Letters to 'Unintelligible Design'

February 7, 2005
Volume 83, Number 06
p. 5Unintelligible DesignRUDY M. BAUM
Editor-in-chiefThere is a long, narrow room in the Smithsonian Institution's Museum of Natural History that I stumbled on one day several years ago when I was visiting with my wife and two sons. On the museum's floor plan, the room is simply labeled "Bones." And that's just what it is, a roomful of bones. On both sides of the room are glass cases from floor to ceiling with complete skeletons of a wide range of modern vertebrates arranged taxonomically.Not many people were in the room at any one time, and the ones who stumbled on it, many of them looking for a nearby special exhibit, did not, for the most part, linger. A young woman and a young man whom I took to be students sat on the floor with sketch pads skillfully rendering the skeletons of two animals. My two young sons quickly grew fidgety, and my wife took them to another exhibit. I told her I'd catch up with them. I spent nearly an hour moving along the displays, transfixed by the skeletons and the relationships they revealed.Later, I said to my wife that I did not understand how anyone who visited that exhibit could doubt the reality of evolution. The skeletons screamed "descent with modification from a common ancestor."The clash between scientists who understand evolution as the organizing principle of modern biology and people--most, but not all, nonscientists--who reject evolution and insist on a divine origin of life as it exists today on Earth has been a long-running theme in my career as a science journalist. For someone who writes for a newsmagazine covering the chemical enterprise, it is, I suppose, an unlikely theme, but it has been there, on and off, for 25 years.One of my first major stories for C&EN in 1981 was covering the two-week trial in federal district court in Little Rock, Ark., in which a number of plaintiffs challenged the legality of a state law that mandated that "creationism" be taught in any science class in which evolution was taught. Creationism holds that scientific evidence supports the literal accuracy of the creation story of Genesis. In a forcefully worded opinion, Judge William R. Overton ruled that the Arkansas law was unconstitutional. It seemed to me at the time that Overton's opinion settled the matter.It didn't, of course, any more than did the 1968 Supreme Court ruling that overturned an Arkansas law that prohibited the teaching of evolution in public school. Opponents of evolution are still trying to have creationism taught alongside evolution. Advocates of "intelligent design"--the successor to creationism designed to avoid its constitutional problems--argue for their ideas to be taught alongside evolution. Intelligent design does not insist on the literal truth of Genesis, but maintains that the complexity of living organisms proves that they could not have come into existence through random variations guided by natural selection. Instead, its proponents argue that such complexity proves that living organisms are the product of intelligent design.In states ranging from Georgia to Pennsylvania to Kansas, opponents of evolution are pushing school boards to mandate the teaching of intelligent design alongside evolution in science classes or placing stickers in biology textbooks denigrating evolution as an unproven theory. Lawsuits by concerned parents and/or teachers continue to rebuff these efforts, but it is debilitating to have to continue to fight this battle.This does not seem like it should be hard. Although polls consistently show that a solid majority of Americans do not accept the reality of evolution, I want to think that, if I could get every schoolkid in the U.S. into that room in the Museum of Natural History along with a good biology teacher, the debate would be over. (I know, I'm dreaming.) I also know that some chemists don't think this is our battle. In the increasingly multidisciplinary world of modern science, however, where a lot of chemists are working on biological questions, evolution is one of our organizing principles, too. We have much to do.Thanks for reading.

Thank you for your editorial "Unintelligible Design" (C&EN, Feb. 7, page 3).In your piece, you write that the skeletons in the Smithsonian Museum screamed of "descent with modification from a common ancestor." I would like to kindly submit to you an equally valid explanation: The relationships between the skeletons indicate a "common designer." Unfortunately, neither a common ancestor nor a common designer has been observed, because no human observer was present to record the event.Furthermore, the fossil record does not give irrefutable proof of either possibility. However, I prefer the "common designer" theory because intelligent design, even man-made design, is self-evident--consider the arrowhead versus a pebble weathered by the elements, or the presidents' heads carved into Mount Rushmore.The problem with evolution "through random variations guided by natural selection" is that random variations do not give rise to new genetic information, but to new combinations of existing genetic information. At least in the present, greater complexity or higher organisms cannot come about without new genetic information. Random variations lead to microevolution (that is, variety within the dog family), but do not lead to macroevolution (such as reptile to bird). No amount of observed microevolution has ever led to macroevolution. Furthermore, we recognize mutations as being harmful to organisms (a loss of information), and natural selection selects from existing combinations of genetic information to stabilize a population. One would have to assume that different natural laws operated in the past for macroevolution to occur.It is true that the majority of Americans do not accept evolution wholeheartedly, because most Americans are not atheists. In order to fully accept evolution, without any acknowledgement of a creator/designer, one must have a bent toward an atheistic worldview. This worldview denies the spiritual aspect of man and only accepts the material view that "the material realm is all that exists" (see "Science's New Heresy Trial," World, Feb. 19, page 26). As scientists, we should consider all the evidence and not compel others to bow only at the altar of evolution.John A. Dingess
Hanover Park, Ill.

