Opinion: 'Intelligent Design' Deja Vu

Douglas Baynton , professor of history at the University of Iowa, was online Monday, Dec. 19, at 2 p.m. ET to discuss his op-ed in Saturday's Washington Post, "'Intelligent Design' Deja Vu." , ( Post, Dec. 17, 2005 )

The transcript follows.

____________________

Virginia: As a ---somewhat--- evangelical pastor, I really am NOT impressed with intelligent design. I have no problem with evolutionary theory and don't see how God is threatened by it. But, intelligent design seems like warmed over Deism to me. What do you think?

Douglas Baynton: In some ways ID is similar to Deism, in some ways not. Most important, the cultural context is entirely different. And I think most contemporary proponents of teaching ID in public schools would reject the comparison, since Deists rejected the idea of an involved, active God who intervened in human affairs.

_______________________

Birmingham, Ala.: I am a former adjunct professor at UAB who taught Intelligent Design (ID) in Philosophy of Religion. The current debate over evolution and my experience in the classroom illustrates that certain lesson are not being taught; schools are not teaching the definitions of "hypothesis", "theory", and "law". Intelligent design does not fall into the latter two categories as it is not testable even in principle. Furthermore, if the ID proponents want to be consistent in applying ID to biology, then they must reconcile the omniscience, omnipotence and omni-benevolence of God with many genetic disorders especially genetic disorders such as Progeria. God, presumably, designed DNA.

Douglas Baynton: Thanks for the comment. This is the objection most scientists bring up. How do you devise a research program around ID? I read in news about the current trial in Dover, PA, that one of the ID proponents was asked to name an article published in a peer reviewed journal of science using ID, and he could not name one.

And yes, many people are confused about what "theory" means in science. When they hear "theory of evolution," they think that it is an unproven hypothesis, rather than a generally accepted explanation for a great many facts and observations that has stood the test of time. We also have germ theory and the atomic theory of matter and gravitational theory.

_______________________

McLean, Va.: I am not at all religious, but some of the ID arguments about complexity are fairly persuasive. We do have 4.5 billion years to work with. But can randomness explain how birds got wings? Please answer that, since the first little stubs couldn't do birds much good, even for running and escaping. Complexity can be contained within evolution (not provided by a Great Designer). For example, maybe many species have a driving life force as part of their DNA that enables them to adapt over generations to their environment in some improved ways? There still would be many useless mutations for every good one, but this built in adaptive feature can at least provide some general direction as to what may be needed to survive and thrive.

Douglas Baynton: These are good questions, and ones that evolutionary biologists have been working at for a long time. The "driving life force" idea was something that Lamarck wrote about, as well as Robert Chambers in his 1844 book on evolution. As someone who is not a scientist and who has about 90 seconds available, I cannot provide a satisfactory answer. Take a look at a special issue of Nature magazine available on-line at http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html

The discussion there is brief, but there is a bibliography that will point you to further resources. Also don't miss The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time, by Jonathan Weiner.

_______________________

Little Rock, Ark.: Perhaps I am wrong, but I thought that devout monks had disproved the "complexity=God must have made it" argument back in the 12th century. One could unconsciously vomit in the shape of a pentagram, that a distribution of vomit in a shape resembling a pentagram was created and has meaning for humans who know of the sign does not prove that a conscious actor created it purposely. To the extent that ID is just a repetition of this old canard, why would we teach something disproven centuries ago to impressionable children? Do we still "teach the controversy" that the sun revolves around the earth?

Douglas Baynton: Thanks for bringing that up. Yes, this is a very old argument, going back at least to the ancient Greeks. I don't know if I'd agree, however, that it has ever been disproven. That is one of the problems with ID, that you really cannot disprove it. Science works only when hypotheses are falsifiable. ID proponents have struggled to come up with examples of falsifiable hypotheses, but these have not been convincing to other scientists.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Mr. Boynton,

Where is the billion year fossil record showing the actual fossils of evolution? That doesn't exist, does it?

Douglas Baynton: Yes, it does in fact. There are many fossil lines showing evolutionary change quite clearly. ID proponents often to point to gaps in our knowledge, such as gaps in the fossil record. But science (and all scholarship) by its nature creates gaps. The more we know, the more we find that we don't know. That is the nature of learning. I can't remember who said it, but I recall a biologist saying that if there is a gap in the fossil record that is neatly bisected by a new find, ID proponents will point out that there are now two gaps where there was only one before!

