8/15/2019 Bad Arguments for Intelligent Design

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bad-arguments-for-intelligent-design 1/3

EVOLUTI ON VS. I DEOLOGYBad Ar gument s f or I nt el l i gent Desi gn

 J ames H. Fet zer

Bad ar gument s f or i nt el l i gent desi gn ar e mul t i pl yi ng r api dl y. A r ecentcol umn by J ef f Mar i no pr i nted i n my l ocal paper ( DULUTH NEWS TRI BUNE,19 March 2005) of f ers a pr i me exampl e. I t may be wor t h di scussi ng,si nce I am conf i dent t hat pi eces l i ke t hi s ar e appear i ng al l ar ound t hecount r y. J ef f def i nes " sci ence" as r est r i ct ed t o what can be obser vedand subj ected t o exper i ment by means of r epeat abl e uni t s wi t hi n at hr ee- di mensi onal wor l d. I f God ( "t he i nt el l i gent desi gner ") i sunobservabl e or out si de of our t hr ee- di mensi onal wor l d, t he Godhypothesi s cannot qual i f y as sci ent i f i c. But God i s bot h. So hi s owndef i ni t i on di squal i f i es hi s own hypot hesi s as sci ence.

Sci ence i s not r est r i ct ed t o obser vabl es, but i t must be possi bl e t oder i ve speci f i c consequences f r omhypotheses t hat can be subj ect ed toobservat i on, measur ement , or experi ment . The basi c f l aw, t her ef ore, i snot t hat God i s unobser vabl e but t hat t he God hypothesi s has no

observabl e, measur abl e, or exper i ment al consequences f or us t o t est .I t cannot qual i f y as sci ent i f i c. Mar i no al so i nsi st s that evol ut i onvi ol ates natur al l aws. The exampl es he of f ers ar e mi st aken or wr ongbut nonet hel ess i nst r uct i ve and wort h ment i on.

Mar i no' s f i r st exampl e he cal l s " t he l aw of cause and ef f ect ", namel y:t hat ever y ef f ect must have a cause. Cal l i ng t hi s a l aw does not makei t one, however , and t hi s i s si mpl y a def i ni t i onal t r ut h. An eventonl y qual i f i es as "an ef f ect " because i t has "a cause". I n t hi scont ext , he t hen asks, "Where di d t he or i gi nal matt er and energy comef r om?" Not i ce t hi s i s a quest i on about cosmol ogy, not evol ut i on. I ti s r oot ed i n t he wi del y hel d r el i gi ous bel i ef t hat t he wor l d as a whol ehad t o have a begi nni ng i n t i me.

I ndeed, most of us t end to t ake f or gr ant ed that t he or i gi n of t heuni ver se had t o be uni que and i r r epeat abl e. The pr esumpt i on t hat t heuni ver se had t o have a begi nni ng i n t i me, however , t ur ns out t o bei ndef ensi bl e on l ogi cal and physi cal gr ounds The sequence of posi t i veand negat i ve i nt egers f r om zero up and zero down i l l ust r at es anumer i cal sequence t hat has no begi nni ng and no end. So t he i dea of asequence havi ng no begi nni ng and no end i s at l east l ogi cal l ypossi bl e. A t empor al l y- i nf i ni t e wor l d i s not cont r adi ctory.

I t al so appear s physi cal l y possi bl e. On "s t eady st at e" model s, t heuni ver se has al ways exi st ed and al ways wi l l exi st wi t h a gl obal l yuni f or m but l ocal l y var i ed di st r i but i on of mat t er and ener gy. On "bi gbang" model s, t he uni ver se began wi t h an expl osi on cr eat i ng phot ons and

neut r i nos f r om el ectr ons and pr ot ons, but cool ed suf f i ci ent l y f orel ect r ons t o j oi n nucl ei and f orm at oms of hydr ogen and hel i um, whi chcondensed t o f orm t he gal axi es and st ars and event ual l y Ear t h.

I f t he uni ver se wi l l cont i nue t o expand unt i l t her e i s a compl et el yhomogenous di st r i but i on of matt er and energy, i t ends wi t h "a whi mper " .Dependi ng upon i t s exact mass, however , i t may r each a poi nt at whi cht he i nf l uence of gr avi t y takes over , cont r act i ng mat t er and ener gy backt ogether i n a "bi g cr unch" . I n t hat case, we coul d be i n one cycl e ofendl ess cycl es of bi g bang/ expansi on/ cont r act i on/ bi g cr unch, wher e

8/15/2019 Bad Arguments for Intelligent Design

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bad-arguments-for-intelligent-design 2/3

t her e i s no f i r st and no l ast hi stor i cal wor l d. I n t hi s case, t oo,t her e i s no need f or God as t he " f i r st cause" because t her e i sn' t one.

Det ect abl e ef f ect s of t he bi g bang i ncl ude t he r ecessi on of di st antgal axi es and a weak r adi o st at i c that f i l l s the uni ver se, whi ch havebeen f ound by ast r onomi cal observat i on. An anal ysi s of t he earl yst ages of t he bi g bang ar e t he subj ect of a ver y accessi bl e book bySt ephen Wei nber g, THE FI RST THREE MI NUTES ( 1977) . The author woul d beawarded t he Nobel Pr i ze i n 1979. Whi l e we do not have di r ect access t ot he bi g bang, i t s occur r ence can be t est ed based on i t s ef f ect s.

