence of God (Wikipedia:ID, 2005). Thus, the debate seems to center more on the philosophy of science as opposed to accuracy of scientific data. The debate also involves the methodology of science. The scientific community again argues against Intelligent Design on the basis that it can’t be tested or repeated in laboratory experiments because the divine and miracles can’t be tested (Wikipedia:ID, 2005). Intelligent Design proponents argue however, that since the science community can’t agree entirely on specific criteria for what defines scientific theory that they can’t argue against Intelligent Design as a scientific theory (Wikipedia:ID, 2005). Despite many arguments made by proponents of Intelligent Design, the movement lacks many aspects that can define it as a valid scientific theory. In truth, Intelligent Design is an interesting philosophical argument that tries to convince others that God has used these processes as part of his creation methods; it isn’t science.
One of the arguments behind intelligent design is the methodological question of science. What is science? How is it researched? What goes into making a scientific theory? Intelligent Design proponents argue that some of these questions aren’t accurately addressed by the scientific community and thus can’t argue against the validity of Intelligent Design as a scientific theory. Thus, in order to understand the debate, these questions need to be explored.
Wikipedia defines science as “The investigation or study of nature through observation and reasoning, aimed at finding the truth.” A broad definition, but most scientists also feel that scientific investigation is that which follows scientific method, a process for evaluating empirical knowledge or data (2005). Since science is the process for evaluating empirical knowledge, it must be researched in a fashion that observes natural phenomena and offers explanations. These observations and testing of the natural world lead to the development of scientific theories. At this point it is important to note that a scientific theory is different from the more general understanding of a theory. A scientific theory is generally understood to be a body of an idea that makes a specific prediction. Similar to a generalized theory except that scientific theories are also based on their ability to survive the test of time and also having evidence to support the theory. Some theories, such as atomic theory are so well-established that it is hard to believe they will be contradicted. Evolution, however, is a theory that has withstood empirical testing, but since it still has unanswered questions it is conceivable that it may someday be contradicted, or shown to be an imperfect theory (Wikipedia:microevolution, 2005). So scientific theories differ in how strongly they are supported empirically, but nonetheless are still based on some level of empirical support.
Understanding science and its theories then leads to the question of whether science and religion actually conflict. The simple answer is that religion and science only seem to conflict when people make an effort to cause conflict between them. Richard T. Wright, in his book Biology Through the Eyes of Faith, states that biology, as a natural science, provides explanations for the observable array of organisms, and for structure and functional information about those organisms (2003). Evolution is but one aspect of biology that explores the question of how structure and function of organisms came to be. Religion on the other hand is more of a life philosophy. Religious beliefs and Scripture are forms of metaphysical knowledge that help to understand what physical observations mean; in effect, they are philosophical interpretations of data. Certainly there can be a level of natural interpretation to the data, but there is a point in which interpretation of data becomes guess and conjecture work. Evolution is an interesting theory that explains how DNA assembled, to how organisms began to form from the DNA, etc, etc. But the philosophical question then becomes, was this natural happenstance the result of random coincidence or did some being start the process? This is the issue that Intelligent Design grapples with. In truth, it is a religious view that helps explain current gaps in understanding of evolution and origins, but it lacks the necessary principles of scientific basis to be called a scientific theory. For a Christian scientist, it then becomes necessary to determine where to stand on these issues.
So where should the Christian Scientist stand on this question? Truthfully, whichever view each of us finds ourselves in agreement with. Whether we support the theory of evolution or the argument for Intelligent Design, the most important thing for the Christian Scientist is to bring a Christian moral perspective to the applications of knowledge of the biological world. Dr. Wright again states that “the more important problems [than origins questions] are those that are facing us today as we try to learn how to take care of the creation and how best to use its gifts (Wright, 2003).”
