The theory of intelligent design, which challenges evolution, has recently gained some popularity in the US and may soon begin to be taught in schools in the state of Ohio. How do its supporters try to disprove evolution, and what do the Darwinists answer them
In the coming weeks, the Ohio State Board of Education is supposed to decide on the integration of alternative content for the study of evolution in the state's schools. The discussion is a new phase in one of the oldest and most intense social-scientific struggles.
In 1987, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that creation studies would not be taught in public schools, according to the principle of separation between religion and state. It seemed that in this way the religious groups opposing the studies of evolution and striving to replace them with the studies of the creation story were finally defeated. But despite the unequivocal ruling, the debate recently returned to the headlines.
The renewal of the discussion was made possible by the formulation of a new concept known as "Intelligent Design Theory". According to this conception, the formation of man and the origin of species must be explained by the intervention of some intelligent force. The theory does not directly point to God as he is described in religions, it does not assume that the world was created several thousand years ago (as is derived from the Holy Scriptures) and it even accepts that certain species can appear as the descendants of other species. But it completely dismisses the principle of randomness in evolution. According to the theory of intelligent design, there is necessarily a guiding hand responsible for the complexity of the living world and the creation of man.
The theory of intelligent design is not presented as a religious position but uses scientific terminology. For this reason, it is not invalid according to the ruling of the Supreme Court and through it the door was reopened to discuss the composition of the curriculum. Supporters of intelligent planning include academics and politicians. These do their best to influence the council's decision. The scientific establishment fears that if the curriculum in Ohio is indeed changed, they will have to defend evolution in every state, district and city again.
The theory of intelligent planning emerged from a body of articles and books that have been published in recent years. A similar structure is evident in these publications: most of their content is devoted to attempts to contradict evolution, and after this process they propose intelligent design as a substitute. The presentation of the theory of intelligent design is not detailed, and it usually boils down to the statement that there is some entity responsible for the development of species and man.
One of the prominent books dealing with the subject is "Darwin's Black Box".
Its author is Michael Behi, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in the USA. In his book, Behi presents an argument known as "Irreducible Complexity". Behi claims that the investigation of the biochemical processes in human cells shows that the cell could not have developed by evolution. These processes operate from a combination of many components and in a precise sequence of operations, and they stop operating in the absence of the smallest component. Behi presents examples of biochemical processes (for example, blood clotting) that include dozens of different compounds that must react, each in turn. According to the evolutionary concept, each system develops from a previous system that falls from it in its capabilities. But the intracellular processes, Behi claims, cannot be reduced - the smallest change will prevent the completion of their action.
Therefore, a previous process including only some of the components is not possible. And if a process prior to the one observed is not possible, then evolution did not occur here; The processes appeared in their entirety - an "intelligent planner" had to create them.
The response to Behi's claims is that he actually perfected an old argument concerning complex structures in animals. Darwin himself was challenged by the objection that "a structure as complex as the human eye cannot have been created randomly". In response, Darwin presented mechanisms in various animals that serve a similar purpose: from the light-sensitive cells in certain amphibians, through the simple light-sensitive organ in more developed species, to the complex eyes of mammals. The observed sequence of the light sensing organs shows the development process of a complex organ like the eye. In response to Beh, simpler biochemical systems are presented, in other animals, that function similarly to the systems he defined as "irreducible". Biologist Kent Miller of Brown University showed, for example, how blood clotting mechanisms in animals can serve as milestones in the formation of the process in humans.
Another dominant figure in the intelligent design group is the mathematician William Dembsky. Dembski formulated the "Law of Information Preservation" - a reformulation, in terms of information theory, of the argument known as the "statistical argument". According to this argument, in order to assemble in an evolutionary way, i.e. randomly, the large molecules from which animals are built (proteins or DNA) it would take so many years that even the age of the universe is not enough for that; Therefore, it is not possible, statistically, that life arose following a random sequence of development. A famous thought exercise has been proposed to describe this problem: a million monkeys stand in front of typewriters and randomly type one letter every second. Their goal is to type Shakespeare's "Hamlet" - a work whose length symbolizes a complex molecule. Calculating the time required gives, as expected, an astronomical number. The analogy: random evolution is not possible.
In response to this thought exercise, it was said that it does not faithfully represent the evolutionary process because it lacks the mechanism of natural selection. In the XNUMXs, the mathematician Richard Hardison showed that the time can be greatly shortened if you save every "correct" letter typed on the typewriters and continue from that point on. The preservation of the correct letters represents the preservation of an efficient molecular structure by reproduction through the process of natural selection.
Other scientists are even willing to ignore the mechanism of natural selection and face the question without it. Indeed, they say, the chance of complex molecules forming at random is low, but it must be assumed that Earth is only one of many planets where similar conditions may exist. If we take into account the huge number of places where complex molecules can theoretically form (millions of millions of planets in the universe, according to the accepted hypothesis), then the probability that they will actually form in one place increases dramatically. This is similar to the lottery: the chances of an individual winning the lottery are zero, but if we look at the entire population - eventually someone wins.
Another claim, expressed by Philip Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, is that the theory of evolution cannot be tested experimentally and is therefore not science but a story. The principle of experimental refutation as an estimate of the scientificity of a theory was established by the philosopher Karl Popper, according to which every scientific theory must stand the test of the experiment and emerge from it strengthened or disproved.
Is it possible to experiment with evolution? Microevolution laboratory experiments show how bacteria change from generation to generation through mutations. The short life cycle time in simple species makes it possible to perform experiments in which many generations are observed in a reasonable time. Beyond the microscopic level, the experiments carried out in evolution are similar to other branches of science where the lengths of time do not allow laboratory examination - for example astronomy. When it is not possible to bring the research objects into the laboratory, experiments are performed by testing predictions against the observation test. For example: evolutionary theory assumes that modern man evolved from human-like species over the last five million years or so. Searches for human bone fossils are supposed to bring up remains of human-like creatures, in various degrees of development, in this period. Finding human remains from a time when only simple species existed (for example two billion years ago) would have called evolution into question.
The theory of intelligent design points to a force external to nature, thus opposing the naturalistic world view that is the basis of modern science. Science seeks explanations within the framework of the world that can be sensed and measured. On the part of intelligent planning, they are actually calling for a change in the definition of science. Scientists answer that it is a shame to argue with proven success. It is precisely the scientific method, which looks for reasons in nature and does not compromise and calls "miracle" what it still does not understand, that has led humanity to enormous achievements.