I disagree with your editorial. i hope that anyone trained as a scientist would know that the scientific method should not lead anyone to conclude that similar structures in animals prove that they descended from a common ancestor. Such a conclusion has to be based on faith that evolution is the mechanism by which the diverse creatures in this world came into being, and such faith is often accompanied by belief that this all came about by chance.It also takes faith to believe that the extreme complexity of even the simplest organisms and their ability to reproduce themselves through the ages result from intelligent design. For me, it is much easier to have faith that the amazing diversity of living organisms and our ability to understand and reason did not come about by chance.Luke A. Schaap
Lansing, Ill.

In your editorial, you make the statement that for chemists "evolution is one of our organizing principles." I'm not sure what you mean by this. Chemical properties don't "evolve"; they stay the same. There's no reason to believe that chemicals on the early Earth behaved any differently than they do today.Another interesting claim you make is that collections of skeletons (fossils) "scream" descent from a common ancestry (that is, Darwinian evolution). Well, maybe they do for some people, but not for others. The main characteristics of the fossil record are abrupt appearance and stasis. That is, new animal species appear suddenly in the fossil record and then remain pretty much the same during their time on Earth. This pattern is hardly what one would expect from Darwinian evolution, which is supposed to be a gradual process. If Darwin were right, fossil deposits should be full of intermediate forms, but they're not.You would have us believe that Darwin's theory is a proven fact, and that we really shouldn't have to fight against intelligent design and other pretenders to evolution's throne. The science establishment would certainly agree with this viewpoint. But when a scientific theory is held immune from critique, it leaves the realm of science and becomes dogma.Darwinian evolution may or may not be true. But it is becoming increasingly clear that intelligent design presents a serious challenge to the Darwinian establishment. The sooner the scientific community takes an honest look at the claims of design theory, the closer we will be to understanding the development of life on Earth.Robert Lattimer
Hudson, Ohio

Exhibits at national museums are the showpieces for evolution, so it's no wonder they look so convincing--that's their purpose. In all cases, as with all of evolution, you have a few facts surrounded by massive numbers of assumptions--with the whole package presented as fact.Evolution is not the organizing principle of modern biology; cell theory and genetics hold that position. Look into "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" for yourself, for example. You will find that the evidence presented for this by Ernst Haeckel in the 1800s has been proven false--yet the idea persists today. Or try the horse series shown in most biology books: Fossils of the earliest horse fossil have been found in the same rock layer as the most recent fossil--yet the earliest is still said to "evolve" into the most recent. Charles Darwin saw variation in the Galapagos Islands but called it evolution. This goes on and on.Again, evolution is a massive list of assumptions, in many different disciplines, presented as fact. Check it out for yourself. See that there are sound scientific reasons for questioning evolution.Chemical evolution of life is the weak link of evolution, the foundation. If you cannot get life started this way, the entire edifice falls. So, yes, chemists should look into this area, but only if they are willing to let the data speak for itself instead of imposing preconceived ideas and notions on what it says.Frank Lut
Honolulu

Your editorial is an outrageous insult to chemists and chemical engineers who believe in an intelligent designer and who are not afraid or embarrassed to call him or her God.How dare you presume to object to the teaching of an alternate explanation for the creation of the universe than blind chance? What are your credentials in philosophy and theology that allow you to speak with such arrogant authority for your explanation and so demeaningly of someone else's? As a person of science, you above all should know that you cannot prove that someone or something does not exist. All the bones in the world would not prove the nonexistence of a divine being.Not for one second do I believe that the world was created in six 24-hour days. I don't know anyone who does. However, the idea that evolution was directed by an intelligent designer is an absolutely valid explanation of the observed facts, and it is rejected a priori by persons infected by the attitudes of 18th- and 19th-century scientists and philosophers who thought they had the whole world figured out. The debacle of man's inhumanity to man of the 20th century, in particular the misuse of science by the Germans and Japanese, seems to have had no effect on the sensibilities of these moderns.Evolution by blind chance leads us back to the idea that "man is the measure of all things," a philosophical concept that predates Aristotle. Morality comes from the sword--"might makes right"--or the ballot box, "the majority rules." It validates totalitarian governments and anything they do. The absolute standard of morality is gone. Government sets standards by making things legal or illegal, but nothing is right or wrong absolutely. The danger of this idea for the well-being of society cannot be overstated; anything goes.We have so much to do to educate the public away from fear of chemicals and the chemical industry and toward some reasonable approach to nuclear power and other alternate sources of energy that we can ill afford the time to promote an unprovable, atheistic explanation of creation.Raymond S. Martin
Beverly, Mass.

