Let students examine both evolution and intelligent design

Tuesday, January 25, 2005

Steve Slater

roanoke.com

Roy Miles (Dec. 29 commentary, “Intelligent design is a theory built on unknown data”) asserted that there is a “vast amount of evidence for evolution.” I would like to respond point by point to the assertions in his article.

If by “evolution” he meant variation in species, adaption, genetic mutation and other observed processes, then certainly there is much evidence. That evidence is undisputed by creationists and others, who would like to see critical thinking taught in our science curricula instead of an exclusive, unquestioning indoctrination in a theory, often purported to be on a level with scientific fact.

This theory purports more than the variation of species within genetic limits; it asserts that, given enough time, fish became mammals; that life itself arose from inanimate matter; that amoeba developed into human beings; and that the intricate complexity and apparent design in the universe arose by chance processes.

As Miles pointed out, the assumptions that follow from this theory have impacted every branch of science. However, it is not evidence that has arisen from these branches of science, but the interpretation of data within an evolutionary framework on the basis of unchallenged assumptions that are hardly conscious.

History has shown that, when a prevailing theory is challenged, scientists like the rest of us can be entrenched dogmatists. In the case for evolution, evidence has become ever more conspicuously lacking – including the very evidence which Darwin himself expected to unfold, and without which he felt his theory would crumble.

It is impossible to reply to Miles’ assertion that the evidence continues “to grow and be detailed” since he cites no examples. He simply asserted this to be the case, which implies that intelligent people should believe him.

Let’s give students a chance to look at those examples that have been cited as evidence for evolution, and allow them an opportunity to examine them critically. That is teaching good science. What is there to fear?

Perhaps examples of peppered moths, the horse series or prehistoric men from the fossil record would be too much of an embarrassment in the light of current knowledge, and sadly, they are still sometimes pointed to today as “evidence.”

Miles then argued that the absence of viable, naturalistic explanations for complexity does not constitute evidence for design. The example chosen is the clotting of blood, where 14 complex factors must be in place simultaneously. He answered the dilemma by saying the evidence could not be preserved in the fossils, because it is soft tissue!

There is no attempt to deal with the real problem, or even to guess. What evidence could possibly be postulated? Nothing can be dreamed up, but if only it had been preserved, our discovery in the fossil record would show that it happened naturalistically.

That is dogma, incredible faith. Why not let students know both sides and weigh the issues for themselves?

Should science consist of giving conclusions, without revealing the assumptions, and leave the thinking and evaluating to an elite? Miles concludes his argument that “science rests on the observable, the facts.”

I would add that there would be no controversy if we stuck to observable facts in the science classroom. The fact is that we don’t stick to fact.

As Miles stated next, “many specifics of the theory of evolution have not yet been explained… all believe in the basic concept… they are only arguing details.”

The operable word here is “believe in.” A good theory explains how something happened and allows you to make predictions based on that theory. Evolution after 150 years does neither. Evolutionists today are faced with the quandary of a theory that can’t explain how something happened, but they still believe in it as a theory that explains how things happened. Dogma.

The analogy used in the article is misleading. A more appropriate analogy is finding in the forest a rocket complete with a sophisticated satellite payload (a single cell is even far more complex) and asserting it resulted from natural, random processes over a long period of time.

This theory of its origin should be taught as science because science can’t consider other alternatives, and because the inability of my theory to explain how it could result from natural processes does not prove design (which after all is a cloak for religion, and not science).

In his conclusion, Miles asserted that no experiments have been done on the postulate of intelligent design – no drugs or other products have been developed from the application of the concept. The implication is that evolutionary theory has resulted in advances and reliable predictions. That absolutely has not been the case; can he name even one advance?

Predictions based on the evolution model have failed abysmally and put the theory in crisis. In fact, any theory of origins is outside the realm of observable science, unless you hold the assumption that present observable processes are the same processes that brought everything about.

What does scientific observation actually tell us about such an assumption? We know not one exception to the well-established scientific observation that the universe is a closed system, that no new energy is being created or destroyed (the first law of thermodynamics).

Nor do we know one exception to every scientific observation, whether on a cosmic or a nuclear level, that complex systems in the universe degrade to a random, homogenous uniformity (the second law of thermodynamics). Are we then led to conclude from observable science that creation occurred by present natural processes?

Obviously, it is not scientific observation that leads us to a belief in a naturalistic explanation of origins, but a philosophical bias at work.

The science classroom doesn’t need to advocate a particular theory of origins as more scientifically based than another. It needs to present the observable facts, identify assumptions and teach critical thinking by leaving conclusions to the students themselves.

roanoke.com – Commentary Stories -Let students examine both evolution and intelligent design