Alliance For Science

Flawed Richmond Magazine Article Is No Help

July 3, 2007 -- Dick Lessard – The Alliance for Science

Recently, a distinct rumble of agitation in favor of teaching intelligent design has been heard in Chesterfield County, located just south and west of Richmond, Virginia. This became very noticeable when proceedings of the May 22nd Chesterfield County School Board (CCSB) were reported in print and on the Internet. Shawn Smith, a science supporter and Chesterfield County resident, has established a blog on this issue, and does an excellent job of summarizing the events that have transpired. Readers who haven’t been following this story are encouraged to get caught up via the many links given in Shawn’s blog.

So far, the official actions of the CCSB have been limited to issuing a rather vague and confusing statement. ID proponents had hoped to influence the selection of science textbooks, but they started their campaign too late, and the CCSB approved the selection of standard biology texts. But there is still much concern about the situation in Chesterfield. ID supporters, backed by a local conservative group called the Family Foundation, are energetic and well-organized, as evidenced by their ability to deliver a petition with more than 1,100 people who questioned the use of “evolution-only” science texts.

Press coverage has been mixed, accompanied by the usual assortment of pro-creationist letters. One noteworthy article has just appeared in the July issue of Richmond Magazine. The article in question, entitled “The Unsolvable Debate – Chesterfields’s School Board Rebuffs Intelligent Design Concerns – For Now,” is not available online, so we will review its main points here while pointing out some of the more salient errors and omissions.

The article opens by quoting ID supporter Ray Garrett, who says that “I don’t want God anywhere near the classroom”, and further cites a desire for ID to be evaluated on its scientific merits alone. The article notes that Garrett is “simply a layman with an avid interest in science”, but was encouraged to speak at the CCSB meeting by members of his church, Swift Creek Baptist. So, one must ask, how well does Garrett really understand evolutionary science and how qualified is he to evaluate the scientific merits of intelligent design?

The article gives a roughly accurate summary of the basics of evolution and natural selection, although the authors, Jack Cooksey and Skye Purdum, stumble at the end when they cite a “progression from ape to man”. Unless, they mean “progression” in a very narrow sense of a graduated series of changes, they are inaccurate in that evolutionary theory contains no notion of “progress” in the usual sense of directed change moving purposefully toward some better end state. The “ape to man” reference is likewise inaccurate, since evolutionary scientists are always careful to say that modern apes and humans share a common ancestor, but that humans did not descend from modern day apes.

Cooksey and Purdum reinforce another common misconception when they state that “I.D. proponents, on the other hand, contend that life was sparked by a creator or designer, as opposed to being the result of a random process such as natural selection.” While that sentence might be fair with respect to ID, it is misleading to refer to “a random process such as natural selection”. Evolution by natural selection is dependent upon biological variation within species, which certainly has a random component, but the process of natural selection itself is as powerfully efficient as any computer program. There is nothing random about the way natural selection culls those less able to contend for scarce resources, evade predators, or endure harsh environments. The increase in surviving offspring among those members of a species with beneficial genetic traits is no more random than is the accumulated increase in your bank balance resulting from the effects of compound interest.

Next we see another familiar theme, that “biological structures -- from single-cell organisms to the human eye – are too “irreducibly complex” to have evolved one part at a time”. Michael Behe created quite a stir when he coined the term “irreducible complexity” in his 1996 book, “Darwin’s Black Box”. Scientists gave Behe’s argument full and fair consideration, but the more they looked, the more flaws they found. Much has been made, for example, about the supposedly irreducibly complex design of the bacterial flagellum. Scientists have found that contrary to Behe’s assertion, there are in fact evolutionary precursors to the bacterial flagellum. One classic rebuttal is The Flagellum Unspun, by Brown University professor Ken Miller. And, given the frequent stereotyping of evolution supporters as rabid atheists, it is worth noting that Professor Miller is a practicing Catholic.
Miller’s book, Finding Darwin’s God, is a classic reference for debunking ID both from a scientific perspective and as a dubious theological proposition that belittles rather than glorifies God. No evidence challenging “irreducible complexity” appears in the Richmond Magazine article.