Basic science destroys the theory of evolution itselfby Mike Matthews II
April 18, 2005I love issues where everyone has an opinion and next to no one knows anything about the issue. The controversy surrounding Darwinism is one such topic where the majority of people base their belief on emotional connection and not logic or understanding. There are three main groups: Darwinists, theological evolutionists and (agnostic) evolutionists. What follows is the simplest reason each one fails to be valid.To weed out the theological evolutionists we need to accept one truth about the validity of the Bible, the one assumption that can never be violated without deteriorating any claim referring to the Bible: the Bible is the divine work of God. As such, God alone ensures the preservation of the validity of his world. The important ramification of this is that the unadulterated word of God is explicit when it states God created man; there is no implication that this is metaphorical. Therefore, any Christian willing to accept evolution has violated the basic principle tying him to theology and proves his own arguments not credible.Next I will dismantle the Darwinist camp. Darwinists believe there is no God. To this claim, I will try to state the first law of thermodynamics: all matter and energy in the universe is constant (i.e. matter will never spontaneously appear.) At some point in time, the universe did not exist. We know this is true from a scientific standpoint since everything has a beginning that exists in the physical universe. Before the time that matter came into existence, if there were no God, there still would be matter in the universe. If you find this hard to believe, conduct the following experiment with me:Take a plastic bag, and inflate it; the bag represents the confines of the known universe. For the sake of this experiment we will ignore the fact there is any kind of matter within the bag (such as your saliva and other air gases or contaminants). Being considered empty, we have a perfect model of the pre-big-bang universe. Wait as long as you want, there won't be anything added to that bag until you open it up and place something inside. At the point that you place something in the bag, you have acted as God on the system and caused creation in your universe. In this sense, God is merely anything which exists outside of the confines of our universe with the power to change our physical universe.Now for people who read Stephen Hawking and actually believe the crap about anti-matter and matter splitting spontaneously all the time, I will state the second law of thermodynamics: everything in the universe tends toward chaos. Even ignore that it takes energy to split nothing into something and anti-something, this second law explains that the random generation of such matter and anti-matter would effectively cancel itself out by colliding with its opposite, instead of all matter flowing in one direction and all anti-mater in the opposite direction. Therefore, the no God assumption fails based on an elementary-schooler's understanding of physics. Try it. It never fails.Finally on to the basic evolutionists (those unconcerned with God's existence or absence). The strongest basic support evolutionists offer comes from a study based on breeding habits of a few different snails of the same species who do not interbreed. (Most people have heard the story, if you have not, feel free to ask.) The real problem with this model is that it proves what we knew to be true anyway, two different populations place different values on certain traits and selectively breed the traits found desirable; in effect this claim is a social evolution demonstration. That nature could provide selective pressures that could cause one trait to be of advantage and a different one to be of disadvantage, is not surprising and can be shown in many ways. The only problem is that these sorts of changes are gene expression changes and not gene formation changes. If you marry someone taller than you and have children taller than you, your children are not a new species, they are simple humans with gene expression for taller height.Scientifically speaking, creationism is leagues ahead since it doesn't break any natural laws to establish its claims; likewise the list of counters to evolution with various levels of complexity could go on ad nauseam. Briefly, though, the three laws which invalidate evolution are the first and second laws of thermodynamics and the law of biogenesis; at the point that an evolutionist tries to weasel around the implication of a scientific law, his argument is no longer based on reason but on gross, unscientific speculation.--Mike Matthews II is a junior in the School of Engineering.

