Man, am I sick of creationists making shit up. Unlike real scientists, who have to back up everything they say, ID fanboys like Stephen C. Meyer (head of the ironically named Discovery Institute, an organization dedicated to the ignorance of mankind) can arbitrarily claim something that has no basis in fact. Take his latest article in “CNN Opinion”, a kind of amateur journalism site for anyone desperate enough to give something to the failing news network for free (provided you do all the work, of course). Here’s a bunch of quotes that show what little care he has for intellectual integrity:

Contrary to Darwinian orthodoxy, the fossil record actually challenges the idea that all organisms have evolved from a single common ancestor. [bare assertion fallacy]

DNA functions like a software program. We know that software comes from programmers. [false analogy fallacy]

Despite the consensus view that Darwin showed that “design could arise without a designer” there is now compelling scientific evidence of actual intelligent design in even the simplest living cells. [bare assertion fallacy]

Increasingly, there are reasons to doubt the Darwinian idea that living things merely “appear” to be designed. [bare assertion fallacy]

I’ll cover just these, since the rest is essentially the same bullshit drivel you’ve come to expect from these morons. Nothing about what Meyer said is true, except for perhaps there is increased “doubt” about evolution, although Meyer fails to mention the doubters are not scientists, but rather terribly ignorant and scientifically illiterate people. The problem here is Meyer is not being questioned on any of his assertions. He just boldly states them, and has no real worries about proving their validity (despite the fact they are all fallacies). In his mind, there is a God, and he made everything with his love magic.

A high school biology student could bury this guy’s argument, which essentially boil down to “science is really hard and it can’t explain everything, so I’m going to fill in every gap in our knowledge with magic man done it“. Why don’t you let the adults do their science Meyer, and you can go play with your friends in traffic.

Just when you were hoping Intelligent Design had gone the way of the Dodo bird, a small town school board always seems to become mired in the controversy. This time, it’s the Chesterfield County School District in Virginia, which, in its school memoranda, has decided that it wants students to ‘expand their knowledge through research, to debate the concepts as presented, and to develop their creative and independent thinking skills’. In other words, they want to teach the ‘science’ of Intelligent Design alongside Evolution.

Despite the decisive rulings against the teaching of ‘scientific creationism’, it seems the ID camp has not given up on trying to make everyone believe their fantasy is tantamount to a scientific revolution. In fairness to the staff at Chesterfield, they may not be aware of just how thoroughly debunked and debased the theory has been ever since December 2005, when the Dover, Pennsylvania School Board lost its attempt to sell Intelligent Design as a secular alternative to Evolution.

The Dover Ruling

In October of 2004, in Dover Pennsylvania, the school board decided to include a disclaimer in its biology textbooks, saying that evolution was a ‘theory’ and not fact, and alternative explanations for the origins of life existed, primarily in a book entitled Of Pandas and People. A group of parents, angry at this development, decided to initiate a lawsuit, which resulted in a lengthy but decisive trial which would definitively answer whether or not ID should be allowed in public schools.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones (who was an admitted staunch conservative) found ID violated the Constitutional separation of Church and State, and unfairly singled out evolution and misrepresented its scientific standing. He also agreed ID was quite obviously religious in nature. Although the case brought in many of Intelligent Design’s ‘expert’ witnesses, the prosecution showed decisively that ID presented no scientific argument on its own; instead, ID relied on the false premise that if any aspect of Evolution faltered, it would inherently mean ID was true. This is nothing more than a false choice, since ID presents no real alternative explanations other than the classic ‘God in the Gaps’ arguments.

To prove that ID was nothing more than dressed up creationism, the prosecution also showed that the board members had been advised by The Discovery Institute, an ultra conservative ‘think-tank’whose primary mission is the spread of Creationism in American public schools, and as their website puts it: ‘belief in God-given reason and the permanency of human nature’. The prosecution also showed that both sides considered the issue to be a religious one, and over 80% of the parents who wrote in to the school, whether for or against the disclaimer, expressed their opinions among religious lines.

Finally, it obliterated the ID camp by cross-examining the expert witnesses of scientific creationism by proving not only that each of star witnesses was devoutly religious, but also that their theories on the invalidity of Evolution was not based on scientific observation, but rather on strictly religious observance.

What does this mean for Chesterfield?

The decisive ruling has done much in the elimination of Intelligent Design from public schools, and the strange decision of the Chesterfield to potentially introduce ID theories in the classroom demonstrates their lack of understanding of both evolution, and of past rulings concerning Intelligent Design. Although their website maintains that they are committed to upholding the Constitution, their press release demonstrates their total lack of understanding of these two issues:

“We have received much interest and concern from our citizens relating to the theory of evolution as taught in our science classes. It is the School Board’s belief that this topic, along with all other topics that raise differences of thought and opinion, should receive the thorough and unrestricted study as we have just articulated. Accordingly, we direct our superintendent to charge those of our professionals who support curriculum development and implementation with the responsibility to investigate and develop processes that encompass a comprehensive approach to the teaching and learning of these topics.”

