ID is no different than its predecessor hypotheses such as flood geology, creationism and creation science in that it offers
absolutely no scientific evidence to support its claims. Instead, it relies upon the misrepresentation of good science and the
ignorance of the general populace to enable it to create the current “controversy”. The truth of the matter is, is that there
is no controversy at least no scientific controversy. According to a good scientist, good science has its basis in observable,
empirical and measurable evidence. Also, good science is based on specific principles of reasoning. Scientists who practice
good science propose hypotheses; they test those hypotheses and allow others to test them as well. Furthermore, through observable
experiments that are repeatable, good science must be able to predict future outcomes based on the hypothesis. If the hypothesis
does not fail when brought up against alternative theories, is able to be observed, and consistently predicts future outcomes over
time the hypothesis is said to become a theory. This is the basis of good science. ID practices what I call God-science.
God-science,
such as that practiced by creationists, is not based upon good scientific principles such as having a basis in observable, empirical
and measurable evidence. God-science does not offer observable experiments that repeatable, that predict future outcomes, that
allow alternative theories, that are able to be observed, nor that consistently predict future outcomes over time. Instead,
God science relies upon unknown outcomes, unwarranted assumptions, baseless future predictions, misrepresentation of facts, and political
and social rhetoric as well as fear to justify itself. On example of God-science is the claim that evolution lacks fossilized
evidence. When good science points out that first the fossilized evidence for evolution is both overwhelming and for all intent
purposes irrefutable, and secondly that some evidence to warrant their claim is needed, God-science tries to change the rules of science,
or yells “foul”.
The claim that evolution lacks fossilized evidence is a popular claim used by ID adherents. They claim that
evolution is a flawed theory because of this lack evidence, and hence is false. This is both misleading and untrue, and it is
an argument that is a prelude to the sort of science that the intelligent design movement uses. The Center for the Renewal of
Science and Culture (CRSC, an off-shoot of The Discovery Institute) claims that “the late Precambrian and early Cambrian periods…not
only fail to support Darwinism but in fact refutes it.”[1] CRSC, in a great deal, relies upon the expertise of one Paul Chien
to support their claim that if true, would in fact deal a lethal blow to the theory of evolution. However, true to the nature
of ID, the claim is not founded on anything that resembles science. Rather, CRSC relies upon the same political ploys and misleading
jargon (calling it “science”) to create a controversy concerning evolution into the minds of the American public. Good scientists
do not take such claims seriously, and when creationists are reminded that they are not practicing good science, they claim that the
scientists are being biased against them. The good scientists demand good evidence, and the God-scientists offer unsupported
suppositions.
The claim being made by CRSC is that the Cambrian
era (550-500 million years ago) is the product of a “biological Big Bang”, as Chien calls it. In other words, that fossils began
to appear abruptly and so Darwin’s theory of evolution is flawed because it relies upon the slow and steady change of organisms over
a great deal of time. The fallacy here is one of equivocation. What the proponents of ID are not admitting into evidence,
and evidently trying to hide is that “abruptness” actually means “over ten or a few tens of millions of years”[2] Ten or a few
tens of millions of years is not “abrupt” in the true sense of the word. ID adherents are relying upon fossilized deposits known
as the Chengjiang phosphate deposits, that much is true, but that they appeared “abruptly” is simply a play on words, a hedge to further
CRSC’s real agenda: to propagate the ideas that ID ought to be taught in the nation’s public schools as science. Although CRSC
makes such claims, these claims are not backed up by good science.
Precambrian fossils do exist, discovered in the Ediacaran rocks of Australia (for one example); that much cannot be argued. However, the point trying to be muscled in by ID is that multi-cellular organisms appeared “abruptly” around the Cambrian era. Because these fossils really didn’t appear “abruptly” in the sense that ID adherents try to claim, the only reason that one would
argue for the abrupt appearance of life during the Cambrian era is the desire to prove some sort of special creation (made necessary
by the lack of evolutionary explanation). The unwarranted assumption made by ID is that this special creation is an act of God
(the Christian God in particular). Facts concerning Precambrian life are readily available, proven with hard (pardon the pun) evidence,
and accepted by all respectable, good scientists. Because of these good-science facts, CRSC is forced to use fallacious argumentation
to make themselves appear respectable, which they may be to some, but not in any scientific sense. To appear respectable, ID
misconstrues real scientific theories such as evolution to make them seem as if they are still debatable, creating a public controversy
but not a scientific debate. They rely upon the authority of scientists to “prove” certain ideas rather than the authority of
good science.