Evolution column was juvenile
Letters to the editorby Thomas Broderick
April 20, 2005To The Editor:I love it when a self-righteous junior tries to do what hundreds of better-educated theologians haven't been able to do in 150 years: dispel evolution. My anger at the moment really has nothing do with the fact that Mike Matthews tried to challenge evolution, but the fact he tried to do it in a college newspaper with 771 words. For God's sake, at least write a book, Mike."Now for people who read Stephen Hawking and actually believe the crap about anti-matter and matter splitting spontaneously all the time?" Mike, let me introduce you to the physics department. I'm sure I could set up a meeting with you and the department chair so you two can talk about the wasteful "crap" they teach. That was a really bad move on your part. Even Michael Wilt {student OP-ED writer who seems to be looking for a job at Fox News} doesn't attack students, two faculty departments and moderate Christians in the same article.Now Mike, if you were high, drunk or even on a tight deadline when you wrote that article, I understand. Yet yours is one of many articles I've read over the last year that scream, "I'm writing this because I know I can get away with it!" That's not free speech; it's a reckless abuse of the majority voice at {school's name}.Thomas Broderick Freshman, A&S

What do you think is going on?
Is it a sign that more and more people are being led astray by ID and creationism or is it a sign that more and more people are waking up to the fact that there are so many fools out there willing to buy into it?

Agassiz has most kindly sent me his Introduction two first Part; but I confess I am disappointed: I cannot realise his rules on the value of the higher groups, & all his prophetic &c &c types.

truthlover writes:I don't understand the "more and more" part. What you read may be frustrating, but I think stats show that less and less people (though not many less) are being "led astray" by ID. (I'm guessing here that the term "ID" now belongs to those who agree with Behe, not to those of us who think evolution is as intelligent a design as any other.)

Matthews ignores basic biologyMichael Funk
April 22, 2005I feel that it is my duty to call attention to the egregious flaws in the argument of those members of our campus who insist that the theory of evolution by means of natural selection is fiction. Not, however, in the spirit of "disproving" them (impossible since there is no proof for either of our arguments -- only evidence, or lack thereof) or slighting what they believe, but in hopes that they will rethink their position and consider the validity of mine instead of making inflammatory and inaccurate statements and then trying to use science to support them.To quote the famous biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky, "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." And amazingly, for a theory apparently based on "breeding habits of a few different snails of the same species that do not interbreed" (a "story" I'm totally unfamiliar with even after several years of liberal high school biology and BSCI 110 here) and "gross, unscientific speculation," the theory of evolution by natural selection has some impressive scientific evidence standing behind it. Dare I name a few examples: fossil records, chemical and morphological similarities among all life forms on earth, vestigial and intermediate structures (exempla gratia: photosensitive patches as precursors of retinal tissue), artificial selection and breeding, convergent evolution and the possibility of quantum evolution (if you want to check out a real scientific theory, "Quantum Evolution," by Johnjoe McFadden, is an excellent read).My real quarrel, however, is not with the misportrayal of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, atrocious as it may be, but instead with Mr. Matthews' insistence that "Darwinists believe there is no God" and that scientific laws can be applied to matters of theology. I, as a Catholic, firmly believe in the existence of God, but I also concur with the notion that evolution by natural selection is the process by which all life on this planet, including humans, developed. I do not consider my beliefs to be in conflict at all with my understanding of evolution; for me, they are separate entirely and should never be confused with one another. The Bible is, in my opinion, an important didactic resource, but it should never be mistaken for scientific fact. Further, evolution is concerned only with the development and adaptation of organisms to their environment, not how life or the universe was created in the beginning. As for not comprehending "gene formation changes," I suggest to Mr. Matthews BSCI 110 or 100; either would be informative ad nauseum on subjects likeDNA mutations and gene dynamics in populations. For more information about evolution and natural selection, I suggest checking out Misconceptions about evolution - Understanding Evolution. If you have any doubt that either exists, to research the topic before you try to come to a conclusion would be the appropriate scientific course of action.--Michael Funk is a freshman in the College of Arts and Science.

I guess by "more and more" I meant that I am seeing more and more articles, more and more public discussion about creationism. Maybe it's just some sort of cosmic convergence, but when C&E News, the school newspaper, Playboy, Discover, all have something about this all within a few weeks and Nature and Science have articles about it within months of each other, something must be going on.

I guess I just assumed that people who were smart enough to do ANY science would understand in a second that ID and creationism is not science.

I got the National Geographic (I think, I'm pretty sure it wasn't Discover--doggone my memory) that had "Is Evolution Wrong" or something very like that on the cover...My wife and I looked at each other, and went, "Oh oh."

ID is a science based concept

please feel free