Mar i no cal l s hi s second exampl e " t he l aw of bi ogenesi s" , whi ch st at est hat l i f e onl y comes f r om l i f e. But t hi s i s no mor e a nat ur al l awt han t he f i r st . I ndeed, i t exempl i f i es t he cl assi c f al l acy known asbeggi ng t he quest i on, i n whi ch you si mpl y assume as a pr emi se what mustbe est abl i shed on i ndependent gr ounds. Sci ent i st s ar e act i vel yi nvest i gat i ng t he condi t i ons speci f i c t o t he or i gi n of l i f e on Ear t h asi t cool ed, i ncl udi ng water vapor and car boni c gases. Ret r ovi r uses mayhol d t he key. The myst ery i s unr esol ved, but s ci ence i s maki ngpr ogr ess.

Anyone wi t h an el ement ary f ami l i ari t y wi t h the hi st ory of sci ence knowst hat i t pr oceeds by a pr ocess of successi ve appr oxi mat i on, advanci nghypotheses and t heor i es t hat account f or t he avai l abl e evi dence butwhi ch may r equi r e r evi si on as mor e evi dence becomes avai l abl e. Thereare al ways gaps i n what we know about t he wor l d around us. But t hekey poi nt r emai ns. Appeal s t o an unknowabl e sour ce usi ng unspeci f i edmeans does not hi ng t o f i l l t he gaps i n our knowl edge. A sense ofpsychol ogi cal secur i t y i s no subst i t ut e f or an obj ect i ve expl anat i on.

Mar i no' s t hi r d exampl e i s t he second l aw of t hermodynami cs, whi ch, hesays, di ct at es t hat mat t er and ener gy go f r om st at es of hi gher or derand compl exi t y t o st at es of l ower . Thi s exampl e i s a bona f i de l aw,but he over l ooks t hat i t i s a st at i st i cal l aw t hat descri bes t heaverage behavi or of cl osed syst ems. Cl osed syst ems do not r ecei veener gy f r omout si de sour ces. I f we consi der the uni ver se as a whol et o be a cl osed syst em, i t s t end t owar d t he di ssi pat i on of ener gygl obal l y ar e st i l l consi st ent wi t h t he emer gence of gr eat er compl exi t yl ocal l y, whi ch r econci l es bi ol ogy wi t h physi cs. Systems t hat ar er ever si bl e, moreover, such as r ecycl i ng bi g- bang sequences, go bothways.

Quot es f r omf amous bi ol ogi st s who admi t our knowl edge i s i ncompl ete,whi ch he al so ci t es, ar e not endorsement s of i nt el l i gent desi gn.I ndeed, t hose who under st and t he rol e of pol ygeni c and pl ei ot r opi cef f ect s, wher e many genes i nf l uence t he devel opment of si ngl e t r ai t sand si ngl e genes i nf l uence t he devel opment of mul t i pl e tr ai t s,

r ecogni ze t r ansi t i ons bet ween organi sms and speci es need not be smoothor cont i nuous, but can exhi bi t st r i ki ng di f f er ences anddi scont i nui t i es, whi ch coul d r esul t f r om t he al t er at i on of as f ew as asi ngl e gene. No mat t er how many new f ossi l s and mi ssi ng l i nks sci encemay di scover , cr eat i oni st s can al ways obj ect t hat t her e shoul d be more.

 The most i r r esponsi bl e i ngr edi ent of Mar i no' s posi t i on, however , i s hi scl ai m t hat evol ut i on asser t s upward pr ogr essi on "by chance" . Heacknowl edges none of t he ei ght causal mechani sms of evol ut i on, whi chi ncl ude genet i c mut at i on, nat ur al sel ect i on, sexual r epr oduct i on,

8/15/2019 Bad Arguments for Intelligent Design

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bad-arguments-for-intelligent-design 3/3

genet i c dr i f t , sexual sel ecti on, gr oup sel ecti on, ar t i f i c i alsel ect i on, and genet i c engi neer i ng. These mechani sms are t he l awf ulbasi s f or evol ut i onar y sci ence t hat make i t s hypotheses bothexpl anat or y and t est abl e and, i n r el at i on t o par t i cul ar hi st or i calcondi t i ons, pr edi cti ve as wel l .

When Mar i no summari zes hi s posi t i on by mai ntai ni ng t hat evol ut i onvi ol at es nat ur al l aws and obser vabl e sci ent i f i c evi dence, t her ef or e, hei s of f er i ng a concl usi on unsuppor t ed by any of hi s ar gument s. Hi sdef i ni t i on of "sci ence" di squal i f i es hi s own hypot hesi s. Hi s "l aws"ar e not exampl es of nat ur al l aws but subst i t ut es of hi s own choosi ng,whi ch ei t her beg t he quest i on or el se do not af f ect t he posi t i on heat t acks. God as cause of t he wor l d as an ef f ect expl ai ns nothi ng. Thet heor y of nt el l i gent desi gn, al as, r emai ns i n sear ch of an i nt el l i gentdef ense.

 _____________

 J ames H. Fet zer of f er s cour ses on sci ence vs. pseudo- sci ence at t heUni ver si t y of Mi nnesot a, Dul ut h.