So what is this all about? In short, Intelligent Design (ID) says that this . . .
Flagellum of a Gram negative bactierium.. . . is essentially the same as this . . .
Pocket watch. But you already knew that.
Pocket watch. But you already knew that.. . . despite the science of biology saying that the first one evolved and was not designed. It is a movement populated almost exclusively by christian believers, and the implication is that the designer behind the complexity of nature is the christian God.
The Players
Before we get into what ID believers argue, let's look at who is involved in the discussion of Intelligent Design. There are a number of high profile proponents of the movement, and I couldn't possibly cover them all, so I will use Michael Behe and Angus Menuge as examples.
Michael Behe (lower right) is a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, and author of two books, The Edge of Evolution and Darwin's Black Box. He is best known for his argument of irreducible complexity. Angus Menuge (upper left) is a professor of philosophy and computer science at Concordia University. He recently gave a talk at UWM on intelligent design.
There are also some very big names opposed to intelligent design. Again, there are too many to cover here, but Richard Dawkins and Eugenie Scott should serve as good examples. Richard Dawkins is considered the world's most visible atheist and most well-known opponent of intelligent design. He is an evolutionary biologist with the University of Oxford and author of science books written for popular audiences, including The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, and The God Delusion. Eugenie Scott is a physical anthropologist and another prominent critic of intelligent design. She has her BS and MS degrees from UWM and her PhD from University of Missouri - Columbia. She is the director of the National Center for Science Education and also wrote a book, Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction.
The Arguments
The arguments made for intelligent design are many, but the two best elaborated are the concepts of irreducible complexity and the finely-tuned universe. Irreducible complexity is the argument that some things found in nature, like the many-protein complex that makes up a bacterial flagellum, the human eye, or the immune system, are so complex that they cannot function if missing even just one part, and this implies that they could not have come about through the incremental progress of natural selection acting on mutations. The commonly used analogy is a mousetrap, which is said to be useless if missing any single component. The idea is that something that is irreducibly complex must have been designed with its specific purpose in mind.
The finely-tuned universe argument states that the specific values of physical constants of our universe are "tuned" to allow for the development of life in our universe, and if any of these constant were changed, even a small amount, then life could not exist. The constants they are referring to are things like the strength of gravity or the magnitude of the strong nuclear force. One example that is used is that if the strong nuclear force were only 2% different in strength, hydrogen would not fuse into helium and heavier elements in stars, and a universe containing only hydrogen would likely be lifeless.
Beyond these philosophical arguments are other, more politically oriented assertions. The advocates of intelligent design tell us that there is a debate raging in the scientific community over whether intelligent design is a better explanation than evolution. They have even documented a list of the names of scientists who support intelligent design over evolution, called A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. This is perhaps the most crucial aspect of the intelligent design movement, because it is the basis for their further assertion that intelligent design should be presented alongside evolution in the classroom.
The Criticisms
The arguments of intelligent design proponents are vigorously challenged not only by particularly outspoken atheists but by the scientific community as a whole. In fact, before enumerating particular criticisms of the philosophical arguments, it is important to point out that there is no real controversy in the scientific community. Michael Behe's university, Lehigh, has a large graphic on the homepage of the biological sciences department linking to a disclaimer stating very clearly that Dr. Behe is most definitely alone in his assertions. Additionally, virtually all science organizations have issued statements declaring their rejection of intelligent design as a legitimate line of scientific inquiry.
However, the vocal nature of the nano-scale minority in favor of intelligent design has forced its opponents to criticize their individual arguments. The argument against irreducible complexity is that it makes the incorrect assumption that the system can only function for its current purpose, and parts of the system, being unable to complete that purpose, are useless. Opponents of intelligent design point out that
individual parts of a complex system may have other functions, like the general-purpose secretion system that is part of the bacterial flagellum. For example, even missing the bait, trigger, and catch, Michael Behe's irreducibly complex mousetrap makes an excellent tie clip.
The arguments against the idea of a finely-tuned universe are more complex. The first is that this argument puts the omelet before either the chicken or the egg: the universe came first, and life developed to fit it, not the other way around. Beyond that, the current understanding of fundamental physics is that our universe is only one of a nearly infinite number of universes, among which there is a very high likelihood that at least one would support life. Naturally we, as living things, find ourselves in that universe, this is no wonder.
A brief note:
Recently, Angus Menuge gave a presentation at UWM on the topic of intelligent design at an event sponsored by religious group for lutheran students. Here he admitted he holds no degrees in biology, biochemistry, chemistry, or physics. After the presentation, the floor was opened for questions, but when two people had asked questions critical of his position, the floor was closed (less than 5 minutes). The opposing viewpoint was essentially unwelcome at this event.
Analysis
The biggest challenge of this post was finding things to include that weren't just text. I could write about this stuff all day, but when asked to incorporate images, it gets tough. I wish I had some way of generating original photo/video content on the topic, but I don't know how I would in the time I have. I think that I was successful in making this something more than just words on a page, though. And I think I stayed true to the expository mode, since the information and images provided are factual, authoritative, organized, and to the point. I have put forth an argument about the world (that intelligent design movement is an important issue) and present images and words to support it.
I felt at times that it was hard to stay neutral, something that would seem to be important for my idea of what an expository doc should be, but I think it was just the weakness of the arguments for ID and the clarity of the arguments against.
It didn't occur to me how the picture of a bunch of flasks lined up could be a visual analogy to the scientific consensus until after I had finished.
Credits
Images of Angus Menuge and Michael Behe came from their respective websites. I am assuming by compiling this information in an educational/journalistic style, their use would be considered fair use. It is interesting to note that they do not appear to make any photos of themselves available under the public domain or creative commons license. Images of Richard Dawkins and Eugenie Scott were borrowed from Wikimedia Commons, and are distributed under the creative commons license, which specifies that they may be used freely. All other images are from Wikimedia Commons as well, some of which were edited, and fall under creative commons or public domain.
