WHY "INTELLIGENT DESIGN" (ID) IS NOT SCIENCE
and why, therefore, it should not be taught in a
science curriculum
By Penny Higgins

Science is a tool used to describe our world, to understand why the
world is the way it is, and to predict what the outcome of a mixture
of characteristics may be. Science attempts to do this by studying
only phenomena that are "material," meaning countable, measurable,
visible, tangible things, and by making the fewest assumptions
possible. By being this way, scientists hope to eliminate faulty
thinking and conclusions due to matters of opinion, professional
conflict, personal experience, or biased knowledge (among other
things).

Scientists approach their work by asking testable questions
(hypotheses), running the tests (experiments), and by always
providing within the hypothesis some means by which the hypothesis
can be unequivocally disproved. Most experiments test the predictive
power of the hypothesis: "If I mix chemical A and chemical B, I
should get chemical C and a flash of light", or "People who hate
tomatoes also hate ketchup."

In their experiments, scientists seek to validate their hypotheses -
that is, to make observations that support their hypothesis and never
once observe the evidence that disproves their hypothesis. If ever,
even for a microsecond, that one thing that disproves the hypothesis
is observed, then the whole hypothesis has been shown to be false. At
this point, the scientist starts over with a new or revised
hypothesis.

The most important point is that only one tiny little event can
falsify a hypothesis: "I got chemical D" or "This person who hates
tomatoes absolutely loves ketchup." However, absolute proof can never
be achieved, since there is always the chance that the single
falsifying observation may have been missed.

If a hypothesis is subjected to test after test over many years and
by many different people and does not fail, it will most likely be
elevated to the level of "Theory." The term "Theory" is science-ese
for "we are pretty darn sure this is absolutely true, but since
absolute proof is impossible by the nature of science, we'll just
call it something besides 'absolute truth.'" This is basic scientific
honesty; you can't run every experiment or make every observation.

One of the most harassed theories today is the Theory of Evolution,
which posits that all organisms on this planet are related through a
common ancestor, and that it is gradual change over extreme spans of
time that accounts for the diversity of species today. With this
theory, we can predict and understand how and why organisms behave
the way they do. If a person wants to understand why dogs, wolves,
and coyotes are capable of interbreeding, but they generally don't,
one only has to look to evolution. To understand why birds' "knees"
bend backward - look to evolution. Why do we sometimes, when we're
particularly upset, find ourselves behaving like apes, and what can
we do about it - turn to evolution. How can DNA from a virus infect a
human cell - we're talking evolution.

As noted earlier, science restricts itself to material knowledge. And
it seeks to develop hypotheses that will assist us in understanding
and predicting the nature of our world. Recently, the concept of
"Intelligent Design" (ID) as been brought forward as an alternative
"theory" explaining the origin of the diversity of life on Earth. The
key to ID is the notion that many of the basic parts that all
organisms share are too complex to have arisen from gradual change.
ID proposes that some external agent or intelligence is responsible
for making these critical bits.

But is ID Science? Should it be taught in a science classroom
alongside the Theory of Evolution?
Well, can it be tested? Are there falsifying observations? ID could
potentially be disproved by observing a more primitive intermediate
form of some part that has been touted as 'too complex' to be
natural. But then, the individual running the ID experiment can alter
his hypothesis to say that this new structure is that which was
installed by the Intelligent Designer. Because of this, there is no
part of ID that can be unequivocally falsified by material science.

The second part of ID calls for an external Designer. This idea is
neither fully supported nor fully falsified by material observation.
There is no scientific way to test for the presence or absence of the
Designer, as the Designer is defined as unobservable, or at least,
only observable by a chosen few.

One of the most important characteristics of scientific hypotheses
and theories is the predictive power they provide. ID does not offer
any new explanation or observation about these complex structures
that the Theory of Evolution does not already provide. The
observation that some structures in organisms are too complex to have
originated from gradual change will not help scientists to develop a
better antibiotic, for example. In fact, the idea that "some things
are too complex" is anti-scientific, since it seems to suggest that
we shouldn't try to understand the origins of the complex structures.
ID discourages us from looking and asking questions. True science,
however, moves on. If it is later found to be the case that some
structures in organisms do not have more primitive counterparts,
science will observe and recognize this fact, and the new knowledge
will be incorporated into evolutionary theory.

ID is not a scientific theory and should not be taught alongside the
Theory of Evolution. It offers nothing to help students understand
how science works. It is merely a statement of how complex life seems
to be - not even worth an hour of classroom time.

---------------------------------------------
Dr. Pennilyn (Penny) Higgins is a Research Associate in the
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of
Rochester. Penny's research interests include: Stable isotope
geochemistry of biogenic apatite and of carbonate minerals;
annual-scale studies of ancient climate and dietary sources of fossil
vertebrates using stable isotopes of tooth and bone apatite;
atmospheric CO2 concentration and effects on plant metabolism through
geologic time; uranium geochemistry and its relation to uranium ore
deposition and fossil preservation; vertebrate taphonomy; and
application of GIS to problems in paleontology.

You can write Dr. Higgins directly at:
paleololigo@yahoo.com or
phiggins@paleopix.com