MARGINALIA
Being Stalked by Intelligent Design
Scientists must stop ignoring "Intelligent Design"—religious prejudice disguised as intellectual freedom
Pat Shipman
Of Questionable Intelligence
The main premise of ID is that the living organisms on Earth are so
complex and so intricately constructed that they cannot
plausibly have arisen through the unguided action of
natural selection, so there must be an "intelligent
designer." (This entity is usually identified as God, but in a
deposition taken January 3, 2005, Dover Superintendent Nilsen
suggested that the "master intellect" described in an ID
textbook might also be an alien.)
In rhetoric, the line of reasoning used by ID advocates is known as
an argument by incredulity. Because what is entirely
plausible to one person is ludicrously unlikely to another,
arguments by incredulity are inherently weak. ID is not a scientific
theory amenable to testing, but an opinion, a philosophical
preference, a belief. That fact made it easy for me to dismiss the
ID movement as scientifically unimportant.
I might have settled back into complacency had I not learned that
students in the public high school in my town—a town dominated
by a major university—can "opt out" of learning
about evolution if their parents send a letter to the school.
Allowing students to "opt out" of learning the basic facts
and theories of biology is about as wise as allowing them to
"opt out" of algebra or English: It constitutes malfeasance.
Do not mistake my objection. If my neighbors and their children wish
to believe in Intelligent Design as a matter of faith that
is fine with me. What I object to most strenuously is the
presentation of a religious belief as a scientific theory in a
science class.
Nearly everyone educated in science agrees that there is neither
controversy nor debate over the fundamental premise of evolutionary
theory: Species evolve over time through the mechanism of natural
selection (differential survival and reproduction) acting on
variability produced by genetic diversity and mutation. Evolutionary
theory is the unifying theme of all of modern biology, witness
statements from many groups, including the American Association for
the Advancement of Science, the American Association of University
Professors, the American Geophysical Union, the American Chemical
Society, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the American
Physical Society, the National Academy of Sciences, the National
Center for Science Education, and the National Science Teachers
Association. As the late, great geneticist and evolutionary theorist
Theodosius Dobzhansky, a devout Christian, explained in the title of
his famous paper, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the
light of evolution." Others agree that evolutionary theory is
compatible with a belief in God, such as the Bishop of Oxford, the
Archbishop of Canterbury, the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the late
Pope John Paul II (despite one cardinal's recent reinterpretation of
his writings).
The threat posed by ID became more real to me when colleagues at
Ohio State University—professors Brian McEnnis (mathematics),
Jeffrey McKee (anthropology) and Steve Rissing (evolution, ecology
and organismal biology)—became involved in an extraordinary
situation. A Ph.D. candidate in science education, high school
teacher Bryan Leonard, wrote a dissertation on the following
research questions: "When students are taught the scientific
data both supporting and challenging macroevolution, do they
maintain or change their beliefs over time? What empirical,
cognitive and/or social factors influence students' beliefs?"
Leonard described his project and identified himself as a graduate
student at OSU during his testimony at the evolution
"hearing" put on by the Kansas Board of Education in May
2005. One of the Ohio State professors called the Graduate School to
learn more and discovered that Leonard's thesis defense was
scheduled for June 6, 2005. The trio wrote a letter to the dean of
the school on June 3 requesting that Leonard's dissertation defense
be postponed until several problems were investigated. First, they
argued that Leonard's research questions contained a fundamental flaw:
There are no valid scientific data challenging
macroevolution. Mr. Leonard has been misinforming his students if he
teaches them otherwise. His dissertation presents evidence that he
has succeeded in persuading high school students to reject this
fundamental principle of biology. As such, it involves deliberate
miseducation of these students, a practice that we regard as unethical.
Second, they asked if Leonard had received approval to experiment on
human subjects and if he had followed the prescribed protocol;
universities that fail to follow exacting procedures for human
experimentation may lose federal funding. Finally, they questioned
the composition of Leonard's dissertation committee, which lacked
expertise in both science education and evolutionary biology, the
subjects of his dissertation. Two members of the
committee—professors Glen R. Needham from the Department of
Entomology and Robert DiSilvestro from the Department of Human
Nutrition—had publicly supported the teaching of ID and denied
the validity of evolution.
At OSU, Ph.D. committees are required to have one member from
outside the candidate's college to ensure that correct procedure is
followed. The outsider on Leonard's committee was an assistant
professor in French and Italian who resigned and was replaced by
Joan Herbers, dean of the College of Biological Sciences.
Immediately after the replacement, Leonard's adviser, an expert in
teaching with computers who had "inherited" Leonard as the
former student of a departed faculty member, requested that the
defense be postponed.
These events prompted me to take ID seriously, and this movement
scares me. Now I feel like a jogger in the park at night who
realizes that she is far too isolated and that the shadows are far
too deep. At first I ignored that faint rustling behind me,
convincing myself it was just wind in the leaves. Louder noises made
me jump and turn around, but I saw nothing. Now I know that I and my
colleagues in science are being stalked with careful and deadly
deliberation. I fear my days are numbered unless I act soon and
effectively. If you are reading this, the chances are that you are
in the same position.
» Post Comment