Spring Break
Intelligent Design is not science: why this matters
John Wise, Contributing Writer, jwise@smu.edu
Issue date: 5/4/07 Section: Opinion
These redefinitions of science will damage the utility of the sciences, medicine and countless other technical fields. This is why it matters and why so many scientists in our country (and at SMU) are worried.
The politics of this "redefinition" movement has a long history. Twenty years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court in a case referred to as Edwards v. Aguillard "struck down the teaching of creation science … because it embodies the religious belief that a supernatural creator was responsible for the creation of mankind." Many ID proponents, including The Daily Campus contributing writers Sarah Levy and Anika Smith, have asserted that "because Intelligent Design does not try to address religious questions about the identity of the designer, this test does not apply to Intelligent Design." This is a critical assertion for the ID proponents. They are saying that ID is different from creationism and therefore the Supreme Court's rulings should not apply.
Judge Jones mentions a "creationist text" in his opinion that has become very relevant to this point. The book, "Of Pandas and People," was intended to be a high-school textbook that presented the Intelligent Design doctrine as science and was proposed by the Dover Board of Education as an alternative to the Dover students' approved biology textbook. In a brilliant move made by Eric Rothschild, a subpoena for all documents and drafts related to the Intelligent Design "Pandas" work and its Creationism predecessor text, "Biology and Origins," was served on the book's Richardson publisher. After losing their bid to quash the subpoena, the publisher surrendered a number of early, unpublished versions of the books to the court. A comparison of these original drafts with the actual published versions shows that the words "creationist" or "creationism" were simply substituted with "Intelligent Designer" or "Intelligent Design" just as if a word processor search-and-replace function did the job.
The date when this "creationism" to "Intelligent Design" big switch happened is absolutely damning to Ms. Levy and Smith's assertion that Intelligent Design and Creationism are not one and the same. The "switch" occurred in 1987, just weeks after the Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard ruled that creationism was religion and not science, and could not be taught in public schools. No wonder Judge Jones wrote in his Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion that "ID is creationism re-labeled".
The politics of this "redefinition" movement has a long history. Twenty years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court in a case referred to as Edwards v. Aguillard "struck down the teaching of creation science … because it embodies the religious belief that a supernatural creator was responsible for the creation of mankind." Many ID proponents, including The Daily Campus contributing writers Sarah Levy and Anika Smith, have asserted that "because Intelligent Design does not try to address religious questions about the identity of the designer, this test does not apply to Intelligent Design." This is a critical assertion for the ID proponents. They are saying that ID is different from creationism and therefore the Supreme Court's rulings should not apply.
Judge Jones mentions a "creationist text" in his opinion that has become very relevant to this point. The book, "Of Pandas and People," was intended to be a high-school textbook that presented the Intelligent Design doctrine as science and was proposed by the Dover Board of Education as an alternative to the Dover students' approved biology textbook. In a brilliant move made by Eric Rothschild, a subpoena for all documents and drafts related to the Intelligent Design "Pandas" work and its Creationism predecessor text, "Biology and Origins," was served on the book's Richardson publisher. After losing their bid to quash the subpoena, the publisher surrendered a number of early, unpublished versions of the books to the court. A comparison of these original drafts with the actual published versions shows that the words "creationist" or "creationism" were simply substituted with "Intelligent Designer" or "Intelligent Design" just as if a word processor search-and-replace function did the job.
The date when this "creationism" to "Intelligent Design" big switch happened is absolutely damning to Ms. Levy and Smith's assertion that Intelligent Design and Creationism are not one and the same. The "switch" occurred in 1987, just weeks after the Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard ruled that creationism was religion and not science, and could not be taught in public schools. No wonder Judge Jones wrote in his Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion that "ID is creationism re-labeled".
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 47
Jeff
posted 5/04/07 @ 7:02 AM CST
Very well written Professor Wise! Not only is ID not science but I feel that evolution only enhances my faith and strengthens my belief in God. Thanks for the great article!
Daniel S.
posted 5/04/07 @ 8:27 AM CST
As a layman, my question to you is this... Why do you continue to use smear tactics, ad hominem attacks, and refuse to address the actual valid scientific arguments?
What about the 600+ supporters listed at http://www. (Continued…)
Infidel57
posted 5/04/07 @ 8:53 AM CST
A very good article except for the last paragraphs trying to reconciliate religion and science. It can't be done, at least with Christianity.
To be a Christian, you must believe that Jesus died for our sins, and that includes Original Sin. (Continued…)
Daniel
Daniel
posted 5/04/07 @ 9:18 AM CST
As a layman, my question to you is this... Why do you continue to use smear tactics, ad hominem attacks, and refuse to address the actual valid scientific arguments?
What about the 600+ supporters listed at http://www. (Continued…)
Reed Hanson
posted 5/04/07 @ 12:43 PM CST
If you're going to keep out ID, you'd better kick Evolution out of the classroom as "accepted science." I'd venture to say that, in my experience, proponents of Darwinian evolution are more religious in their zeal than any ID Christian could ever be. (Continued…)
Neil Johnson
posted 5/04/07 @ 6:57 PM CST
Wben Professor Wise tells us that "science can tell us only what is governed by natural forces", does he mean to exclude endeavors such as the search for extra terrestrial intelligence, archaeology, and forensics?
Certainly science can tell us whether or not an intelligent agent has acted, albeit with varying degrees of certainty. (Continued…)
Paul Burnett
posted 5/04/07 @ 8:27 PM CST
Thank you, John, for helping us understand why the New Creationists must not be allowed to succeed in spreading their ignorance.
For those interested, the National Center for Science Education has just released Kevin Padian's seminal testimony at the Dover trial, with his slide show: http://www. (Continued…)
Joshua Caleb
posted 5/05/07 @ 1:47 PM CST
you mention something about science being different from philosophy, i would agree with that. However, what most "scientists" don't realize is that Scientific Naturalism (which many if not most scientists hold to) is a philosophical stance, NOT a "scientific" stance. (Continued…)
Randy
posted 5/05/07 @ 2:50 PM CST
Wise: "Science can tell us only what is governed by natural forces. Miracles are extra-ordinary events; gods are super-natural beings.
"Are there reasonable philosophical arguments that can be made for the existence of God? Certainly. (Continued…)
Bilbo
posted 5/05/07 @ 3:54 PM CST
Mike Gene has addressed Wise's essay at our blog, Telicthoughts, here:
http://telicthoughts.com/john-wise-and-id/
I agree with Mike's comments. Wise has assumed that ID invokes supernatural causes. (Continued…)
Post a Comment