_______________________

Tucson, Ariz.: The article effectively demonstrates the difference between the faith-based vs. modern view of science, but misses the larger problem: a largely scientifically illiterate populace does not grasp the significance of the argument. That the "intelligent design" movement is even able to generate popular support without demonstrating scientific merit pointedly highlights the low understanding and value our nation has placed on science education for the masses. Gallop polls since the 1980's have consistently shown 45% of people in this country think the earth was created within the last 10,000 years. Who have been the more effective science educators--the fundamentalist churches or the public schools?

Douglas Baynton: Thanks for the comment. I agree, and the importance of a sound science education is what this debate is really about. Intelligent Design as a philosophical discussion is fine. But it does not belong in the science classroom until it has demonstrated itself *as* science.

_______________________

Annapolis, Md.: Hi--

If intelligent design does exist, why does the Almighty make so many mistakes and include so many design flaws?

One would think that a creator of all that is seen and unseen could properly design something.

There are countless examples in nature of design flaws. For example, why did the Almighty include sickle cell anemia in the gene pool for humans? That is just one example of countless genetic diseases that were included in the human gene pool. Why include in an intelligent design?

Douglas Baynton: This has always seemed to me to be a strong argument against the notion of design. The structure of the human back is difficult to explain in terms of design, but makes perfect sense as a product of evolution. I can't imagine why a designer would have us breathing and eating throughout the same opening, producing so many choking deaths. It was in part the apparent waste and cruelty that Darwin saw saw all around him in his study of nature that made Darwin skeptical of design arguments.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: I agree with Gary Trudeau: anyone who believes in intelligent design should not get antibiotics to treat their tuberculosis. Seriously, these people are destroying the science curriculum in American schools and that's why they scare me. And the fact that major corporations are kowtowing to the fundies re the Darwin show at the Museum of Natural History in New York city is sickening.

Douglas Baynton: It does seem to me odd that many people accept science in every aspect of their lives and then claim to not trust science -- and ironic to be having a debate over the merits of the methods of modern science in a live discussion on the Internet.

_______________________

Laurel, Md.: Can you discuss the school settings in which those books were used?

At the time, was there the same kind of public/private/parochial dichotomy that exists today; or were public schools strongly tied with religious institutions?

Were these books nationally popular, or were they used primarily in certain parts of the country that wanted a more values-oriented curriculum; the way today history texts often have two versions: a politically correct version used mostly in liberal urban and suburban areas, and a patriotic version used in the South?

Douglas Baynton: I think I have a fellow historian on the line. These are all excellent questions and unfortunately ones that I cannot fully answer. But any comprehensive study of these textbooks would have to answer them. I do know that these three books were written by prominent geographers, two of them on the faculty of Ivy League colleges. I know that they were widely sold and widely used in schools. Some text books at the time were less overtly design-oriented, but whether there was a difference between books used in cities and those in rural areas, or between public and private schools, I don't know. All of the textbooks that I have looked at (over thirty), changed to more naturalistic explanations around the turn of the century, using explanations based on natural causes rather than supernatural design.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Your article seems to mock those who are aware of the theological claims of Darwinism. If the dominant creation story was God made us and someone posits an alternative, it will inevitable have religious implications. How come many professors are so unwilling to point out that staunch atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett regularly use Darwin's theory to obviate the need for God and beat down theists? These and other atheist/agnostic scientists are well aware that Darwin's theory and theism are irreconcilable yet it's only the critics of Darwin that are viewed negatively.

Douglas Baynton: Yes, there are scientists who are atheists and those who are agnostic on the question, but there are also a great many evolutionary scientists who are deeply religious. The recent NY Times article on ID interviewed several on the faculties of religiously oriented colleges who teach evolution, reject ID, and see no conflict between their faith and modern biology.

