The source of this list and information is AAAS and the
inclusion of some adapted information on Intelligent Design from an article
written by Dr. Genie Scott (NCSE).
Why did AAAS boycott the recent
The Kansas State Board of Education, which is
dominated by intelligent design advocates, scheduled a series of hearings
beginning May 5 on proposed revisions to state science standards. AAAS was
invited to testify and "provide expert opinion regarding the mainstream
scientific view of the nature of science." After much consideration, AAAS
respectfully declined to participate, honoring a boycott called by the
grassroots pro-science organization, Kansas Citizens for Science. We saw little
purpose in a forum where evolution would be juxtaposed against
"intelligent design," an unsubstantiated alternative that is a matter
of religious faith, not facts. The State Board established a format which
implied that scientific conclusions could be based simply on the weight of
witnesses' opinions rather than on scientific evidence. We chose to support
leaders of the
Aren't scientists really just afraid to
debate proponents of intelligent design?
No, scientists actually thrive on debate, but
only according to the norms and standards of scientific investigation and
discourse. Scientists are bound by existing facts while the opponents are not
constrained by sticking to the verifiable evidence and data.
Scientists see no point — and much danger —
in pitting a scientific concept like evolution against a non-scientific article
of religious faith like intelligent design. By agreeing to debate evolution,
scientists would be offering proponents of intelligent design a veneer of
scientific respectability that has not been earned in the rough-and-tumble of
everyday science. They also buy into a situation where the public might expect
an either-or outcome between science and religion.
Still, it appears that scientists are
arrogant or elitist when they refuse to participate in debates.
Scientists recognize that they can appear
aloof by refusing to appear in debates with intelligent design advocates in any
and all forums they demand. But scientific inquiry and debate is not subject to
the same ground rules as a media talk show. Scientific discourse demands
experimental evidence.
Scientists, including officials at AAAS and
other groups, have been very willing to talk to reporters, community groups and
others about their reasons for supporting evolution and their misgivings about
proposed school board actions in
Are scientists trying to stifle discussion
of intelligent design?
We do not want to censor discussion of
intelligent design in the proper setting but the school science classroom is
not that setting. Nor do we want to portray evolution as some carved-in-stone
dogma. Science is an ongoing process, with new evidence accepted and weighed
constantly. Intelligent design advocates have yet to contribute in a
scientifically rigorous manner to that process.
AAAS has worked hard to guarantee that
children get a first-class science education. We've helped set the objectives
for what should be taught and learned in science classrooms. We want to prevent
an erosion of the quality of science education. In the case of
What is evolution?
Evolution is a broad, well-tested description
of how Earth's present-day life forms arose from common ancestors reaching back
to the simplest one-celled organisms almost four billion years ago. It helps
explain both the similarities and the differences in the enormous number of
living organisms we see around us.
By studying the sequence of changes in
fossils found in successive layers of rock as well as the molecular evidence
provided by modern genetics, scientists have been able to trace how ancient
organisms — through a process of descent with modification — gave rise to
profound changes in populations over time. Many new anatomical forms have appeared,
while others have disappeared. In a very real sense, we are distant genetic
cousins to all living organisms, from bacteria to whales.
Evolution occurs in populations when
heritable changes are passed from one generation to the next. Genetic
variation, whether through random mutations or the gene shuffling that occurs
during sexual reproduction, sets the stage for evolutionary change. That change
is driven by forces such as natural selection, in which organisms with
advantageous traits, such as color variations in insects that cloak some of
them from predators, are better enabled to survive and pass their genes on to
future generations.
Ultimately, evolution explains both
small-scale changes within populations and large-scale changes in which new
species diverge from a common ancestor over many generations.
Is evolution "just a theory?"
In detective novels, a "theory" is
little more than an educated guess, often based on a few circumstantial facts.
In science, the word "theory" means much more. A scientific theory is
a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on
a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and
experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but
reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more
than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe
as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding
of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like
evolution, is an accepted fact.
Is there "evidence against"
contemporary evolutionary theory?
No. There are still many puzzles in biology
about the particular pathways of the evolutionary process and how various
species are related to one another. However, these puzzles neither invalidate
nor challenge
Is there a growing body of scientists who
doubt that evolution happened?
No. The consensus among scientists in many
fields, and especially those who study the subject, is that contemporary
evolutionary theory provides a robust, well-tested explanation for the history
of life on earth and for the similarity within the diversity of existing
organisms. Very few scientists doubt that evolution happened, although there is
lively ongoing inquiry about the details of how it happened. Of the few
scientists who criticize contemporary evolutionary theory, most do no research
in the field, and so their opinions have little significance for scientists who
do.
Have scientists underestimated the impact
of the intelligent design movement?
