The lecture given by Kenneth Miller at Case Western Reserve University about intelligent design. ppt file is available at http://www.brown.edu/Courses/BI0020_Miller/talks/cwru.ppt
"The Collapse of Intelligent Design" by Kenneth Miller
1. The Collapse of Intelligent Design Will the next Monkey Trial be in Ohio? Kenneth R. Miller Brown University
2.
3. We live in Interesting times: August 1999 : Board of Education in the State of Kansas votes to remove all mention of evolution from state science curriculum.
4. August 2000 : Voters in Kansas elect a new pro-science majority to Board of Education. August 2004 : Anti-science majority elected to Board. HarperCollins ISBN 0-06-017593-1
5. Anti-evolutionists claim to lead a purely scientific movement. Very clear at Debates: But rank and file supporters of the movement disagree.
6. Why is Evolution under attack? Darwin’s Ideas were (and are) regarded as a dangerous threat to a God-centered understanding of mankind’s place in the living world. Why Evolution? Why not Cell Biology? Physiology? Organic Chemistry?
7. Cobb County Disclaimer: This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered. How to Respond? By developing a proper understanding of science.
10. This textbook contains material on evolution . Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered. This textbook contains opinions that the earth is over 4 billion years old . Because some people strongly believe that the earth cannot be this old, this material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered. This textbook contains material suggesting that the earth is round . The shape of the earth is a controversial topic, and not all scientists accept this theory. this material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered. This textbook contains material on gravity . Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding a force that cannot be directly seen. this material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.
11. How to Respond? By defending the First Amendment. Decision Announced in Federal Court in Atlanta on 1/13/05
12.
13. Cobb County Disclaimer: This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered. An Accurate Disclaimer: This textbook contains material on science. Science is built around theories, which are strongly supported by factual evidence. Everything in science should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered. Singling out Evolution for special treatment is bad science and legally dangerous
17. Issuing Rebuke, Judge Rejects Teaching of Intelligent Design By LAURIE GOODSTEIN Published: December 21, 2005 A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that it was unconstitutional for a Pennsylvania school district to present intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in high school biology courses because it is a religious viewpoint that advances ''a particular version of Christianity.'' In the nation's first case to test the legal merits of intelligent design, the judge, John E. Jones III, issued a broad, stinging rebuke to its advocates and provided strong support for scientists who have fought to bar intelligent design from the science curriculum. Judge Jones also excoriated members of the Dover, Pa., school board, who he said lied to cover up their religious motives, made a decision of ''breathtaking inanity'' and ''dragged'' their community into ''this legal maelstrom with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.'' Judge Jones, a Republican appointed by President Bush, concluded that intelligent design was not science, and that in order to claim that it is, its proponents admit they must change the very definition of science to include supernatural explanations.
20. Advocates of “Intelligent Design” scored a major victory in Kansas this year by attacking “naturalism” in state standards.
21. ID supporters on the Board literally rewrote the definition of science Nature of Science Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena . Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us. Science does so through the use of observation, experimentation, and logical argument while maintaining strict empirical standards and healthy skepticism. Scientific explanations are built on observations, hypotheses, and theories. Nature of Science Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena. Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us. Science does so through the use of observation, experimentation, and logical argument while maintaining strict empirical standards and healthy skepticism. Scientific explanations are built on observations, hypotheses, and theories. Nature of Science Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena. Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us. Science does so through the use of observation, experimentation, and logical argument while maintaining strict empirical standards and healthy skepticism. Scientific explanations are built on observations, hypotheses, and theories.
22. Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us. The principal change here is to replace a naturalistic definition of science with a traditional definition. The current definition of science is intended to reflect a concept called methodological naturalism , which irrefutably assumes that cause-and-effect laws (as of physics and chemistry) are adequate to account for all phenomena and that teleological or design conceptions of nature are invalid. Although called a method of science, the effect of its use is to limit inquiry (and permissible explanations) and thus to promote the philosophy of Naturalism.
24. Where would “Intelligent Design” take the science classroom? Hypothesis or theory? Rothschild suggested that Behe’s definition was so loose that astrology would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that Behe’s definition of theory was almost identical to the NAS’s definition of a hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions. The exchange prompted laughter from the court , which was packed with local members of the public and the school board. Hypothesis or theory? Rothschild suggested that Behe’s definition was so loose that astrology would come under this definition as well . He also pointed out that Behe’s definition of theory was almost identical to the NAS’s definition of a hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions . The exchange prompted laughter from the court , which was packed with local members of the public and the school board. Astrology is scientific theory, courtroom told 13:30 19 October 2005 NewScientist.com news service Celeste Biever Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design to justify his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard on Tuesday. Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition of “theory” was so broad it would also include astrology. The trial is pitting 11 parents from the small town of Dover, Pennsylvania, against their local school board. The board voted to read a statement during a biology class that casts doubt on Darwinian evolution and suggests ID as an alternative.
