The
World Against I.D. 06/21/2006 The
Inter-Academy Panel (IAP) on International Issues, a global network of
scientific academies, has issued a statement endorsing cosmic and
biological evolution. It urges “decision makers, teachers, and
parents to educate all children about the methods and discoveries of
science and to foster an understanding of the science of nature.”
Though the statement does not specifically mention intelligent design or
creation, a report on BBC News says
its release “follows fierce debate about whether so-called intelligent
design (ID) should be taught in biology courses in schools, mainly in the
US.” It opens with this veiled reference to opposition: “We, the
undersigned Academies of Sciences, have learned that in various parts of
the world, within science courses taught in certain public systems of
education, scientific evidence, data, and testable theories about the
origins and evolution of life on Earth are being concealed,
denied, or confused with theories not testable by
science.” The document lists 68 member societies, including the
US National Academy of Sciences. Next, it calls for
“evidence-based” teaching about at least four subjects that, while having
details still open to question, “scientific evidence has never
contradicted” – (1) The Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago in a universe
11-15 billion years old, (2) Earth’s geology and environments have
continued to change since its formation, (3) Life appeared at least 2.5
billion years ago, followed by the evolution of photosynthetic organisms
which transformed the atmosphere, and
4. Since its first appearance on Earth,
life has taken many forms, all of which continue to
evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and
biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with
increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of
the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans,
clearly indicate their common primordial origin.
The statement affirms a view of science based on
observation, formulation of testable hypotheses leading to theories, and
prediction. It says science is an open-ended process subject to
correction and expansion, and that questions of value and purpose are
outside its scope. The BBC
has made the full text available.
One can imagine that in the time of the
Reformation, every Catholic academy across the Latin world would have
unanimously risen up to condemn Luther. The list of signatories
would have been impressive. It must have been a fearful moment for
Luther to stand alone against the tidal wave of illustrious scholars and
officials arrayed against him, and say, “Here I stand. I can do no
other. God help me.” Don’t be impressed by the
number of signatories to this dogmatic document (that, ironically,
claims science is not dogmatic; if they really believed that, they would
recognize the possibility that evolution is wrong and listen seriously
to the claims it has been falsified). A position statement
issued by the upper echelons of management of a scientific society no
more reflects the views of all scientists than a labor union’s political
endorsement reflects the rank-and-file workers. How many of them
even knew this document was being published? Most of the
scientists in those societies don’t even study evolutionary biology in
their day-to-day work, and probably many who accept evolution don’t feel
that strongly about it. Probably one or a few activist leaders at
a meeting of these academies wrote the statement and pushed it through
for a vote; perhaps it included “Yves Quere, co-chair of the Inter
Academy Panel on International Issues,” whom the BBC article quoted: “So
in this statement we say you cannot teach this to children, it is
wrong.” Here’s a guy with an agenda. Even if I.D.
is a minority view at this time (but not among the public, only among
Big Science organizations), science does not advance by majority
vote. As we saw from the case of Grote Reber (02/06/2003),
the Lone Ranger is sometimes the good guy. There have been many
instances in the history of science where a maverick had to fight long
and hard against entrenched ideas – sometimes for decades, facing
official opposition that was sometimes strident and personal.
What’s important in science is not to be popular, but to be right.
There are notable nonconformists within the scientific societies.
Though pro-ID letters from scientists are routinely censored by most
mainstream journals, Evolution
News found a well-written letter to the Journal of Clinical
Investigation that should be held up alongside the IAP document and
any other saber-rattling position papers attacking intelligent
design. Read it and see who is taking the reasonable scientific
position on this issue. The IAP statement, despite its
self-righteous condemnation of anything that questions evolution, is
noteworthy for what it does not say. The BBC article
ended with a statement by Steve Fuller, who promotes teaching the
controversy. Fuller thought it was “pretty mild” and “really
doesn’t hit on the kinds of issues that would separate either contesting
schools within evolutionary theory or evolution versus intelligent
design.” It lacks, for instance, any reference to a naturalistic
mechanism – including Darwin’s – that could lead from hydrogen to
humans. Once you scrape away the rust of evolutionary assumptions
masquerading as evidence, there’s really not much left to argue with:
the universe appeared, life appeared, photosynthesis appeared, geology
changes and science should be falsifiable. Remove the E-word here
and there, and nothing is offered to demonstrate all living things arose
from a common ancestor by an undirected natural process. (For a
refutation of the argument from similarity, see Icons of
Evolution by Jonathan Wells.) The statement also
attacks a straw
man. No ID-friendly school board or organization is advocating
removing the subject of evolution in the public schools, or replacing it
with young-earth creationism. Where has Quere been? The
whole controversy is about teaching the controversy and removing
the artificial moat that protects Charlie’s castle from monitoring by
independent inspectors. One would think that scientific societies,
committed to an open-ended process of inquiry and the formulation of
falsifiable theories, would welcome the scrutiny. So what if
Darwin’s ideas are found to be false? Great; science marches
on. So what if intelligent design wins? Great; now we have
another paradigm for trying to make sense of the natural world.
What’s the problem? The only people working to conceal, deny
and confuse the issue are the Darwiniacs.
Official denunciations like this suggest an underlying insecurity.
There would not be a need if evolution were so obvious. Instead of
engaging their opponents calmly with rational discussion, they entrench
themselves behind their castle walls and talk tough. Wouldn’t it
be cool to lob boxes of Ann Coulter’s Godless over the wall, just
for the fun of watching their pointy heads turn red and explode.
[2006/06/21] The World Against I.D.