Now that there is a perspective of what science is and how religion plays a role in understanding science it is important to focus attention on the theory of evolution and the questions it raises. Evolution, with regards to origins of species, is generally referred to as macroevolution. Macroevolution is the concept that evolution of species and higher taxa is the result of large-scale changes in gene frequencies over time. There are two major arguments for macroevolution. One, extrapolation of microevolution: Tiny microevolutions, over sufficient time, add up and accumulate in isolated populations and eventually result in new species (Wikipedia:macroevolution, 2005). The second argument is that macroevolution occurs through sudden, rapid changes, known as punctuated equilibrium. This is based on the fact that there are critical genes in every organism known as homeobox genes, and mutations to these genes results in drastic changes to the organism quite rapidly. These homeobox genes play a role in growth and development of organisms in the embryonic state. It’s thus reasonable that a mutation in an important regulatory gene during embryonic development would result in drastic change in an organism. Scientists have tested this theory and in fact created a new species of fly based on this knowledge, by irradiating the homeobox gene(Wikipedia:macroevolution, 2005). These ideas make it possible to understand and accept the development of organisms from already existing organisms, but how did the first organisms develop on Earth? Scientists have also been testing this theory as well, and have gotten DNA to assemble from its base chemical components in early Earth conditions. Using a laboratory apparatus to simulate these conditions, scientists have observed DNA assembling into forms that could make it possible for organisms to develop from the DNA (Davis & Kenyon, 1989).
These evidences seem to lend strong support for the theory of evolution, but critics of the theory are quick to point out, and justifiably so, that there are questions that are still unanswered and thus make macroevolution not such a strong theory after all. One argument is that if all organisms can be traced back to some common ancient ancestor, then fossil records should show this through intermediate species that lead from ancestors to the organisms we see today. The problem lies in the fact that very few intermediate organisms have been found. The punctuated equilibrium theory argues that if organisms are stable for long periods of time before undergoing rapid evolutionary changes, then there wouldn’t be much of any intermediate organisms in the fossil record. Intelligent Design proponents argue against this, stating that the theory is based on negative evidence; that is, the theory explains why there isn’t evidence for evolution. There is no positive evidence to back the punctuated equilibrium theory. The other major argument is against the work in forming DNA in laboratory experiments. Scientists have formed the DNA, but not completely as it needs to be in order for life to occur. The sugars in DNA can have two structural forms, known as the levo and dextro forms. In the laboratory experiments, the DNA that forms incorporates both sugar structures. The problem is in the fact that DNA and RNA only use dextro sugars. In addition, amino acid chains for proteins can only be of the levo structure. Again however, the laboratory experiments produce both levo and dextro amino acids in the amino acid chains (Davis & Kenyon, 1989). Thus, there are problems in producing necessary results for life to occur in a purely natural way. These arguments against evolution are logical, fair critiques of the theory. However, there is more to developing a new scientific theory than simply pointing out the flaws in the current scientific theory or theories.
What then is the argument for Intelligent Design? Stating again, Intelligent Design is the belief that an intelligent creator is the cause of the Universe, and that this creator can be detected in nature. The argument is that while evidence pointing to the nature of an "Intelligent Designer" may not be observable, its effects on nature can be detected (Wikipedia:ID, 2005). But already the problem exists that if the intelligent designer can’t be observed in nature then it isn’t science. The scientific arguments for Intelligent Design center largely on pointing out the holes in the theory of evolution and then putting in philosophical arguments to explain why the holes exist. For example, one argument is “might not gaps exist in the fossil record, not because large numbers of transitional forms mysteriously failed to fossilize, but because they never existed (Davis & Kenyon, 1989)?” While not an argument that can be currently disproved, and may never be, the argument is also based on the idea of negative evidence. It explains why no evidence exists for fossil records of transitional organisms for evolution. Thus, Intelligent Design ideas at times fail to pass their own test of validity as a scientific argument. In addition, this idea, as well as the others, all focus on pointing out the unanswered questions behind macroevolution, and none of the arguments provides any new data to explain Intelligent Design. In fact, stating that not being able to observe an intelligent designer but being able to detect one strongly suggests a philosophical, metaphysical interpretation of the data, not a physical explanation, which scientific arguments are based on.
What proof then is Intelligent Design based upon? The proof is simply metaphysical proof. When examining the complexity of life, the universe, the Earth, and everything that defines existence, the question we have to ask ourselves is this: Can the complex universe be the result of random chance and natural order, or is it only possible through the work of a divine, intelligent creator? Christians and people of other faiths unquestioningly answer yes. Everything we see in the world is so complex that it’s hard to imagine random chance creating everything that exists. Atheists would probably argue that a natural explanation, as given by science, is more than enough explanation for the universe. Intelligent Design proof is a metaphysical interpretation of the scientific understanding we have gained. This is important because it is a reminder that science can only explain the physical, but our understanding of the data brings us to how we understand the data beyond simply the physical.
