• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Lack of Intelligence in Design Arguments ; Evolution May Need Improvement, but ID Isn't a True Scientific Theory.

Posted on: Tuesday, 17 May 2005, 03:00 CDT

I would like to respond to the May 1 "In My Opinion" column by Andrew Odell on teaching intelligent design as an alternative to evolution. I am personally in favor of improving the theory of evolution, but I don't believe intelligent design is an improvement.

Mr. Odell begins by asserting that intelligent design is not a religious theory. I couldn't disagree more. Webster's Dictionary defines religion as "belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers." Now what we need to do is prove that intelligent design fits in these parameters.

If intelligent design requires a creator, then either the creator had to be created by another creator and so on indefinitely, or the creator exists outside of time, and therefore is a superhuman or supernatural being.

The first idea is ludicrous because the universe had to start at some definite point about 6.2 billion years ago; therefore the latter has to be true. Now that we have established this it is easy to see that intelligent design is a religious theory and not a scientific one. For this reason alone it should not be taught in schools.

Robert T. Penncock sums it up very well: "Science requires a specific model that can be tested. What exactly did the designer do and when did he do it? ... Design, even if restricted to natural processes, provides precious little that is testable and once supernatural processes are wedged in (as we have concluded that they are) it loses any chance of testability." Penncock is an associate professor of science and technology at Michigan State University.

The next bit of evidence Mr. Odell offers is that of irreducible complexity. Irreducible complexity is the most stunning weapon in the arsenal of evidence intelligent design has, or would be if it existed.

Irreducible complexity is a theory that some things are composed of parts that if one is missing, the system no longer works. The problem is that, with most systems given as examples, the parts of the system were evolved beforehand for a different purpose. These parts later formed into one, more useful system.

This concept is probably best explained by Dr. Kenneth Miller. In this quote, speaking about a mousetrap, he says, "Take away two parts (the catch and the metal bar) and you may not have a mousetrap, but you do have a three-part machine that makes a fully functional tie clip or paper clip. Take away the spring and you have a two-part key chain. The catch of some mousetraps can be used as a fishhook, and the wooden base as a paperweight; useful applications of other parts include everything from toothpicks to nutcrackers and clipboard holders. The point, which science has long understood, is that tiny bits of supposedly irreducible complex systems may have different - but still useful - functions."

I was very confused by Mr. Odell's reference to SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence). I don't see how it is related to intelligent design. As for his remarks about intelligent design being a veiled form of creationism, please refer to the beginning of my column.

What argument about evolution would be complete without mentioning that evolution is merely a theory? Apparently Mr. Odell couldn't resist it.

While this is true, not too many people outside of the scientific community know what a scientific theory is. A scientific law is a general explanation of a phenomenon; the scientific theory is the nitty-gritty part. A scientific theory gives all of the math, evidence, examples, etc. to support the law.

Mr. Odell mentions one more point about how debaters always know the other side of an issue. Yes it has been said, by Sun Tzu in "The Art of War," to know thine enemy is to know yourself. However, it doesn't apply in this case.

In science it is impossible for two directly conflicting theories to explain the same thing and both be correct. So to resolve this you should learn the theory that has the most convincing evidence supporting it. That theory, as of now, is evolution.

While I am in favor of the improvement of the theories involving the development of life, I believe you should not teach a theory that is incomplete, not supported by evidence and isn't even a scientific theory.

Sam Myers is a ninth grade student at Pequea Valley High School.

(Copyright 2005 Lancaster Newspapers)

Source: Sunday News; Lancaster, Pa.

More News in this Category