March 21, 2002: FOR
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
STATEMENT BY WILLIAM
A. DEMBSKI ON THE SCIENTIFIC STATUS OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN
Edward Kennedy --
Expert on Science?
By William A.
Dembski
In today's
Washington Times
(http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20020321-76780268.htm#2), Sen. Edward
Kennedy takes exception to Sen. Rick Santorum's March 14 Commentary piece,
"Illiberal Education in Ohio Schools"
(http://asp.washtimes.com/printarticle.asp?action=print&ArticleID=20020314-50858765).
Santorum, who supports intelligent design, argues that Ohio public schools
should be open to teaching it. Kennedy, who has publicly supported the teaching
of alternate scientific theories when there is diversity of opinion among
scientists, nevertheless rejects Santorum's argument. Yes, alternate scientific
theories should be taught. But, as Kennedy puts it, "intelligent design is
not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has no place in the curriculum
of our nation's public school science classes."
Kennedy is no
scientist or philosopher of science, so presumably he has spoken to the
experts, who assure him that intelligent design is not science. Indeed, Kennedy
himself offers no argument for why intelligent design fails to be a scientific
theory. So, is that how the public debate over intelligent design's role in public
school sciences classes will end? Experts on one side will say that it is a
genuine science and experts on the other will say it isn't? And politicians
will then take their cues from their preferred experts?
Actually, it is
possible for the average woman or man on the street to see that intelligent
design is a genuine scientific alternative to evolutionary biology.
Evolutionary biology, as it is currently taught in public school science
classes, teaches that all of biological complexity is the result of material
mechanisms. These include the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection and
random variation, but now include many other mechanisms (symbiosis, gene
transfer, genetic drift, the action or regulator genes in development,
self-organizational processes, etc.). The point is that all these mechanisms
are just that: they are mechanisms -- mindless material processes that do what
they do irrespective of intelligence.
The only alternative
to mechanism is intelligence. As a consequence, the only alternative to
evolutionary biology is intelligent design. Intelligent design studies the
effects of intelligence in the world. Many special sciences already fall under
intelligent design, including archeology, cryptography, forensics, and SETI
(the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence). Intelligent design is thus
already part of science. Moreover, it employs well-defined methods for
detecting intelligence. These methods together with their application
constitute the theory of intelligent design.
The question,
therefore, is not whether intelligent design constitutes a genuine scientific
theory but whether, as a scientific theory, it properly applies to biology.
Indeed, the only place where intelligent design is controversial is biology
(even physicists are now comfortable talking about the design of the universe).
Evolutionary biologists claim to have demonstrated that design is superfluous
for understanding biological complexity. But note: even such a claim
demonstrates the genuine scientific status of intelligent design, for it
implies that the question whether design is superfluous in biology is a
legitimate scientific question and one whose outcome can be decided by
scientific investigation. In science no outcome is a foregone conclusion.
The mark of a pseudoscience
is not that it is false but, in the words of physicist Wolfgang Pauli, that it
is "not even false." In other words, with a pseudoscience there's no
way to decide whether it is true or false. Evolutionary biologists argue that
material mechanisms suffice to account for biological complexity. Intelligent
design theorists argue that material mechanisms are inadequate to account for
biological complexity and that furthermore intelligence is required. Both sides
are trying to determine the truth of some definite matter of fact -- whether
life is the result of mindless material mechanisms or whether it demonstrably
points to a designing intelligence. This is a genuine scientific debate, and
one scientists have taken up in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Does that mean
intelligent design should be taught in public school science classrooms?
Intelligent design is a young theory and one that requires considerable
development. Whether it has progressed far enough to effectively enter the
biology curriculum of public schools is best left to the discretion of school
boards and biology teachers. But whether it may legitimately be raised as a
topic for discussion in public school science classes and whether the
sufficiency of material mechanisms to generate biological complexity may
legitimately be debated should never have been in question.
To dismiss
intelligent design as "not a genuine scientific theory" is to
insulate evolutionary biology from criticism and turn it into a monopoly. Sen.
Kennedy, who has been so effective at unmasking monopolies in the business
world, seems not to realize that they can be just as virulent and oppressive in
the scientific world. The problem with intelligent design is not that it fails
as a science. The problem is that evolutionary biology holds a monopoly that it
is reluctant to relinquish. All monopolies are bad, for they render inviolable
things that were never meant to be inviolable, and in so doing coerce
submission and undermine freedom. The controversy in Ohio regarding intelligent
design is not about whether intelligent design is science. It is about whether
evolutionary biology's monopoly in science education can be overcome and
freedom made to prevail.
--30--