Many scientists probably have been caught
unawares, in part, because they don't see an inherent conflict between science
and religion. They often are more comfortable in the laboratory, doing science
and communicating it to students, than they are in the public arena. But it is
clear they can no longer afford to ignore the political reality of the
intelligent design movement and its effort to sway school boards and curriculum
committees in many states and communities. The AAAS is determined to remain
engaged on this issue and encourages other scientific groups to do so as well,
particularly at the grass roots level.
What is intelligent design?
"Intelligent design" consists of
two hypothetical claims about the history of the universe and of life: first,
that some structures or processes in nature are "irreducibly complex"
and could not have originated through small changes over long periods of time;
and second, that some structures or processes in nature are expressions of
"complex specified information" that can only be the product of an
intelligent agent.
Two ideas not already present in
creation science have emerged from IDC: biochemist Michael Behe's
"irreducible complexity" (developed in his book, Darwin's Black
Box) and philosopher William Dembski's "the
design inference," the subject of his book of the same name. Behe argues that natural selection is incapable of
explaining certain kinds of complex molecular structures that supposedly would
not function without a minimal number of interacting components; hence, we must
seek an "intelligent" (divine) explanation. Dembski
claims that a logical procedure heavily dependent on probabilities can filter
out designed phenomena from those produced by either natural processes or
chance.
Scientists and philosophers have
examined these concepts and have found them wanting. Biologists have rejected
irreducible complexity,
and
philosophers have been similarly unresponsive to the design inference.
Although
IDC proponents seek validation by university colleagues and intellectuals, they
have not yet produced scholarship accepted in scientific circles.§
Just as creation science was rejected by the scientific community, but
accomplished its goals politically by "equal time" laws, IDC is being
promoted to school boards for inclusion in the science curriculum without
having contributed anything substantial to our understanding of either science
or philosophy of science.
Is intelligent design a scientific
alternative to contemporary evolutionary theory?
No. Intelligent design proponents may use the
language of science, but they do not use its methodology. They have yet to
propose meaningful tests for their claims, there are no reports of current
research on these hypotheses at relevant scientific society meetings, and there
is no body of research on these hypotheses published in relevant scientific
journals. So, intelligent design has not been demonstrated to be a scientific
theory. While living things are remarkably complex, scientists have shown that
careful, systematic study of them can yield tremendous insights about their
functions and origins (as it has in the past).
Intelligent design necessarily presupposes
that there is an "intelligent designer" outside of nature who, from
the beginning or from time to time, inserts design into the world around us.
But whether there is an intelligent designer is a matter of religious faith
rather than a scientifically testable question.
Scientists and philosophers have
examined these concepts and have found them wanting. Biologists have rejected
irreducible complexity, and philosophers have been similarly unresponsive to
the design inference. Although IDC
proponents seek validation by university colleagues and intellectuals, they
have not yet produced scholarship accepted in scientific circles.§
Just as creation science was rejected by the scientific community, but
accomplished its goals politically by "equal time" laws, IDC is being
promoted to school boards for inclusion in the science curriculum without
having contributed anything substantial to our understanding of either science
or philosophy of science.
Are science and religion inherently
opposed?
No. Science does not take a position on an
intelligent designer, which is a matter of religious faith, and is not testable
scientifically. AAAS and other scientific groups do not want to create the
impression that religion and science are inherently in conflict. They live
together quite comfortably, including in the minds of many scientists.
Science and religion ask different questions
about the world. Many individual scientists are deeply religious. They see
scientific investigation and religious faith as
complementary components of a well-rounded life.
Can science stimulate religious thought?
Yes. A particular religion's understanding of
the world provides the context from which questions of meaning emerge. A development
in science may provide a new more reliable explanation of the structure and
processes of the world. This may be different from the understanding of the
world that is presumed in a particular religion. What may appear to be a
conflict between science and religion is actually a contrast between earlier
and more recent understandings of the world (e.g., between an earth-centered
universe and a sun-centered universe) and can be a constructive stimulus for
religious inquiry. In fact, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu
scholars have sought positive ways to relate evolutionary theory with their
religious traditions.
Doesn't fairness require that alternatives
to contemporary evolutionary theory be taught in the public schools?
No. This is not about fairness. Science
requires adherence to standards of research conduct and process. Intelligent
design has not met those standards and should not be taught in science
classrooms. If anything, it is unfair for proponents of a non-scientific claim
to try to force their views into science classrooms.
Is the science classroom the appropriate
place to discuss the religious interpretations of science?
No. Religion is a subject of inquiry in
historical, philosophical and social studies, not in science. So, discussion
about religion is most appropriate in the social studies or humanities
curriculum, not in the science curriculum.
What are the stakes?
The risk, if intelligent design is
incorporated into school curricula, is to undermine scientific credibility and
the ability of young people to distinguish science from non-science. And that
is what matters more, in the longer term, than the specific battles over
intelligent design versus evolution. In