Bittersweet Distractions

I recently viewed Ben Stein’s Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. It was a bold attempt to “uncover” an apparently suppressive scientific community, while advocating a controversial alternative theory known as Intelligent Design (ID). The film advances three main points: (1) the scientific community is an oppressive group that dogmatically holds up Darwinism above all other theories; (2) ID is a legitimate scientific theory that may in fact be more effective in answering questions than Darwinism; and (3) that a Darwinian worldview promotes the devaluation of human life and therefore invites destructive and immoral behavior (i.e., the Holocaust).

The most original claim is that the scientific community is oppressive, forcing out academics who even so much as mention the words “intelligent design.” The topic is one I will return to later, however, I want to discuss the second and third arguments first.

Like all scientific theories and laws, anomalies are always present. For readers who are unaware of what an anomaly is, it is a fundamental “problem” in a theory: i.e., the theory of gravity is unable to explain what actually creates the effects of gravity. Major anomalies in evolutionary theory include the Cambrian explosion and the origin of DNA. It is important to note, however, that a commonly misconceived anomaly is the origin of life. Evolutionary theory, and more specifically Darwinism, has absolutely no business in the origin of life theories, other than the suggestion that life came about by purely natural means. The claim that evolution cannot answer the question of the origin of life is not in fact a problem for evolution, because evolution is concerned with the mechanics of change, not the geology/chemistry/history involved in the actual beginning of life.

Claim: ID is a scientific theory, and even a better theory than evolution/Darwinism, is based on several premises; namely, the argument from probability and irreducible complexity.

Since I do not have all day, I will briefly discuss why ID is not scientific and why both the argument from probability and irreducible complexity are poor arguments. The argument from probability, originally postulated by William Dembski, holds that the probability of life arising is so small that it might as well be dismissed as impossible. Even more improbable is that intelligence would arise by means of evolution. That is, the Earth is in such a unique position, that even given its ‘privileged status,’ only the right circumstances could have given rise to life. The probability of which is slim to none (something like -10^1000000000000000000000). If there were an intelligent designer, however, then it is more likely that life would exist since it was meant to exist. Furthermore, the existence of intelligence and consciousness, which has even a smaller probability of arising by means of evolution than life itself, is better explained by an intelligent designer, who installed information in DNA, and provided ‘intelligence’ to life forms on Earth. By appealing to a scientific principle that holds the simplest explanation as the best explanation, ID is a simpler explanation.

Richard Dawkins provides a wonderful counter argument to the argument from probability. If it is such that life and intelligence are so improbable, then it is even more improbable for intelligence to exist without use of evolution. You see, if there is a chance of intelligence occurring, despite how small, through evolution, it is still a better chance of happening than for there to be a huge intelligent being responsible for creating the universe. It is even more difficult and unlikely that intelligence would arise without evolution, especially so much intelligence as to be able to create the world. Therefore, evolution is not only more likely, but even simpler of  an explanation than an intelligent designer.

ID also boasts “irreducible complexity” as supportive of its theory. Irreducible complexity concerns organic systems composed of multiple parts performing a general function, such as the mammalian eye. ID holds that the parts that make up that system would not provide any function if not for that system. To make it clearer, evolution asserts that genetic mutations taking place over time bring rise to new organs/tissues with unique functions. An assembly of organic parts, such as the eye, provide a single function, such as seeing. If the parts were reduced/removed from the system, such as the cornea, not only would that single part not serve any function, but the entire organ would cease to function. Consequently, the organic system is “irreducibly” complex.

The argument against irreducible complexity is simple, mostly because IC ignores a fundamental concept of evolution. The different parts that make up a complex organ previously served other functions. The primary example is vestigial organs (i.e., the appendix, tailbone, canine teeth, etc.). Over time, as mutations take place, some organs lose their function. Others, however, will combine with other organs and produce a different function. Most of the time, like most mutations, such conjoining is harmful or fatal. Nevertheless, sometimes the combination provides an advantage, or an advantageous byproduct, that increases the chances of survival. And, given the inefficiency of some organs in fulfilling their “function,” it seems improbable that such complexity would be the product of an intelligent deisgner.

Other than those two arguments, most of intelligent design finds its basis in holes, or ‘gaps’ of evolutionary theory (including the incomplete fossil record). ID therefore serves as a “default” explanation, or “God of the Gaps.” Where an inquiry has yet to be answered, ID advocates usually attack evolution as being inadequate and default on ID. We should be reminded, however, that although gaps exist in almost all scientific theories, it takes time to perform the experiments and investigation that could produce an explanation.

Besides ID not being an adequate alternative to evolution, it is also not a science. I will not go through the scientific method to show how ID fails the test of science. But, the big ones are: there are no experiments to back it up; empirical evidence does not even come close to pointing towards the supernatural conclusions (science does not engage the supernatural); the ‘theory’ is unfalsifiable (all scientific theories must be testable, and therefore capable of being proven false); a majority of its peer-reviewed literature is published in theological and philosophical journals, not science journals; and finally, most of ID is focused on identifying anomalies in evolutionary theory, not proof within itself.

Claim: A Darwinian worldview promotes the devaluation of human life and therefore invites destructive and immoral behavior (i.e., the Holocaust).

Stein’s film makes the connection between Darwinism and several human tragedies. He argues (while assuming) that a Darwinian worldview leads people to devalue human life. The assumption, of course, is that evolutionists are atheists, and atheists have no source of morality (a terrible misconception that I will address in a later blog). If people view the world as purposeless and equate human life with the life of ants, then people will treat humans as such.

The immediate problem with the argument is that Stein tries to attribute value-giving properties to evolutionary theory. Of course, no person actually bases morality on the theory of evolution (besides human sociobiology, which is practically a dead moral theory anyway, but argues that we ought to do that which promotes the survival of the species). Why? Because it is not a moral theory. Evolution theory does not apply moral value at any more (neither does science for that matter).

The most commonly cited example of an evil atheist is Adolf Hitler. Of course, no one knows if he was an atheist or not. He often appealed to the Jews killing Jesus to sway Christians, so he might have been a Christian. Regardless, the concept of “social Darwinism” is, in fact, a basis for eugenics. However, even if Hitler used Darwinism to justify his actions, that does not make Darwinism responsible; nor does it suggest that Darwinism led to Hitler’s worldview. Rather, Hitler was hateful and insane anyway, and using Darwinism may have just been a justification, not a stimulus for his actions. His writings suggest his hatred of Jews and admiration for a particular race preceded any argument that might be assimilated to Darwinism. To do so is considered “rationalization,” incorporating information in support of idea when the idea is already concluded (exactly what ID and creationism do with modern science).

Hitler did not, nor has anyone in history, ever rational killed in the name of evolution or Darwinism.

Claim: The scientific community is an oppressive group that dogmatically holds up Darwinism above all other theories.

Stein finds numerous individuals who have been dismissed or demoted from academic positions for “mentioning Intelligent design.” Because the political push for intelligent design to be treated as a science, when it is not, it is safe to say that people fear when colleagues and administrators support the idea. Scientists find ID threatening, not to Darwinism, but to the scientific enterprise as it is adamantly trying to change “science.”

Also, many ID proponents have been dismissed because institutions don’t want to pay proponents of ID. Not because it is threatening, but because it is not science. If it were producing substantive results, then they would not be dismissed. Otherwise, no one wants to pay someone defaulting the science of genetics on God.