Buckeridge, J

RMIT Research Repository

Natures Sciences Sociétés 15, 405-406 (2007)
c© NSS Dialogues, EDP Sciences 2008
DOI: 10.1051/nss:2008009
Disponible en ligne sur :
www.nss-journal.org Na t u r e s
Sciences
Sociétés
Forum
Dossier Évolution et créationnisme
Creationism and Intelligent Design: a critique
John Buckeridge
Professor of Natural Resources Engineering, Head of School Civil, Environmental and Chemical Eng, RMIT University,
GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne VIC 3001, Australia
Growing anti-evolution sentiments from within a
sector of the United States population led to the Scopes
trial in 1925. The trial, pitting fundamentalism against
science, revolved around John Scopes, an itinerant biology
teacher, who had used a science text that discussed
evolution. Lasting over a week, the trial was somewhat
of a fiasco, as the defence asked that Scopes be found
guilty (anticipating the opportunity for appeal at a higher
court). The appeal was successful (on a technicality), but
nonetheless stopped the “anti-evolution movement” in its
tracks for almost 80 years. The Creationist movement was
relatively quiet over subsequent years, but has recently
rejoined the debate, with a new twist – “Intelligent Design”
(ID)1.
A key component of Darwinian Evolution through
natural selection is that life arose from non-living matter.
In contrast, the basis of intelligent design is that life is
too complicated to have been created by natural selection
and thus must have had a designer. In this repackaging
of creationist dogma, ID has also (in part) dispensed with
the notion of a “young earth” (vide Archbishop Ussher’s
4004BC); further, many ID proponents contend that the
nature of the designer is unknown, i.e. distancing the ar-
gument from any legal challenge (US Federal Law forbids
the teaching of divine creation in state-funded schools).
Importantly, ID adherents in the US are advocating the
teaching of ID in science classes on an equal footing with
Corresponding author: john.buckeridge@rmit.edu.au
John Buckeridge is also the President of the International Union
of Biological Sciences.
1 Voir dans ce numéro le texte d’introduction d’A.-F. Schmid,
l’article de J. Daillie « Évolution vs Création », et celui de
F. Fridlansky et J.-C. Mounolou « Pourquoi dire “non” au
“créationnisme” ? ». À lire également dans NSS, vol. 15 no 2,
l’éditorial de C. Friedberg, et dans le vol. 15 no 3, le premier
volet du dossier « Créationnisme ».
natural selection. This implies that ID is a science. How-
ever, if we accept that science is conducted objectively,
involving the systematised observation of and experi-
mentation with phenomena, we can expect a scientific
theory, in principle, to be falsifiable, i.e. there must be the
potential for conditions under which the theory becomes
untenable. In which case, a new theory to account for the
observations is proposed. This process is fundamental
to the advancement of science, and has been reflected in
many scientific paradigm shifts; vide Newtonian Physics
being superseded by the Theory of Relativity. ID is clearly
not science – indeed, its proponents do not claim that it
may be falsified, although, some like William Dembski2
claim that “design” (i.e. through intervention of a super-
natural body) is a “legitimate and fundamental mode
of scientific explanation...” Dembski and his ilk are thus
redefining science from an empirically based discipline
to one based upon theology.
The essence of ID, according to proponents like
Michael Behe3, resides within concepts such as “irre-
ducible complexity”, i.e. wherein certain molecular sys-
tems are too complex to arise by chance. In one of his
more quoted examples, he cites the rather large number of
proteins required for blood clotting in mammals – an in-
tricate cascade of molecular interaction, with clotting only
occurring when the entire cascade of factors is assembled.
With some rigor, Behe states that “no one on earth has
the faintest (idea) how the coagulation cascade came to
be”3. However, practicing biochemists can demonstrate
that the genes responsible for the clotting cascade were
formed by duplication and modification of pre-existing
2 Behe, M.J., Dembski, W.A., Meyer, S.C., 2000. Science and
Evidence for Design in the Universe, San Francisco, Ignatius Press.
3 Behe, M.J., 1996. Darwin’s box Black Box, New York The Free
Press.
Article published by EDP Sciences and available at http://www.nss-journal.org or http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/nss:2008009
406 J. Buckeridge: Natures Sciences Sociétés 15, 405-406 (2007)
Table 1. Understanding the barnacle group Ibliformes over two centuries.
Leach, 18255 Darwin, 18516 Buckeridge & Newman, 20067
Order Campylosomata Order Thoracica Order Iblifomes
Family Iblidae Family Lepadidae Families Iblidae, Idioiblidae
Ibla (only one species known) Ibla (one of 11 genera) Five genera (Ibla, Neoibla, Chaetolepas,
Idioibla, Chitinolepas)
genes4, and it is now known that agnathid fish require
significantly fewer proteins for clotting than higher verte-
brates. Further, leading biochemist Russell Doolittle has