27. Yes. The trial documented the collapse of ID as a scientific theory.
28. 1) Arguments based on the fossil record as a “problem” for evolution failed “ So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species.” National Academy of Sciences, 1999 The Fossil Record doesn’t support evolution?
31. 2) Data from whole genome sequencing could not be refuted by ID advocates
32. Example: the Evolutionary Hypothesis of Common Ancestry Chromosome Numbers in the great apes: human (Homo) 46 chimpanzee (Pan) 48 gorilla (Gorilla) 48 orangutan (Pogo) 48 Testable prediction: If these organisms share a common ancestor, that ancestor had either 48 chromosomes (24 pairs) or 46 (23 pairs).
33. Chromosome Numbers in the great apes (Hominidae): human (Homo) 46 chimpanzee (Pan) 48 gorilla (Gorilla) 48 orangutan (Pogo) 48 Testable prediction: Common ancestor had 48 chromosomes (24 pairs) and humans carry a fused chromosome; or ancestor had 23 pairs, and apes carry a split chromosome. Centromere Telomere Ancestral Chromosomes Fusion Homo sapiens Inactivated centromere Telomere sequences
34. “ Chromosome 2 is unique to the human lineage of evolution, having emerged as a result of head-to-head fusion of two acrocentric chromosomes that remained separate in other primates. The precise fusion site has been located in 2q13–2q14.1 (ref. 2; hg 16:114455823 – 114455838), where our analysis confirmed the presence of multiple subtelomeric duplications to chromosomes 1, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 19, 21 and 22 (Fig. 3; Supplementary Fig. 3a, region A). During the formation of human chromosome 2, one of the two centromeres became inactivated (2q21, which corresponds to the centromere from chimp chromosome 13) and the centromeric structure quickly deterioriated (42).” Homo sapiens Inactivated centromere Telomere sequences Hillier et al (2005) “Generation and Annotation of the DNA sequences of human chromosomes 2 and 4,” Nature 434: 724 – 731. Human Chromosome #2 shows the exact point at which this fusion took place
35. 3) The “icons” of design have been exposed as false Specifically Refuted at the Trial: • the bacterial flagellum • the blood clotting cascade • the generation of biological information
36. “ An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional .” From a speech delivered at Discovery Institute's God & Culture Conference, August 10, 1996 Seattle, WA Bacterial Flagellum
37. “ More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human.” “ Poster-Child” for Intelligent Design: The Bacterial Flagellum
38. Biochemical Machine: Individual Parts: Function Favored by Natural Selection No function. Therefore, natural selection cannot shape components.
39. Biochemical Machine: Individual Parts: Components Originate with different functions. New Functions Emerge from Combinations of Components
40. “ Irreducible Complexity” makes a specific prediction DESIGN: Parts Useless on Their Own. EVOLUTION: Parts do Other Jobs
41. Therefore, if we take away 40 of the flagellum’s parts: But they’re not! Leaving just 10. What’s left should be non-functional. Right?
42. Type-III Secretory System (10 parts) Bacterial Flagellum (~50 parts) “ ... any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.” But it’s not. In fact, those 10 parts are fully-functional! Wrong
43. In fact, the flagellum contains many parts homologous to other systems Type III Secretion apparatus Axial protein family Ion transport Type II secretion Signal transduction
44. • Careful analysis of the bacterial flagellum matches evolutionary theory, not the design-creation model.
45. ID does no better with the Blood-Clotting Cascade “… none of the cascade proteins are used for anything except controlling the formation of a clot. Yet in the absence of any of the components, blood does not clot, and the system fails.” (Behe p. 86).
46. “ Only when all the components of the system are present and in good working order does the system function properly.” [Pandas p. 145] “ Some of them [the clotting proteins] share discrete regions of their sequences with some others. Does that mean that they derived from one another? It may, but consider that even if this were the case, all of the proteins had to be present simultaneously for the blood clotting system to function ” [Pandas pp. 145-6]
47. So, let’s test: eliminate one component — see if blood will clot. Whales & dolphins lack Factor XII - and their blood still clots. Eliminate Factor XII
48. Puffer fish lack the entire 3-part contact phase system Jiang & Doolittle (2003) The evolution of vertebrate blood coagulation as viewed from a comparison of puffer fish and sea squirt genomes. PNAS 100 : 7527-7532. And yet they possess a functional clotting system
49. Jiang and Doolittle (2003) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100, 7527. Fig. 5. Putative evolution of nine proteases involved in generation and destruction of fibrin clots by a small number of domainal exchanges The same study suggests that clotting proteases were formed from a single ancestral protease (from components found in the sea squirt) by ordinary genetic mechanisms.
