ACLU_Intelligent Design_FAQ

8/7/2019 ACLU_Intelligent Design_FAQ

1/4

VICTORY!> The Case Against"Intelligent Design"

Religion & Belief| Religion and Schools

Freq u en tly A sked Qu es t ion sAb ou t " In tel l i gen t Des ign "September 16, 2005Q:What is intelligent design?

A: Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific set of beliefs based on the notion that lifeon earth is so complex that it cannot be explained by the scientific theory of evolutionand therefore must have been designed by a supernatural entity.

Q: Is ID a scientific theory?A: No. A scientific theory must be testable and based onobservable evidence. A scientific theory makes predictionsabout occurrences in the natural world that can then be tested through scientificexperimentation. ID makes no predictions and cannot be scrutinized using thescientific method. So although proponents of ID couch their views in scientific terms,their assertion that ID is a scientific theory is false.

Q: How is ID like and unlike traditional creationism and creation science?A: ID is the most recent incarnation of creationism. Unlike traditional forms ofcreationism, ID does not openly rely on a literal interpretation of the Bible. Nor does ittake a stand on such issues as the age of the earth, in order to secure a broad base ofsupport from creationists with differing views. Like traditional forms of creationism, itclaims to have scientific evidence for the existence of design in the biological world;unlike them, it refrains from claiming that the designer can be ascertained to be God.

Yet, although some proponents have suggested that the designer could be a space alienor a time-traveler from the future, such possibilities are not seriously entertained. In itsscientifically unwarranted criticisms of evolution, ID's arguments are a subset of those

used by traditional forms of creationism.

Q:What is biological evolution?A: Biological evolution is a scientific theory that explains how life on earth has changedover time. The belief that species have evolved existed before Darwin, and was firststimulated by finding fossils of animals that no longer exist. Evolution has undergonemany important developments since Darwin's time, most notably the incorporation ofgenetics.

Q:Why isn't ID a possible alternative to evolution?A: ID is not a scientific theory and therefore cannot be put forward as an alternative to

the scientific theory of evolution. ID has no explanatory power or predictive power. Itsimply says that some things that seem very complex could not have happened basedon natural causes. So where it sees complexity, it declares that it must have beencreated by a supernatural entity. This is not science.

Page 1 of 4Frequently Asked Questions About "Intelligent Design"

2010-12-07http://www.aclu.org/print/religion-belief/frequently-asked-questions-about-intelligent ...


2/4

Q:Who is behind the ID movement?A: The ID movement is led by a small group of activists based at the DiscoveryInstitute's Center for Science and Culture (formerly Center for the Renewal of Scienceand Culture) in Seattle, WA. There are very few credentialed scientists among thegroup's leadership, and those who are scientists typically studied in fields unrelated to

biology. Their approach to religion is very different from the leading scientists in the

United States who are religious. Most legitimate scientists who are people of faithaccept the overwhelming evidence supporting the scientific theory of evolution and seeno conflict between the two.

Q:What is the "Wedge Strategy?"A: TheWedge Strategyis an internal memorandum from the Discovery Institute thatwas leaked to the Internet in 1999. Although ID proponents publicly declare that theyare neutral on many questions related to their religious motivations, the Wedgedocument reveals in clear terms that their assertions are at best deceptive. Thedocument specifically outlines plans to reverse prevailing scientific practices andmethods, and makes clear that the motivations of ID's main supporters are religious,

not scientific. It is indeed curious that they would choose deception to advance theirreligious beliefs.

Q:Why not "teach both sides"?A: This would be like teaching astrology in an astronomy course or alchemy in achemistry class. There are not "two sides" to the science. Evolution is a scientific theorythat seeks to explain how life on earth has changed over time, while ID is simply anideology that attacks science and asks that its ideas be accepted as if they are true.Evolution and ID address different topics, employ different methods and certainlyshould be judged by entirely different standards.

Q: How does ID undermine science education?A: Teaching ID as a so-called "alternative" to evolution would misinform students as tothe scientific standing of the theory of evolution and the workings of the scientificmethod. In addition, it would improperly prepare them for postsecondary scienceeducation, placing them at a significant disadvantage to their peers. All scientists andphysicians who study such diseases as SARS and AIDS, as well as those who trace how

bacteria become resistant to antibiotics, completely rely on evolutionary theory tounderstand the phenomena they are examining. We are certain that even IDproponents would prefer to rely on these scientists rather than a scientist who believesthat SARS or AIDS was created by intelligent design and can be explained only byintelligent design.

Q: How does ID undermine religious freedom?A: ID is attempting to insert its particular religious beliefs into science education - as ifit were science. By trying to use governments to give the prestigious label of "science"to their controversial theories, they are misleading children and parents. By attemptingto elevate a single religious viewpoint over others and situating religion in conflict withscience, they are endangering the religious freedom of all Americans. In the words ofTheologian John F. Haught, "If a child of mine were attending a biology class where theteacher proposed that students consider ID as an alternative to?evolution I would beoffended religiously as well as intellectually." (Haught, J, rep. App. 3, tab F, at 7.)