There is in fact a long history of theistic evolution. One of the early theories of evolution advanced before Darwin, proposed by Robert Chambers in 1844 (Vestiges in the Natural History of Creation), posited an evolutionary process that followed a plan set down by the Creator in the beginning of time. Plenty of other forms of "theistic evolution" were advanced after Darwin as well. Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of natural history, was a famous proponent of theistically guided evolution. These theories were generally unproductive in terms of research, and not testable, so they never became important to biological research, but there is no necessary conflict. They simply constitute distinct and different ways of understanding. As I see it, conflict arises only when one intrudes on the other's territory.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Did you read "Idiot America" in Esquire a few months back? It was pretty flippant, but raised the valid question of why Americans seem the believe what the talking heads have to say on an issue, rather than what the actual experts (like scientists) have to say? Do you have an idea why this is?

Douglas Baynton: Good question. When we need heart surgery, we don't go to a pundit. We rely on expertise all the time. It's appears that in some ways the cultural authority of scientists has been shrinking of late. On the other hand, Creationists in the 1980s tried to increase their credibility be coming up with Creation Science, and ID proponents constantly cite those few scientists who support the idea, because they give the idea credibility. I don't understand why the opinions of a few scattered scientists should hold more weight than the conclusions of thousands of scientists all over the world, but I think it is at least in part a matter of desiring answers that are emotionally satisfying. I personally have nothing against emotionally satisfying belief systems. I do think it's a mistake to import them into science.

_______________________

Bowie, Md.: The texts you cite were written in 1866, 1868 and 1873. This was, of course, a time when many people felt their place in the world had been upset by modernism; similar to the way our current red/blue state dichotomy can trace to trends that started in the sixties.

Do these books more strongly represent one snapshot in time, as opposed to most 19th-century thought?

Douglas Baynton: The "argument from design," as it was called, was common in theology throughout the 19th century in Britain and the United States. William Paleys 1802 book, Natural Theology, was used in colleges around the country, which laid out the 19th century version of the ID argument, using the wings of birds, the humps of camels, the fangs of snakes, etc, as evidence of a designer. There were other varieties of teleological thinking on the European continent, more idealist, which emphasized pantheistic conceptions of a creative nature or world spirit. The design argument is one that has waxed and waned over a very long period of time, and whether it tends to wax during periods of cultural crisis or anxiety is a good question.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I am continually fascinated by proponents of intelligent design: fight against teaching evolutionary theory in schools, then use widespread lack of understanding of evolutionary theory as an excuse to continue not teaching evolutionary theory. I have a degree in Evolutionary Psychology and I can absolutely guarantee you that life is NOT "too complex" to have come about through evolution. Evolutionary theory itself is very complex, and bears little resemblance to the "randomness" rap it's given by those who fight against it. The idea is that genetic mutation occurs randomly, then environmental factors determine whether that mutation is a help or a hindrance.

Anyone who wants to truly understand evolutionary theory, including how eyes came about even though it's hard to imagine how half an eye was useful, should read The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins.

Douglas Baynton: Thanks for your comment. Dawkins is a good source. In addition to the special issue of Nature that I suggested in another reply, I'd also recommend Why Intelligent Design Fails, edited by Young and Eis.

_______________________

Montgomery County, Md.: One of the frustrating aspects of the current debate is the confusion between the theory of natural selection, which is is a subject of continued heated discussion, versus evolution itself. The fact of evolution permeates all of biology--from genetics to physiology from anatomy to embryology. There is no specialized study of biology where the fact that organisms have evolved over time is not in harmony with the observed results. This is why the argument over Intelligent Design is so harmful. It tears at the very fabric of our understanding of biology only to replace sound science with gibberish.

I think it difficult for the layman to understand how pervasive evolution is, that it is the lynch pin of modern biology and cries out as fact even when it is not the subject of an investigation. It is the universal biologic constant; it is the context within which all organisms exist.

For people of faith this should not be threatening. Although contradicting the most literal and small minded reading of Genesis, it does not contradict the mysterious working of God nor impede his creation of Intelligent Design if that is what you believe. You just have to find your faith outside the biology curriculum where it doesn't belong anyway.

Douglas Baynton: Thanks for the comment.

_______________________

Douglas Baynton: Well, my time is up and I have a queue of dozens of unanswered questions. I have to confess that it's a bit overwhelming to scroll through so many excellent and thought-provoking questions and try to compose decent answers to them on the fly. Thanks to everyone who took the time to write, and apologies to those I was unable to get to.

_______________________

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.