What they mean by ‘much interest’ relating to the theory of evolution (and they love to misuse the word theory, don’t they?) is that religious parents are obviously averse to the idea of their kids being taught that human beings descended from a primate ancestor. It’s also doubtful their superintendent would have the scientific gumption to properly ‘investigate and develop processes that encompass a comprehensive approach to the teaching and learning of these topics’. It is more likely they would not present the evidence in a fair manner, and take the opportunity to teach children the laughable idea that species were spontaneously created by some supernatural force.

Their notion that self-directed learning occurs only when alternative views are explored and discussed implies that Intelligent Design is somehow a valid scientific opinion, which it quite obviously is not. It’s just another example of the religious right attempting to usurp the findings and works of science in favor of their mythological world view. If Chesterfield continues to push the issue, they may quickly find themselves not only embarrassed at their own backwardness, but may also face the hefty cost of legal action brought on by concerned parents.

Why does Creationism and its cousin, Intelligent Design continue to persist in American culture despite the fact both have been exposed as entirely motivated by religion? Even though no serious scientists anywhere accept the baseless theories of ID, the general public in the United States is convinced a serious debate over evolution is being fought. Just what is going on here? As I will demonstrate in this article, there are three main reasons why Intelligent Design continues to persist, despite the valiant effort of scientists and other highly educated professionals. They are, namely, the fact  (1) people have a poor understanding of science, and evolution in particular; (2) Intelligent Design appeals to our intuition: the universe appears, at first glance, to be designed; and (3) there is a highly organized movement designed to systematically misinform the public, and replace biological science with creationist dogma.

What’s a Theory in Science, and why is Evolution right?

Despite the fact the findings of science are so pervasive in today’s society, influencing the way we view the world around us, and driving the technology that manages our complex and sophisticated society, most individuals have a poor understanding of the fundamental discoveries of modern science. So uninformed are we that we can easily dismiss a theory so thoroughly tested as evolution based only on the fact the word theory accompanies it. A theory is a guess, right? It means it isn’t proven, and like every discovery we’ve made in science, it will inevitably be invalidated, to be replaced by some other theory eventually, right? Well, no, not really. A theory in science is not a guess (that’s actually called a hypothesis), and although there have been times when a new discovery has displaced an old one, science more often than not builds on the foundation of other theories and models, constantly refining itself. If a theory is shown to be false, it is not generally discarded, since it may still work well to describe the natural world. Newton’s theory of Gravitation was shown to be inconsistent with the some of the findings of Relativity, but it is still used today because of its reliability in describing the movements of planets, stars, and even galaxies (incidentally, it was Newton who once said, in a letter to his friend Robert Hook, “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants”).

It is our poor understanding that makes someone unable to defend the theory from the sophisticated methods Creationists use to try and invalidate it. For starters, most of us would agree a ‘theory’ is a loosely based idea, a conjecture which has yet to be proven. It certainly sounds as though if something is only a theory, then it can essentially be disproven. But in science, the word theory means something completely different. It isn’t simply an educated guess, or some armchair philosophizing. A theory is a thoroughly tested model that describes a process of nature. Notable theories include the Theory of Gravitation, or General Relativity. No one would believe for an instant gravity was an incomplete model of how bodies attract one another, this despite the fact the theory has undergone certain changes since its inception. Of course, gravity is always being felt, and as such is a phenomenon we can directly observe. To deny the reality of gravity would be foolish. So why then is it so easy for people to dismiss the Theory of Evolution, despite the fact it is one of the most rigorously tested and proven theories in the history of science?

Evolution is a lot like geology; it involves enormous lapses of time. As such, in our lifetimes, we don’t really get to experience first hand the process of evolution, any more than we experience the drifting of the continental shelves. Human beings are pragmatic creatures; we tend to want to believe our senses are the best tools to understand the natural world. The mind, however, is not a laboratory, and sometimes plays tricks on us. Our intuition would have us believe the world as we see it today is unchanging, immutable. Of course, we know the earth did not always exist as it does today because of science, and not our intuition. For instance, geologists know, 250 million years ago, the continents were all fused together, in a super continent called ‘Pangaea’. The continents are actually still moving a few centimeters each year. The simple fact we don’t notice it does not mean it doesn’t happen. It takes rigorous science to uncover the truth about ancient earth.

Why does Creationism Exist?

If the scientific community is entirely convinced evolution is real, why do so many people object to it? The answer, unsurprisingly, is the Theory of Evolution is very troubling to many deeply religious individuals who feel the general randomness and lack of design in evolution contradict their notion of God as Creator. For most people who believe in God, the incompatibility of both evolution theory and the Bible seems to be a non-issue, but to religious fundamentalists, who demand their religious text be taken as literally true, the idea of a mechanism that contradicts the notion of the immutability of species threatens their core beliefs. It is in their interests, therefore, that they take an active role in trying to undermine the legitimacy of evolution in order to preserve their teachings. Obviously such activism is not to our advantage; undermining science is already having disastrous effects. The lack of understanding of evolutionary theory, for example, is drastically slowing down our ability to fight off viruses and other pathogens, which become resistant to treatment as time goes on.