50. And that suggestion can be tested by detailed analysis of the clotting pathway components: A test it passes with flying colors.
51. “… in the absence of any of the components, blood does not clot, and the system fails.” 1) Claims that every component of the system must be present for biological function are false. 4) There is no scientific support at all for any suggestion that the pathway was produced in a single-step of special creation or design. 3) Careful analysis of that evolutionary pathway provides strong support for its evolution (Jiang & Doolittle, 2003). 2) A testable pathway for the evolution of the components has been proposed (Jiang & Doolittle, 2003).
52. “ In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty- eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not “good enough.” (23:19 (Behe)).”
53. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TAMMY KITZMILLER, et al. : Case No. 04cv2688 Plaintiffs : Judge Jones : v. : : DOVER AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.,: Defendants. : MEMORANDUM OPINION December 20, 2005 INTRODUCTION: On October 18, 2004, the Defendant Dover Area School Board of Directors passed by a 6-3 vote the following resolution: Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of Life is not taught. On November 19, 2004, the Defendant Dover Area School District announced by press release that, commencing in January 2005, teachers would be required to read the following statement to students in the ninth grade biology class at Dover High School: The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and 4) The trial exposed ID as a religious doctrine masquerading as science.
54. 1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose; 2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and 3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion. Relevant Supreme Court Precedent is known as the “Lemon” test:
55. “ ...as Drs. Alters and Miller testified, introducing ID necessarily invites religion into the science classroom as it sets up what will be perceived by students as a “God-friendly” science, the one that explicitly mentions an intelligent designer, and that the “other science,” evolution, takes no position on religion. (14:144-45 (Alters)). Dr. Miller testified that a false duality is produced: It “tells students . . . quite explicitly, choose God on the side of intelligent design or choose atheism on the side of science.” (2:54-55 (Miller)). Introducing such a religious conflict into the classroom is “very dangerous” because it forces students to “choose between God and science,” not a choice that schools should be forcing on them. [pp. 49-50] What’s wrong with a religious idea in the science classroom?
56. The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part. Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves. With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments. The Dover Board Argued that their statement was not religious
57. But even the Board’s own witnesses admitted that ID was inherently religious Defendants’ expert witness ID proponents confirmed that the existence of a supernatural designer is a hallmark of ID. First, Professor Behe has written that by ID he means “not designed by the laws of nature,” and that it is “implausible that the designer is a natural entity.” (P-647 at 193; P-718 at 696, 700). Second, Professor Minnich testified that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened so that supernatural forces can be considered. (38:97 (Minnich)). Third, Professor Steven William Fuller testified that it is ID’s project to change the ground rules of science to include the supernatural. (Trial Tr. vol. 28, Fuller Test., 20-24, Oct. 24, 2005).
58. But neither ID nor the “teach the controversy” movement sound religious, do they? Stephen Meyer argued before the Ohio Board of Education that teaching the controversy had nothing to do with creationism
59. Consider “Of Pandas & People,” the ID textbook purchased for the Dover School District. Darwinists object to the view of intelligent design because it does not give a natural cause explanation of how the various forms of life started in the first place. Intelligent Design means that the various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.” Of Pandas and People, 1993, pp. 99-100 Evolutionists object to the creation view because it does not give a naturalistic explanation of how the various forms of life started in the first place. Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent creator, with their distinctive features already intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.” Biology & Origins, 1986, pp. 2-13, 2-14.
60. The History of “Pandas” is Remarkably Clear Darwinists object to the view of intelligent design because it does not give a natural cause explanation of how the various forms of life started in the first place. Intelligent Design means that the various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency , with their distinctive features already intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.” Of Pandas and People, 1993, pp. 99-100 Evolutionists object to the creation view because it does not give a naturalistic explanation of how the various forms of life started in the first place. Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent creator , with their distinctive features already intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.” Biology & Origins, 1986, pp. 2-13, 2-14.
62. 1987: Edwards vs. Aguillard identified “creation science” as religious doctrine
63. As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards, which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards.
64. The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy
65. Is Ohio’s “critical analysis” lesson plan different from the Dover approach?
66. The Discovery Institute told Ohio that they don’t want to teach ID in public schools, didn’t they?
67. And the Ohio lesson plan doesn’t have anything to do with creationism or ID, does it?
69. “ ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy , but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.”
70. How does science deal with a new idea? Novel Scientific Claim Research Peer Review Scientific Consensus Classroom & Textbook “ Design” advocates seek to use Legislatures & Boards of Education to Short-Circuit the Process of Science. Intelligent Design “Theory”
71. Source: Americans United for Separation of Church & State www.au.org