been able to demonstrate that a fibrinogen-like sequence
arose independently in the Echinodermata4.
ID criticises evolution as a “top down” process,
wherein higher taxonomic divisions such as phyla, appear
“suddenly”, often with no known intermediate forms to
link with their precursors. However this criticism is some-
what unjustified, because although palaeontologists and
biologists make considerable use of higher taxonomic
divisions, they do so simply because this provides a
framework through which they can assess relationships
between taxa at all levels. As scientists refine their un-
derstanding at species level, the status and nature of
higher divisions must evolve to accommodate the new
knowledge. This is the essence of science. An example
showing how the status of higher divisions change in
time is provided in Table 1. The tiny stalked barnacle Ibla
is widely distributed in shallow temperate and tropical
waters. There was only one species of Ibla known to Leach,
for which he erected the Family Iblidae in 1825. On the
basis of his understanding of barnacle evolution, Darwin
revised this, and in 1851 included Ibla (at that time com-
prising two species) with all other stalked barnacles as
the Lepadidae. In 2006, new material, complemented by
a greater understanding of the molecular biology of the
Ibliformes, permitted elevation of the Iblidae to ordinal
level, along with five new genera.
The concept of an early Cambrian “explosion of new
species” is now an issue of much debate amongst scien-
tists. There are many who now believe that it took place
over tens of millions of years, rather than abruptly, as was
believed in the mid to late 20th Century. We should expect
this refinement, for as more comprehensive molecular and
4 Miller, K.R., 1999. Finding Darwin’s God, New York, Harper
Collins.
5 Leach, W.E., 1825. A tabular view of the genera composing
the Class Cirripedes, with descriptions of the species of Otion,
Cineras and Clyptra, The Zoological Journal, 2, 6, 208-215.
6 Darwin, C., 1851. A Monograph On the Sub-Class Cirri-
pedia, with Figures of all Species: The Lepadidae, or cirripedes.
Pedunculated Cirripedes, London, Ray Society.
7 Buckeridge, J.S., Newman, W.A., 2006. A revision of the
Iblidae and the pedunculate barnacles (Crustacea: Cirripedia:
Thoracica), including new ordinal, familial and generic taxa,
and two new species from New Zealand and Tasmanian waters,
Zootaxa, 1136, 1-38.
palaeontological data have become available, previously
unknown aspects of the evolutionary plan are clarified, i.e.,
there is an appropriate shift in the evolutionary paradigm
to accommodate this new knowledge. What is clear, and
has been so for many years, is the broad trend of increas-
ing organic complexity that is demonstrated by the fossil
record. The first known organisms are clearly not com-
plex metazoans. We can, with considerable confidence,
reconstruct key phases in environmental evolution, e.g.
the first living organisms occurred on Earth c. 3.6 billion
years ago, photosynthesis began c. 3.0 billion years ago,
and 2.5 billion years ago oxygen levels in the atmosphere
were sufficiently high to change the pace of evolution.
It is widely known that relatively complex organisms
such as Ibla (above) did not first appear at the opening of
the Cambrian. Rather, they were derived from primitive
crustaceans that were present at that time.
To date, ID has tended to force its dogma through
reference to single observed outcomes. If a particular ob-
servation is subsequently falsified, ID proponents simply
reorganise around some other observation that supports
their thesis. This is a very different process to that adopted
in science – and one that is not particularly conducive
to scientific debate. This has led to frustration amongst
many scientists, as to date, there is no empirical way in
which the case for (or against) ID can be assessed. As
a result, most scientists simply ignore, or dismiss ID as
irrelevant.
It is now opportune to contemplate the real impli-
cations of ID. Through rejection of natural selection, ID
necessitates some form of super-naturalism. From this it is
a logical conclusion to accept that all that we observe (and
experience) in nature is to some degree “pre-ordained”.
This should give cause for alarm, for it is only a short
move towards fundamentalist fatalism, which will result
in abdication of a duty of care – towards other cultures,
creeds and the natural environment. This is unacceptable
and is totally incompatible with one of the highest, and
ennobling of human aspirations: environmental steward-
ship. The effects upon science would be catastrophic too,
as the essence of science is open enquiry and a quest for
truth. If there was widespread adoption of the principles
of ID, the inability of ID to demonstrate any level of, or
commitment to empiricism, would ensure that the scien-
tific process would come to an abrupt halt. In light of this,
one must question the objectives of the ID movement.


Creationism and intelligent design: a critique

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

RMIT Research Repository