There is a tendency, mostly among young people, to assume the teaching of evolution has been a staple of academic life for a long time. Alas, despite the fact the Theory of Evolution by Means of Natural Selection will soon turn 150 years old in two years (marking the commemoration of Darwin’s book, On the Origin of Species), the truth is for most of that time, the idea was not largely accepted by the public. In fact, in most parts of the United States, the teaching of evolution was banned. This changed almost immediately when in October 4, 1957, the Soviets successfully launched Sputnik, the world’s first man made object to orbit the Earth. This initiated a massive reform of various schools’ curricula around the country, focusing much more heavily on science education, which had previously been seriously lacking. It was believed at the time without such reform, America would be overwhelmed by a more scientifically advanced Soviet Union.

Although Creationism tried valiantly to make its way back into classrooms, vigilant groups like the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) continually fought to keep it out, and to keep the institutions of religion and government separate. More recently, a group of very clever Evangelicals, funded primarily by a conservative religious think tank called the Discovery Institute, has revamped Creationism into the more scientifically sounding ‘Intelligent Design’ argument.

Why Is Intelligent Design Wrong?

The clever thing about Intelligent Design is, to any reasonable person with very little understanding of evolutionary science, it actually sounds plausible. For instance, ID’ers argue life is so complex, the odds of any one organism existing is astronomically huge. For all the components to come together simultaneously, the equivalent would be to throw a bunch of metal scraps into a tornado and expect a Boeing 747 to come out. It takes a clever person to realize just how flawed this reasoning is. Trying to measure the odds of something happening after the fact makes no sense. Life did not spontaneously come together. Instead, life evolved in a series of lengthy and gradual steps, from very simple organic molecules to increasingly complex and specialized species. Another Intelligent Design argument, one conjured by the ID ‘superstar’ Michel Behe, called Irreducible Complexity, states some organisms appear to have organelles which only work if all the parts work in conjunction with one another. His most famous example is the Bacterial Flagellum, a propeller like tail containing some 20 parts that act very much like a motor. Remove any one component, Behe argues, and the whole structure becomes useless. To the lay person, this would certainly seem compelling. But again, this argument simply fails to prove anything other than the lack of understanding of evolutionary biology on the part of Behe. Although he may be a biologist, he failed to realize his argument had already been discussed by evolutionary biologists, and dismissed. It was shown some species of bacteria contain intermediate parts of the motor which serve different purposes. Evolution operates this way; often adapting existing systems, and slowly converting them to serve other functions.

Behe’s argument is based on the idea intermediate improvements would somehow be inadequate to the survival of a species. What would be the point of half a wing, or 5% of our present vision. We will ignore for the moment the fact species currently exist that have intermediate stages of development in both vision and flight. The point is the very question ignores the evidence of evolution that shows any slight advantage over rivals, both as a result of an arms race from selective pressures from predators or from other individuals of the same species (competing for food), increase the chances of that individual to survive and thus procreate. What is the good of half, or even the quarter of a wing? Anything that can get you to get out of range of any potential predator is reward in itself.

All of these questions, even if they were valid, fail to even make a real case for Intelligent Design. Because ID is unable to create a model to replace evolution by means of natural selection, it has no predictive powers, and instead presents itself as a false alternative to evolution. In other words, ID tries to prove evolution simply to say ‘oh well, if they are wrong, surely we must be right’. Anyone familiar with the rules of logic knows this is a poor argument. The equivalent would be ‘You are not from Nebraska, therefore you must be from New York’. Even if the first premise was proven true, it does not follow that the second one is. You could be from any other state, or you could be from a different country, or even a different planet. The simple act of disproving one thing does not prove another in a case where a multitude of options exist. This is why science never tries to prove something with a negative.

Why Creationism Persists.

At the heart of creationism is the need for certain individuals to believe the accounts of the Bible are factually true. Though many of us would consider this to be only a small minority of the population, in the United States, Evangelicals are the fastest growing religion. Their growing numbers allow them to exert a great deal of political pressure. Since many of them vote for the same people, the ‘Evangelical Vote’ is often sought after by politicians eager to be elected. In exchange, however, these religious groups seek to gain an ever larger foothold in political decisions, and this includes trying to introduce Creationism in schools.

But the news is not all bad. In 2005, in Dover Pennsylvania, a landmark case shattered the hopes of ID’ers that  their pet theory might be accepted as a legitimate form of science. The judge, a Republican appointee, concluded Intelligent Design had serious religious underpinnings, and it failed to make its case as a type of science. The defeat has obviously not deterred those who wish to displace the Theory of Evolution as the supreme scientific explanation on the origin of life, but for now, the victory has begun to galvanize the efforts of those who fight to keep religion out of the classrooms. A growing number of scientists, who previously had refused to even humor the attempts of creationists to spread their faith based mythology in schools, have grown more vocal. They correctly see the usurpation of science threatens not just the future of scientific endeavors, but even the future of mankind. It is interesting to contemplate Creationism may in fact create the opposite effect ID’ers intended; mainly of bringing scientists together to fight against the purveyors of ignorance.