In December of 2005, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled “that a Pennsylvania school board violated the Constitution in requiring discussions of intelligent design in ninth-grade biology classes.” This ruling will not stop the feud pertaining to Intelligent Design and Evolution Theory. The irony is that proponents of Intelligent Design aren’t actually challenging Evolution Theory.
In order for the irony to be understood, an explanation of Evolution Theory is needed.
When stripped of the excess baggage that has been added to it over the years, Evolution Theory is summed up in the following two sentences:
A genetic population evolves whenever new genetic data is added to that population. New genetic data is added either by cross-breeding or by mutations.
That’s really all there is to Evolution Theory. It is nothing more than an explanation of what causes life forms to evolve.
Evolution Theory is demonstrated to be accurate whenever dog breeders produce a new breed of dog, such as when the monks at the Monastery of Bernard de Menthon cross-bred previously-existing dogs in order to produce the breed of dog call the Saint Bernard.
The accuracy of Evolution Theory is demonstrated by the rise of antibiotic-resistant infections as the result of mutating bacteria.
Evolution Theory, as described here, isn’t disputed by proponents of Intelligent Design. Instead, ID proponents are disputing the theory of common descent, which is a separate theory about the evolutionary events that have taken place during the course of natural history.
Sadly, scientists and science teachers have done a piss poor job of explaining to the general public the difference between the two theories. Indeed, scientists habitually place different biological theories under the banner of Evolution Theory. As a result, Evolution Theory itself keeps being attacked by mistake.
1) The passage of time by itself doesn't cause evolution to take place. The passage of time merely provides more opportunities for evolutionary events to take place.
2) The theory of natural selection isn’t the same thing as Evolution Theory, although the former theory is also confused with the latter.
According to the theory of natural selection, the species best equipped to survive in an environment is the species most likely to live long enough to reproduce. When an environmental change takes place, the species best equipped for the change is the species most likely to survive the change. If a species is ill-equipped for its environment, then that species will most likely die out. In other words, the environment (a.k.a. Nature) selects what species will survive.
3) Evolution Theory doesn’t explain how life began. The theory of abiogenesis is the theory about how life began.
4) Contrary to what Media members keep saying, Evolution Theory doesn’t require that all mutations be random. British zoologist Richard Dawkins wrote, “It is not critical to the theory that mutation must be random, and it most certainly provides no excuse to tar the whole theory with the brush of randomness.”
5) Contrary to what some critics of Evolution Theory keep claiming, Evolution Theory doesn't eliminate God. The late Stephen Jay Gould wrote, "Darwin did not use evolution to promote atheism or to maintain that no concept of God could ever be squared with the structure of nature. . . If many Western thinkers had once invoked a blinkered and indefensible concept of divinity to declare the impossibility of evolution, Darwin would not make the same arrogant mistake in the opposite direction, and claim that the fact of evolution implies the nonexistence of God."
Dr. Mark Buchheim is Associate Professor of Biological Science at the University of Tulsa. Dr. Buchheim wrote, ". . . I move to the issue that distresses me the most—the assertion that an acceptance of ToE as a scientific explanation for biological diversity negates a role for God. This is certainly the conclusion championed by Richard Dawkins in his popular books on evolutionary biology (e.g., The Blind Watchmaker). This also seems to be the conclusion of Mr. Fisher, Mr. Waters and others in the ID movement. My unequivocal answer is “absolutely not!” What Dawkins advocates is “science as morality or religion.” I see science and religion as two “ways of knowing.” Science offers us material causes for natural phenomena. Period."[Quote Source]
6) The reason that Evolution Theory doesn't eliminate God is because nothing in science eliminates God. Scientific laymen (and some scientists) often make the mistake of thinking that ontological naturalism is a requirement of science. Such thinking is incorrect.
Australian philosophy professor John Wilkins wrote, "A final form of naturalism is ontological naturalism. This is the opinion that all that exists is natural. Many scientists are also physicalists. They argue that if we do not need to postulate the reality of non-physical processes for science, then we can conclude that there are no such things. This argument is too quick. The claim that ‘if A then B’ explains B may be true, but there may also be a C that explains B. Moreover, many things in the physical world are cause by many things together rather than just a few. So, we might say that a physical event is caused by both God and by physical causes, without being logically inconsistent.”
The error in logic that Mr. Wilkins describes is called “affirming the consequent”.
Atheist philosopher Keith Augustine wrote, "In utilizing methodological naturalism, science and history do not assume a priori that, as a matter of fact, supernatural causes don't really exist. There is no conceptual conflict between practicing science or history and believing in the supernatural." [Quote Source]
Dr. Mark A. Foster is Professor of Sociology at Johnson Community College in Overland Park, Kansas. Dr. Foster wrote the following:
"“I have frequently observed that many intelligent design theologians conflate methodological naturalism (or agnosticism, in T.H. Huxley's sense of the word) with ontological naturalism (or atheism). Because a scientist recognizes the operational limitations of science does not make her or him an atheist. . .
Ontological naturalists are, by definition, atheists. Methodological naturalists are not.
Like virtually all scientists (physical, biological, or social), I am a methodological naturalist. However, I am not an atheist (an
ontological naturalist). As a methodological naturalist, I reject that science can be used to demonstrate the existence of God. I do not reject that the existence of God can be demonstrated through other means.”
7) Evolution Theory doesn’t contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Evolution Theory pertains to living organisms, which are open systems. The Second Law of Thermodynamics pertains to closed systems. Comparing Evolution Theory to the Second Law of Thermodynamics is like comparing apples to oranges.
Dawkins, R. (1996). Climbing Mount Improbable. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Gould, S.J. (1999). Rocks of ages: Science and religion in the fullness of life. NY: Ballantine.
Wilkins, J. (1997). Naturalism: Is it necessary? TalkOrigins. < http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/naturalism.html > (2003, November 29).