Spring Break
Response to Professor Wise about Intelligent Design
Sarah Levy and Anika Smith, Contributing Writers
Issue date: 4/18/07 Section: Opinion
Scientists can test for such information, and studies of molecular machines and DNA reveal that they contain high levels of such information and are irreducibly complex. Design theorists thus come to the tentative conclusion that biological structures like the flagellum were designed.
Instead of addressing these scientific arguments, Wise appeals to the authority of consensus views and "the highest courts" of our country. Providing no reasoning to back up his claims, he presents a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority which dodges the real question.
What's more, the authority he cites is nonexistent because the U.S. Supreme Court has never dealt with the teaching of intelligent design. The only time it did strike down a non-evolutionary theory was when it struck down the teaching of "creation science" in 1987. Even intelligent design's harshest critics recognize that "most ID proponents do not embrace the Young Earth Flood Geology, and sudden creation tenets associated with [young earth creationism]." (Eugenie Scott, pg. 128, Evolution vs. Creationism). Moreover, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the teaching of "creation science," it did so because it "embodies the religious belief that a supernatural creator was responsible for the creation of humankind." (Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 592 (1987).) Because intelligent design does not try to address religious questions about the identity of the designer, this test does not apply to ID.
Instead of giving Intelligent Design a fair hearing, Wise tries to instill the fear of Science into his audience. Amazingly, Wise equates doubting Darwinism with doubting the validity of science itself. This is just silly. Intelligent Design scientists use the scientific method. Ironically enough, design principles have given us many of the marvels Wise cites in his case against ID: intelligent engineering and exploration are responsible for our technological society, not rampant acceptance of Darwinism. No one is denying Professor Wise his right to stand up and speak out. That was obvious from the start, when we invited him and other SMU faculty to join us with their questions and criticisms. Instead of coming to the conference with them, he tried to keep ID off campus. We recognized and supported Professor Wise's right to speak - why didn't he do the same for us?
About the writers:
Sarah Levy is a third-year law student at the Dedman School of Law. She can be reached at slevy@smu.edu.
Anika Smith is a recent graduate of Seattle Pacific University. She can be reached at anikas@spu.edu.
Instead of addressing these scientific arguments, Wise appeals to the authority of consensus views and "the highest courts" of our country. Providing no reasoning to back up his claims, he presents a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority which dodges the real question.
What's more, the authority he cites is nonexistent because the U.S. Supreme Court has never dealt with the teaching of intelligent design. The only time it did strike down a non-evolutionary theory was when it struck down the teaching of "creation science" in 1987. Even intelligent design's harshest critics recognize that "most ID proponents do not embrace the Young Earth Flood Geology, and sudden creation tenets associated with [young earth creationism]." (Eugenie Scott, pg. 128, Evolution vs. Creationism). Moreover, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the teaching of "creation science," it did so because it "embodies the religious belief that a supernatural creator was responsible for the creation of humankind." (Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 592 (1987).) Because intelligent design does not try to address religious questions about the identity of the designer, this test does not apply to ID.
Instead of giving Intelligent Design a fair hearing, Wise tries to instill the fear of Science into his audience. Amazingly, Wise equates doubting Darwinism with doubting the validity of science itself. This is just silly. Intelligent Design scientists use the scientific method. Ironically enough, design principles have given us many of the marvels Wise cites in his case against ID: intelligent engineering and exploration are responsible for our technological society, not rampant acceptance of Darwinism. No one is denying Professor Wise his right to stand up and speak out. That was obvious from the start, when we invited him and other SMU faculty to join us with their questions and criticisms. Instead of coming to the conference with them, he tried to keep ID off campus. We recognized and supported Professor Wise's right to speak - why didn't he do the same for us?
About the writers:
Sarah Levy is a third-year law student at the Dedman School of Law. She can be reached at slevy@smu.edu.
Anika Smith is a recent graduate of Seattle Pacific University. She can be reached at anikas@spu.edu.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 81
netescapist
posted 4/18/07 @ 6:33 AM EST
Its a shame to hear "ID scientists" cry for a "fair hearing". Can scientific ideas be judged on the pulpit? I think not. ID proponents will have to do serious research the old fashioned way, publish papers and earn the respect of the established scientific community. (Continued…)
Miles
posted 4/18/07 @ 10:15 AM EST
I am so tired of the Discovery Institute and their proponents dishonest portrayals of what they are pushing and what their motives are.
First of all intelligent design is NOT a scientific theory, it is an assertion or an article of faith. (Continued…)
Dave
posted 4/18/07 @ 10:53 AM EST
Actually, it doesn't appear that "ID starts with science."
To the contrary, so far it appears that ID starts and goes on, and on, and on, and on as a PR campaign. (Continued…)
Christopher
posted 4/18/07 @ 12:32 PM EST
Levy and Smith:
Let's end this word game.
What does the theory of ID state I have seen various definitions?
What (where?) are the repeatable tests with reproducible results supporting ID? What does ID predict about the future (relating to how organisms will evolve via an intelligence)? How is ID dynamic enough to account for future undiscovered evidences? Scientific theories encompass these principles. (Continued…)
Steve
posted 4/18/07 @ 12:56 PM EST
ID supporters Sarah Levy and Anika Smith have produced an advocacy article for the lay public. This is no surprise, because it's all ID supporters do. (Continued…)
Stephen Elliott
posted 4/18/07 @ 1:24 PM EST
Hi,
I really do not know where best to start in forming a response.
ID is not scientific. It never was and never will be. Have you heard of the "wedge document"? If not then google it. (Continued…)
J-Dog
posted 4/18/07 @ 1:34 PM EST
Anika Smith - What an excellent choice to write a response! It's almost as if it were "designed" that way! Wow! What are the odds that a Discovery Institure "fellow" and contributer would take the time to try and whitewash Id!? (See link below)
http://www. (Continued…)
Gary Hurd
posted 4/18/07 @ 1:39 PM EST
The authors of this letter have made two serious errors regarding intelligent design creationism. The first is the claim, "ID starts with the science, not with any religious basis. (Continued…)
Rich
posted 4/18/07 @ 1:52 PM EST
Ms. Smith says "Wise equates doubting Darwinism with doubting the validity of science itself. This is just silly. Intelligent Design scientists use the scientific method"
Could she please tell us
1) What whs thinks the scientific method is
and
2) How ID is using it. (Continued…)
Brian Spitzer
posted 4/18/07 @ 2:01 PM EST
This letter is written as a response to "Response to Professor Wise about Intelligent Design", by Sarah Levy and Anika Smith.
Levy and Smith claim that "[i]ntelligent Design, like any scientific theory, uses the scientific method (observation, hypothesis, experiment, and conclusion). (Continued…)
Post a Comment