V. Evolution, Intelligent Design, and the Classroom
Arguments about the boundaries of evolution, intelligent design, science, and religion also tackle the problem that has arisen as a result of the clash of two worlds; the pedagogical argument. What should be taught and how should it be taught? I argue that both evolution and intelligent design have their proper places in the class room; and yes, both should in fact be taught in the classroom. Evolution is clearly a concept at the heart of biology, but does that mean it should be taught as hardened truth? In fact, no it shouldn’t. Scientists, both those who believe evolution and those who argue for Intelligent Design, agree that for students studying science, critical thinking about the controversial issues must be addressed. John Angus Campbell asks, “Scientific literacy requires that students understand the theory of evolution, but does it require that students believe the theory (Campbell & Meyer, 2003)?” Thus, students should understand what has gone into formulating the theory of evolution as well as what questions have been left unanswered and what makes it a controversial theory. William Cobern states that “Only frank, open, historically and critically informed dialogue between students and teachers about how scientific theories are constructed…will facilitate the higher order learning required for students to understand evolution (Campbell & Meyer, 2003).” Intelligent Design proponents argue the same point. They don’t ask that people accept their ideas, only that the controversies surrounding evolution be taught in addition to the theory itself. Warren A. Nord, a scientist at the forefront of the intelligent design movement, states that “When we disagree, as we do about the relationship of religion and science, students should learn about the nature of the disagreement; they should hear the contending voices, they should be taught the conflicts (Campbell & Meyer, 2003).”
As can be seen, proponents from both sides of the argument agree on the necessity for critical thinking and understanding of the issues at hand. However, evolution should be taught as the principle scientific theory on origins of species. As has been shown earlier, Intelligent Design fails to meet the criteria necessary to be considered a scientific theory. However, the philosophies of science should all receive equal merit within the classroom. Neither natural explanations nor divine explanations have the ability to be proven true or false beyond any measure. Thus, teachers should open the debate to students as to how each individual believes the data should be interpreted, and to create discussion that allows students to have an environment that promotes critical thinking about the controversies of evolution and also to hear the dissenting arguments. Natural explanations shouldn’t serve as the only metaphysical interpretation in science. The world is too vast, cultures too diverse, and our understanding of the world too complex to simply accept one interpretation of scientific data in the metaphysical realm.
The controversies surrounding evolution and origins of species have been around since Darwin proposed his theory and is likely to continue for many ages to come. Evolution is supported by strong empirical evidence discovered by the work of scientists who study it. However, the theory isn’t concrete and still leaves many unanswered questions that can’t be easily explained. This has kept the door open for arguments against evolution as the only theory to explain the origins of species. Intelligent Design is the latest movement that offers an alternative explanation for the origins of species. Proponents of the Intelligent Design movement argue that their ideas have scientific merit and are the basis for a new scientific theory that argues the existence of an intelligent designer as the progenitor of the universe. However, the arguments for Intelligent Design fail to meet basic criteria for defining it as a scientific theory, such as being testable, repeatable in laboratory experiments, or falsifiable. Science is designed to be a physical understanding of the world and how it works and Intelligent Design tries to offer metaphysical arguments as scientific argument, which doesn’t classify the movement as science. Intelligent Design remains a philosophical argument for interpreting the data that scientists have uncovered and explored However, the important point to make surrounding these two ideas is that the controversies should be taught and critically examined, with all arguments for the understanding of origins of species being taught in the classroom. No matter what we as individuals believe, every student should be given the opportunity to thoroughly examine all aspects of the arguments and form their individual opinions based upon the arguments.
Sources Cited
Campbell, John Angus, & Meyer, Stephen C. (Eds.) (2003). Darwinism, Design, and Public Education. (pp.16, 20, 45, 53). East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan University Press.
Davis, Percival, & Kenyon, Dean H. (1989) Of Pandas and People: The central Questions of Biological Origins. (pp. 3-4, 5, 25). Dallas , Texas : Houghton Publishing Company.
Wikipedia (2005). Intelligent Design. Retrieved November, 2005, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design.
Wikipedia (2005). Macroevolution. Retrieved November, 2005, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution.
Wikipedia (2005). Microevolution. Retrieved November, 2005, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution.
Wikipedia (2005). Science. Retrieved November, 2005, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science.
Wright, Richard T. (2003). Biology Through the Eyes of Faith. (pp. 34, 95). New York , N.Y. : HarperCollins Publishers.