The Players
Before we get into what ID believers argue, let's look at who is involved in the discussion of Intelligent Design. There are a number of high profile proponents of the movement, and I couldn't possibly cover them all, so I will use Michael Behe and Angus Menuge as examples.Michael Behe (lower right) is a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, and author of two books, The Edge of Evolution and Darwin's Black Box. He is best known for his argument of irreducible complexity. Angus Menuge (upper left) is a professor of philosophy and computer science at Concordia University. He recently gave a talk at UWM on intelligent design.
There are also some very big names opposed to intelligent design. Again, there are too many to cover here, but Richard Dawkins and Eugenie Scott should serve as good examples. Richard Dawkins is considered the world's most visible atheist and most well-known opponent of intelligent design. He is an evolutionary biologist with the University of Oxford and author of science books written for popular audiences, including The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, and The God Delusion. Eugenie Scott is a physical anthropologist and another prominent critic of intelligent design. She has her BS and MS degrees from UWM and her PhD from University of Missouri - Columbia. She is the director of the National Center for Science Education and also wrote a book, Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction.The Arguments
The arguments made for intelligent design are many, but the two best elaborated are the concepts of irreducible complexity and the finely-tuned universe. Irreducible complexity is the argument that some things found in nature, like the many-protein complex that makes up a bacterial flagellum, the human eye, or the immune system, are so complex that they cannot function if missing even just one part, and this implies that they could not have come about through the incremental progress of natural selection acting on mutations. The commonly used analogy is a mousetrap, which is said to be useless if missing any single component. The idea is that something that is irreducibly complex must have been designed with its specific purpose in mind.
The finely-tuned universe argument states that the specific values of physical constants of our universe are "tuned" to allow for the development of life in our universe, and if any of these constant were changed, even a small amount, then life could not exist. The constants they are referring to are things like the strength of gravity or the magnitude of the strong nuclear force. One example that is used is that if the strong nuclear force were only 2% different in strength, hydrogen would not fuse into helium and heavier elements in stars, and a universe containing only hydrogen would likely be lifeless.Beyond these philosophical arguments are other, more politically oriented assertions. The advocates of intelligent design tell us that there is a debate raging in the scientific community over whether intelligent design is a better explanation than evolution. They have even documented a list of the names of scientists who support intelligent design over evolution, called A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. This is perhaps the most crucial aspect of the intelligent design movement, because it is the basis for their further assertion that intelligent design should be presented alongside evolution in the classroom.
The Criticisms
The arguments of intelligent design proponents are vigorously challenged not only by particularly outspoken atheists but by the scientific community as a whole. In fact, before enumerating particular criticisms of the philosophical arguments, it is important to point out that there is no real controversy in the scientific community. Michael Behe's university, Lehigh, has a large graphic on the homepage of the biological sciences department linking to a disclaimer stating very clearly that Dr. Behe is most definitely alone in his assertions. Additionally, virtually all science organizations have issued statements declaring their rejection of intelligent design as a legitimate line of scientific inquiry.
However, the vocal nature of the nano-scale minority in favor of intelligent design has forced its opponents to criticize their individual arguments. The argument against irreducible complexity is that it makes the incorrect assumption that the system can only function for its current purpose, and parts of the system, being unable to complete that purpose, are useless. Opponents of intelligent design point out that
individual parts of a complex system may have other functions, like the general-purpose secretion system that is part of the bacterial flagellum. For example, even missing the bait, trigger, and catch, Michael Behe's irreducibly complex mousetrap makes an excellent tie clip.The arguments against the idea of a finely-tuned universe are more complex. The first is that this argument puts the omelet before either the chicken or the egg: the universe came first, and life developed to fit it, not the other way around. Beyond that, the current understanding of fundamental physics is that our universe is only one of a nearly infinite number of universes, among which there is a very high likelihood that at least one would support life. Naturally we, as living things, find ourselves in that universe, this is no wonder.
A brief note:
Recently, Angus Menuge gave a presentation at UWM on the topic of intelligent design at an event sponsored by religious group for lutheran students. Here he admitted he holds no degrees in biology, biochemistry, chemistry, or physics. After the presentation, the floor was opened for questions, but when two people had asked questions critical of his position, the floor was closed (less than 5 minutes). The opposing viewpoint was essentially unwelcome at this event.
Analysis
The biggest challenge of this post was finding things to include that weren't just text. I could write about this stuff all day, but when asked to incorporate images, it gets tough. I wish I had some way of generating original photo/video content on the topic, but I don't know how I would in the time I have. I think that I was successful in making this something more than just words on a page, though. And I think I stayed true to the expository mode, since the information and images provided are factual, authoritative, organized, and to the point. I have put forth an argument about the world (that intelligent design movement is an important issue) and present images and words to support it.
I felt at times that it was hard to stay neutral, something that would seem to be important for my idea of what an expository doc should be, but I think it was just the weakness of the arguments for ID and the clarity of the arguments against.
It didn't occur to me how the picture of a bunch of flasks lined up could be a visual analogy to the scientific consensus until after I had finished.
Credits
Images of Angus Menuge and Michael Behe came from their respective websites. I am assuming by compiling this information in an educational/journalistic style, their use would be considered fair use. It is interesting to note that they do not appear to make any photos of themselves available under the public domain or creative commons license. Images of Richard Dawkins and Eugenie Scott were borrowed from Wikimedia Commons, and are distributed under the creative commons license, which specifies that they may be used freely. All other images are from Wikimedia Commons as well, some of which were edited, and fall under creative commons or public domain.