Q:What's wrong with the claim that evolution is "just a theory"?A: Calling evolution "just a theory" is deeply misleading because it confuses theeveryday meaning of the word "theory" (a "hunch" or an "opinion.") with the scientificmeaning (requiring an explanation that is testable, grounded in evidence and able to




3/4

predict natural phenomena better than competing theories). The scientific theory ofevolution is one of the most robust theories in modern science. It has beencorroborated by hundreds of thousands of independent observerations and hassucceeded in predicting natural phenomena in every field of the biological sciences,from paleontology to molecular genetics. No persuasive evidence has been put forwardin the last 150 years to contradict the theory of evolution. In the words of Theodosius

Dobzhansky, one of the most prominent geneticists of the 20th century, "Nothing inbiology makes sense except in light of evolution."

Q: Does the scientific theory of evolution deny the existence of anintelligent designer or God?

A: No. Since the question of God's existence is outside the realm of science, the theoryof evolution is silent on it. Darwin himself openly wondered about the existence of asupreme designer throughout his life, but kept these questions separate from hisscientific work. Accepting evolution and belief in God are not mutually exclusive. Manyscientists hold personal religious beliefs, including Dr. Francis Collins, leader of theHuman Genome Project and an evangelical Protestant, and Dr. Kenneth Miller, a

Catholic and a prominent biologist who was called as an expert witness inKitzmiller v.Dover.

Q:Aren't there controversies among scientists about evolution?A: There are many debates within science about aspects of any theory, and scientifictheories are constantly being revised as new and compelling information is learned. Inevolution, as in all areas of science, our knowledge is incomplete. There are manyimportant debates within evolutionary theory. For example, what features of animalsare due to sexual selection as opposed to natural selection? How much of evolutionarychange occurs because of the need to adapt to changing environments versus randomgenetic change? Does natural selection occur only at the level of the individual

organism or can it occur also at the level of groups or even species? The list goes on.None of these debates, however, undermines the scientific standing of evolution itself.In fact, each has added to our understanding of the ways in which evolution works, andstrengthened the core elements of the theory.

Q:Why not teach ID as just one controversy about evolution along withothers?

A: Unlike real scientific theories, ID cannot provide any evidence in favor of itsconclusions - meaning that it is an ideology and not science.

Q: But what about gaps in the theory of evolution that cannot be explainedby scientists?A: Most important scientific theories have gaps that need to be filled, and unansweredquestions do not render a theory invalid. Doubters of Galileo's theory of the earth'srotation around the sun asked, why, if the earth is spinning, don't we all fly off it? Ittook roughly a half-century for Isaac Newton to develop the theory of gravitational pull,

which answers this question. A scientific theory is not disqualified simply because itraises new questions; in fact, the ability of a theory to inspire new questions andexperiments is a measure of its quality. Furthermore, most of the so-called"unexplainable gaps" pointed out by ID proponents have in fact been answered byscientists. For many years "creationists" argued that there were serious gaps in the"fossil record" and that there was no fossil record of transitional species. During the

last twenty years several such transitional species have been found -- something that IDpeople are reluctant to admit -- making the original assertion more and more dubious.




4/4

Q: Have the ID critiques of evolutionary theory been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals?

A: Peer review is the standard process by which scientists judge each other's work anddeem it acceptable for publication in scientific journals. Only one article supporting IDhas ever been published in a peer-reviewed journal - theProceedings of the Biological

Society of Washington - and it was later disavowed by the Society's governing council.

The writer was a philosopher of science, not a practicing scientist, and the articlereported no original data. Other scientific publications by authors affiliated with IDwere on subjects other than ID. Aside from this one instance, proponents of ID havepublished their work in the popular press, avoiding review by experts.

Q:What do ID proponents mean by "irreducible complexity" and how dothey argue that this concept implies design?

A: Michael Behe, a Discovery Institute fellow, coined the term "irreducible complexity"as a description of organisms that are so complex that they could not come intoexistence gradually. He uses a mousetrap as an example: a mousetrap has manydifferent parts, and if one of them did not work, you wouldn't have an inferior

mousetrap, rather your mousetrap would not work at all. Therefore, the mousetrapcouldn't work at all until all the parts were in place. In biology, structures that don'tfunction are weeded out by natural selection, so Behe concludes that complex biologicalsystems must have been designed with all their parts in place as well. However,evolution does not necessarily occur in a linear progression, with each new part beingadded on, one at a time. Instead, structures develop for one purpose, and then get co-opted for a different task. Scientists have been able to chart these changes in manyorganisms that seem irreducibly complex in their current form, showing how naturalselection can produce stunning variety from the same building blocks. The failure ofBehe's irreducible complexity argument is a perfect example of ID's failure as a whole:misunderstanding how evolution works, ID's proponents reject it in favor of divine

intervention.

Published onAmerican Civil Liberties Union (http://www.aclu.org)Source URL: http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/frequently-asked-questions-about-intelligent-design


2010 12 07http://www aclu org/print/religion belief/frequently asked questions about intelligent

Documents

ACLU_Intelligent Design_FAQ