Greg+Silva+-+Week+7

Proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) claim that Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is “a theory in crisis,” and that their alternative needs to be presented in that light. Contrary to this claim, Charles Darwin’s theory withstood the tests of time, scrutiny, and criticism. Furthermore, ID is not scientific, and the religious conflict that its proponents tend to believe exist only exists because ID proponents created it.

Mainstream science and culture (except apparently culture in the United States) had accepted evolution as a valid explanation for the origin of the differences between different life forms by the end of the 19th century. Although many criticized Darwin’s work, //The Origin of Species//, upon its publication in 1859, serious scientific skepticism of evolution had died down by 1871 when Darwin had published a follow-up, //The Descent of Man//, which explicitly elaborates on the common ancestry between humans and other apes in terms of evolution.

Since then advancements in the field of genetics and in observational tools have allowed scientists to confirm evolutionary theory in ways that Darwin himself could not have imagined possible. We have found countless analogous structures, from bacterial flagella and toxin syringes to mitochondria to bone structures in mammalian hands, fins, legs, and wings, as evidence that evolution shaped life into what it is today and what it has been in the past. Our common ancestry with apes has even been confirmed by evidence of a fused set of chromosomes to explain why humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while other apes have 24. Further, biologists have relatively recently found that antiviral and antibacterial agents cause viruses and bacteria to evolve on a very short time scale to resist treatment – compelling evidence that evolution works in real-time. The very premise for the need for ID, that natural selection is a theory in crisis, is simply not true.

Further, ID, described by Mark Hartwig as the “view that nature shows tangible signs of having been designed by a preexisting intelligence,” (Hartwig) is not scientific for a multitude of reasons. On a fundamental level, disproving the existence of an intelligence that existed prior to life on Earth is excruciatingly difficult - you would have to show that no intelligent life existed anywhere in the universe prior to 1.4 billion years ago, and you’d have to explain how //it// came to be. This chain of intelligences creating life (which is as close to falsifiable as ID gets) would ultimately either lead to life spontaneously appearing by natural cause (destroying ID), or to the existence of an intelligence prior to time. Disproving the existence of an intelligence that existed before the Universe itself is literally impossible. Furthermore, ID is not accepted by the scientific community and extremely few peer-reviewed ID publications exist – finding research in ID is even more sparse. ID also does not allow for further investigation into anything – for instance, why the intelligent agent did what it did, how the intelligent agent worked, or even what the intelligent agent was (a not-very-covert way to hide religion in a scientific discussion).

Even ID’s supposedly scientific arguments show a clear lack of understanding of the evolutionary theory they oppose. The argument, for instance, that flagella must have all of their proteins in place in order to be useful is not true – biologists have found bacteria with many of the same proteins in a similar, but not identical arrangement, that serves the different function of injecting toxins into victim cells, strongly suggesting a common ancestor between them while discrediting the notion that supposedly incomplete structures cannot be functional. Another piece of evidence that ID proponents point to is the Cambrian explosion, in which “over a period of only five to 10 million years, a flash of geological time, virtually every major animal group (//phylum//) seems to suddenly appear from nowhere—a grave challenge for neo-Darwinism” (Hartwig). Ironically enough, a simple logical analysis of the relative lack in diversity of life prior to the Cambrian explosion reveals that a lack of life would actually be conducive of rapid evolutionary change, since many biological niches exist unfilled that would provide strong natural selective pressures for rapid change.

The clear link to creationism - both as investigated in the various drafts of the ID textbook //Of Pandas and People// during the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover trial and as is brazenly visible in its proponents and claims to the origin of distinct species – implies that ID considers evolution dangerous to salvation in the Christian religion. Despite this, many scientists have found ways to allow Christian religion and evolution to co-exist without conflict, including Kenneth Miller, who testified against ID in the Dover trial and remains today an ardent antagonist against ID. Francis Collins, head of the National Institute of Health and ardent Christian believer, “[rejects] any notion that faith and science conflicted in substantial ways” (New York Times). Through interpretation of the Bible (supported, fittingly, by pro-Creationist William Jennings Bryan in the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925), any conflict between religion and science as claimed by ID proponents has been created by those proponents to further their cause.

This evidence leads me to believe that there is no justifiable premise for permitting ID in any scientific discussion, especially a classroom that will teach future generations how to solve their problems.