Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 25 February 2009 | Nature 457, 1067 (2009) | doi:10.1038/4571067a
News
Hong Kong evolution curriculum row
Intelligent design 'debate' sparks controversy.
A debate over the teaching of intelligent design in schools is raging in the unlikely battleground of Hong Kong. A fiery topic in the United States, intelligent design which holds that a designer has shaped life on Earth has gone almost unnoticed in Asia.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
It is clear that the Darwin's theory, in its latest version the neo-Darwinistic or synthetic evolutionary theory, does not address the problem of origin of life, but provides the best available explanation for the dynamics of the transformation (hence evolution) of life forms on earth. The so-called "intelligent design" hypothesis, on the other hand, attempts to give an answer on the essential question of origin of life (and also of Universe). The intelligent desing has been invoked as an interpetation of the natural world starting from the finalistic "pyramid of life" vision of Aristoteles in the pre-Darwininan era, and, in more recent times as a counter-argument against the Theory of evolution . The debate, for example, about the origin of the eye has been an argument used by creationists to deny the possibility of evolution through the gradual accumulation of small random mutations. These arguments have been already dismissed by the more advanced revisions of the theory of evolution, both in its ultra-synthetic and reductionist view (see for example Dawkins) and in the punctuated equilibria and Evo-Devo theories. Thus, intelligent design as an alternative to Darwin's theory has not place in modern scientific thinking. Said that, since the problem of origin of Universe and life is still standing and is not only a scientific one, a phylosophical approach can take into account also the possibility of a non-random but finalistic origin. As I said, this is a phylosophical (and theological) aspect which should be addressed not in scientific university courses but in phylosophical or theological ones. Serious and mature reflection on this problem and its appropriate collocation within the framework of the undeniable scientific evidences for an evolution based on mutation/selection dynamics has undoubtfully a place in phylosophy. Clearly, any use of the intelligent design as a counter argument against Darwin's theory is improper and flawed. Giovanni Maga, PhD Inst. of Molecular Genetics CNR Pavia, Italy
Intelligent Design implies two separate attributes - "design" and "intelligent". Science has adequately disposed of the design argument, but it would be enlightening nevertheless to consider the question, "If we were designed, how intelligent was the designer?" Those with back ailments occasioned by the bipedal nature of humans despite a spine more fit for quadrupeds can supply their own opinion, but I believe Mark Twain may have summed it up best, despite a lack of formal scientific training: "Man was made at the end of the week's work when God was tired."
I am very glad that this article has been published in 'Nature'. I do believe that science is coming to a very important stage in history. Therefore topics such as this should be discussed and debated. People will say that ID is not science but religious propaganda. We must not ask ourselves whether or not theism and atheism is science, but moreover is there any scientific evidence for either? Likewise with ID, we must ask 'Is there any scientific evidence for the involvement of intelligence in the origin of nature and its laws of operation?' I am sure any strict atheist scientist would agree with me that this is a perfectly legitimate scientific question. Therefore, put simply, if ID has no evidence whatsoever it should be considered religious propaganda. HOWEVER, if it does the situation changes dramatically. Another paradigm shifting theory could enter the realm of scientific reason yet again as science?s quest for truth continues. John Beling, Undergraduate Physics Student, University of Liverpool.
I really look forward to a (hopefully) much more intelligent ("subtle") time when biologists will not have to limp along with sloppy hypotheses and some "popular Evolutionary Psychology" any more, but will eventually find out that all their rather arbitrary hypotheses and terms (including terms like "genealogical trees", "selection", "evolution", "costs", "fitness landscapes", "evolutionary stable strategies", "genes", "species", "mutations", etc.) will ultimately turn out to be just special cases of physical laws and physical terms ? like "stability", "stabilization processes", "shifts" ("stochastic variability", "theory of variation and variance"), "balance", "free energy" (thermodynamic potentials!), "potential landscapes", "attractor landscapes", "permanently fluctuating stable equilibria within highly dynamical systems", "thermodynamic and chemical potentials", etc. (see here already Whitfield 2007: "using the laws of thermodynamics to explain natural selection ? and life itself"). Hence, the whole problem of some "evolution" will ? in a much subtler time than mine (see Ad Reinhardt) ? ultimately boil down to a mere problem of stability, maps, mappings, and variation ("shifts") within complex networks on all levels (social networks, physiological-neuronal networks, biomolecular networks, genetic networks, protein networks, etc.). Besides, terms like "selection" have an age-old religious, anthropocentric, herd-breeding and intentional bias (see phrases like "God's selected flock / God's chosen people") and should ? like all terms with an "intentional" connotation and "anthropocentric biases" ? therefore not be used by scientists at all... And those who will have the "best" maps... (i.e., "better" than just "biological" or "religious" maps...)...