Behe and Miller both appeared as expert witnesses at the 2005 trial of Kitzmiller versus Dover Area School District. It is indeed curious that the article never mentions the Dover case by name, alluding to it only indirectly as “previous rulings in federal courts”. While writers must be selective about how much background to provide, the facts and circumstances of the Dover case are so obviously relevant to the situation in Chesterfield County that omitting explicit reference to Dover is conspicuous. The Dover case received widespread national and international publicity. This was the best opportunity the ID community has had to present the scientific merits of intelligent design in open court, before a Republican judge appointed by President George W. Bush.

Perhaps the article authors are unaware or do not wish to call attention to how poorly intelligent design fared when subjected to the controlled scrutiny of a public trial. Michael Behe, quite arguably ID’s most famous proponent, withered under the well-prepared cross-examination of plaintiff’s attorney Eric Rothschild. At one point, Behe was forced to admit that the only way that intelligent design could be construed as a scientific theory was to use a definition of theory that was so broad that even astrology would qualify. The trial lasted 40 days, but most analysts concur that for intelligent design the case was lost and its scientific credibility lay in ruins following Behe’s testimony.

Cooksey and Purdum again quote Ray Garrett saying that “I.D. does not exclude all evolutionary theory, ‘It isn’t at odds with evolution,’ he says, ‘It isn’t at odds with species evolving over millions of years.’ One major point of divergence, however, is I.D.’s supposition that a creator expertly guided evolution.” That quote is an interesting example of ID’s public ‘official’ position, as contrasted with what its supporters really believe. One wonders what the results would be if the 1,100 people who signed the pro-ID position were asked “Do you agree that species evolved over millions of years”.

The statement about “I.D.’s supposition that a creator expertly guided evolution,” is rich with meaning. First there is the use of the word “supposition”. In the realm of legitimate science, this “supposition” might translate roughly to the idea of “hypothesis”. This is fine, but the next step in developing a genuine theory is to devise tests that would validate the hypothesis, and then collect evidence that either confirms or invalidates the theory. That never seems to happen in the world of ID. The best the ID crowd can do is to rely on the false dichotomy that “evolutionary science cannot perfectly explain every evolutionary sequence, so ID must be correct”.

The use of the word ‘creator’ is also another example of how difficult it is to distinguish ID from mainstream creationism, given that “intelligent designer” and “creator” are used virtually interchangeably. This came up in the Dover trial, where Barbara Forrest’s testimony revealed that the proposed ID textbook, “Of Pandas and People”, was originally a creationist text superficially reworked using simple word substitutions.

The use of the term “guided evolution” is also interesting. Normal scientific curiosity leads directly to the question of how and at what point this guidance occurs. ID proponents never seem able or willing to specify when “intelligent design” events occur, or at what level is the design manifested. This inattention to matters of “how” and “when” is one of the main reasons that ID continues to stagnate, shedding no new light on any meaningful aspect of biology.

Ray Garrett is quoted once more re “the scientifically unanswered question about the origins of the first spark of life on Earth ‘Evolution doesn’t have an answer for that.’” This is standard creationist fare. That evolutionary science and the study of the origin of life are considered two separate fields of inquiry is a distinction that seems lost on the creationists, who seem blissfully unaware of the continuing progress in origin of life research.

Although the Cooksey and Purdum article does at times read like an interview with Ray Garrett, they do cite other sources. CCSB Chairman Thomas J. Doland is quoted as saying “Even though people have an opinion, we still have to follow the law.” Left unsaid is what Doland and the remainder of the Board might do without those legal constraints. Later the article cites Doland’s remarks “that there is no limit on students’ self-directed initiative to volunteer discussion or independent thinking on school subjects. ‘It would be a violation of their rights if we kept them from speaking their minds.’”

One has to wonder what the average working teacher would say about letting students speak their minds about any subject in school. If a student in history class were to expound that the Holocaust was a fiction perpetrated by liberal media and the worldwide Zionist conspiracy, would the teacher be reprimanded if he or she attempted to contradict or censor that student’s speech? If, in geography class, upon studying the cattle industry in South America, should a teacher accommodate a lengthy diatribe on animal rights and allow distribution of PETA literature? Given the limited time and the demands of covering the extensive material required by the state Standards of Learning (SOL), it’s safe to say that most teachers would insist on maintaining order. It seems, however, that Chairman Doland may be encouraging students to engage in just this sort of disruptive behavior. Or does this doting on students’ rights only apply in biology class?