CRSC, institutes such as The Discovery Institute and
other creationists and creationist organizations use other methods to confuse and create false controversies as well. Another
pseudo-controversy brought forth by ID concerns the so-called “top-down” theory of evolution. Creationists claim that the theory
is being discussed in terms of creationism-non/creationism. Evolution is indeed being discussed, but not in those terms, and
not in terms of creationism. “The scientific argument between the predominant bottom-up view and the top-down view is, basically,an argument over the order of descent (emphasis added): through the common descent from earlier forms, what developed first-species,
or phyla. The debate is not about whether there were any ancestral forms.”[3] This little fact is skewed by CRSC to make
it seem as if the “debate” is about ancestral forms in the form of fossils in order to make an illegitimate argumentative leap for
ID. There are problems with any ID argument concerning abrupt-creation, two of them bearing exceptional weight in regard to
evolution. First, “if there were in fact no evidence of ancestral or transitional life forms, or any hope of it, the abruptness
would be irrelevant: there would have to have been some magical intervention…”[4] If this were the case, modern day good
science would look a lot different since good science is based on empirical observation. Secondly, ancestral and transitional
forms are known and available for study by both good scientists and God-scientists. Good scientists interpret the data using
scientific methods. God-scientists interpret the data in a way that is conducive to their argument rather than the truth. While both good and God scientists rely upon authority, God-scientists do not always rely upon
good authority. To study fossils, one must have expertise in paleontology. To do good science, one must be able to honestly
approach questions and be willing to accept the answers given by facts rather than belief. First CRSC relies upon the expertise
of Dr. Paul Chien who has no expertise in paleontology. Dr. Chien does have degrees in biology and environmental science, however. Secondly, Dr. Chien is not interested, or perhaps capable, of good science. According to a professor of paleontology, Kevin
Padian, “Dr. Chein admits that he has not expertise or training in paleontology. [And] He admits [as well] in interviews that
he came into this issue believing that evolution is not true (emphasis his).”[5] Having a preconceived conclusion is not
good science. Basing scientific conclusions on good reasoning, no matter what those conclusions turn out to be is. Also,
scientific theories are tested and developed by scientists, and then peer-reviewed and critiqued. But Dr. Chien has offered
no hypotheses concerning his belief in the abrupt appearance of fossils. In fact, “despite Chien’s zero productivity in the
area with which the CRSC has charged him, he has been active in promoting the publications of fellow creationists.”[6] So, in
essence, ID, CRSC, and Dr. Chien is putting the cart before the horse. First, they trump up the appearance of “scientific data”
that they claim warrants the truth of ID. Then, they proceed with no real scientific evidence to try to publish in peer
reviewed science journals. However, to date, there has been “no scientific, peer-reviewed research on any aspect of ID in any
scientific journal.”[7]
CRSC claims that their hypotheses (they
call them theories) in fact do appear in scientific journals (such as Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box). “The problem with
that claim is that IC has ‘found itself in the peer-reviewed scientific literature’, but only in the form of sharp dismissals.”[8] This begs the question: why, if ID is not a theory, is it published at all? This question is one that goes beyond science
and the agenda of CRSC. The problem is that scientists such as Chien and Behe might be good scientists, but in working with
ID they are not doing good science. Good science is always incomplete: it searches for answers through honest questioning rather
than developing questions based on a pat answer. Secondly, they are not being honest with both the scientific community and
perhaps themselves. The science of ID does not stand on honest evidence, hard won warrant, and consistent inference. Rather,
it stands on fallacious reasoning, easy answers, and emotional plea bargaining in the form of legal jargon.