The article also quotes Omarh Rajah, a former Chesterfield County history teacher who is running to unseat Doland, as saying that “a prohibition of I.D. is akin to censorship. ‘This is not a religious issue. It’s about giving students an option. You should never limit information.” Again, there is no attempt to reconcile the fact that classroom time is strictly limited, and hence information must be limited. Nothing is said of the obligation of teachers and school administrators to focus on correct and relevant information. Perhaps Mr. Rajah believes the purpose of school is to allow the students to educate the teachers, not vice versa.

Cooksey and Purdum again quote Garrett in what is probably the most blatantly false bit of creationist propaganda in the entire article:  "it's against the law to question any kind of Darwinist theory."  This is an attempt to create the impression that evolutionary science is sustained by legal strong-arm tactics, not because evolutionary science does an excellent job explaining the observed facts of nature.  The truth is, there is absolutely no law -- federal, state, or local -- that bars questioning evolutionary science.  The only relevant prohibition is against Government attempts to indoctrinate students in one particular religious view, e.g. Genesis-based creationism.  And that prohibition stems directly from the provision in the U.S. Constitution that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,…", the opening phrase of the First Amendment.

It has become a time-honored tradition that any news article on creationism must cite survey results highlighting popular sentiment in favor of teaching creationism and ID alongside evolution. Cooksey and Purdum dutifully oblige with a 2005 life-sciences survey by Virginia Commonwealth University. According to the article, “Surveyors interviewed 1002 people, and 47 percent favored a combination of theories being taught; 21 percent favored creationism only while 15 percent supported evolution only. Only 5 percent said that only I.D. should be taught.”

The 2005 VCU survey results are not surprising, although the figures Cooksey and Purdum cited are only a tiny part of this large study, much of which deals with public attitudes toward stem cell research, cloning, and science and medical research in general. There are many other interesting facts and figures in that survey, such as the fact that 44% of respondents believed in a literal interpretation of the Bible. The numbers showing the inverse correlation between respondents’ educational level and support for creationism also follow the trend of previous surveys, although the picture with respect to intelligent design is less clear.

Only one scientist is ever quoted – University of Rochester geneticist H. Allen Orr – and that comes near the end of the article, and the substance of Orr’s rebuttal is demoted to a parenthetical remark. Cooksey and Purdum give more prominence to Orr’s remarks in a 2005 New Yorker article that “many career scientists are reluctant to debate I.D. vs. evolution to avoid legitimizing the concept.” While it’s true that some scientists have taken that approach, but that approach nearly proved disastrous in Kansas, and now there are many scientists willing to face the I.D. threat squarely, as they did so effectively in Dover.

The article closes by again quoting Ray Garrett, and also Chris Freund, vice president of policy and communications for the Richmond-based Family Foundation. Garrett notes that “the summer may offer a chance for [ID supporters] to organize a more coherent effort,” and Freund pledges “to support them in that effort in any way they need.” Freund also says that “Ultimately, it is a community decision.”

If Freund and the Family Foundation are successful, will future initiatives include making heliocentrism vs. geocentrism a “community decision”, and will the validity of germ theory or whether HIV causes AIDS be determined by popular vote? If this seems like hyperbole, readers may wish to reflect that Phillip E. Johnson, often called the “father of intelligent design” has been a prominent HIV-denier, as has Jonathan Wells, a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute, the leading organizational promoter of ID. Recently, the “AIDS Reappraisal” chorus has been taken up by lesser henchman of the ID movement Dave Scot and Sal Cordova.

Our criticism of Richmond Magazine writers Cooksey and Purdum may seem harsh, particularly given that they almost certainly do not specialize in science writing. But given the intensity of the social controversy and legal perils that surround the teaching of ID, writers have a responsibility to not blindly parrot the claims of activists without digging deeper. A few Google searches, some emails, or just a single phone call to the NCSE could have netted them multiple authoritative sources.