Corrigendum: Of course, in my comment above, it should perfectly read "physical maps", not: "physical laws". "Law" may also be an anthropocentric term... OE
The comment posted by Mr. Beling "Is there any scientific evidence for the involvement of intelligence in the origin of nature and its laws of operation?' I am sure any strict atheist scientist would agree with me that this is a perfectly legitimate scientific question," is erroneous in its fundamentals. The question quoted above is not scientific since the proposition of an intelligent designer can be neither disproved or unambiguously demonstrated by scientific measurement. Akif Uzman, Houston, Texas
One may not be able to prove or disprove the existence of an intelligent designer entirely. However, as scientists we evaluate and study the universe, but we did not put it there unless you want to believe in fantasy. The design argument is mainly based on what we know (rational and mathematical intelligibility of the universe, its fine tuning etc), not from what we don't know. I understand Darwinian evolution does not fully explain the origin of life. Since, this is a time in the past; we cannot go back to see and test what actually happened. Therefore, I am sure you will agree that this is a limit in the scientific method. Fine, you will say, well just because you can't explain it, then you can't just say there must be some divine intervention. Fair point I would say. However, when you are reading this, do you take a reductionist view and by using the laws of physics and chemistry say that this ordered paragraph has no author but emerged by random chance alone. I hope not, for we reject a naturalist explanation, and we postulate an author. Therefore, why can we not use the same basic logic in science when we study life and the universe? Just because we are suggesting the metaphysical (intelligence) in the argument should not mean that our logic is flawed. For instance if we look at the Cambrian explosion in the past, where the fossil record (EVIDENCE) suggests there was an unusual rapid emergence of many complex animal species 530 millions years ago. The Darwinian model, the environment and chance alone cannot explain this entirely. Therefore, we have to assume something is going on with the biological mechanisms of their ancestors. Again we use the same logic. If the laws of biology and chemistry do not explain this explosion of these many complex life forms entirely, logically we must assume there is something else that must account for it. By all means we should try to find an explanation for the origin of life using a current scientific knowledge; however until then we cannot disregard the plausible possibility of a designer. (Reply to Amy Sater)
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable,must be the truth" Sherlock Holmes [Referred to by William Dembski]
There is no conflict between the Bible and Darwinian-evolution - the conflict is between 'religion' and evolution. Evolution says that life came from the 'primordial soup (mud)' and the Bible says something similar: "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground." (Gen. 2:7) Dust (Strongs: as powdered or gray; hence clay, earth, mud:-ashes, earth, ground, mortar, powder, rubbish) ?of the ground (soil - from its gen. redness). 1. When used in association with the feminine noun ???? adamah = ground/dirt, the masculine noun ??? ?apar means: dry earth/dirt, dust, dry loose earth/dirt. The operative word in the definition of ??? ?apar is ?dry?. The Strong?s Heb./Chaldee Dictionary of the Old Testament shows the verb root for the masculine noun ??? ?apar to be ??? meaning: to be gray or pulverized, but nowhere does the BDB, Strong?s, or Gesenius Heb./Chaldee Lexicon show the Hebrew masculine noun ??? ?apar as being associated with ?red? or as being synonymous with ?mud? or ?clay? of the ???? adamah = ground/dirt. Mr. Darwin said that human beings came from the primates, and the Bible says: (Genesis) Adam/man (Hebrew-synonyms) = ?ruddy (red)?, rosy, the flush of blood "...man became a living soul" (Genesis 2:7b): soul (Hebrew & Greek) = breathing creature/the animal sentiment principal only 1. ha?adam=?the human archetype? was initially created as a ???? ??? ?breathing brute animal? in Genesis 2:7, with little or no difference between it and the brute animal ???? ??? ?breathing brute animals? created in Genesis 2:19.11 - does not suggest a ?human? being but rather a ?ruddy (brute animal)? creature (as coming from the ?red? earth - dust/dry ground) "Prior to being put into the garden, ruddy did not have 'spiritual' ability, he only gained that after he entered the garden; '...and the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man (ruddy) whom he had made." (parentheses mine, Gen. 2:8 & 15) So then, Adam/man was not initially a ?human? being as many believe but rather a ?ruddy creature of earth?, an animal (must have been a chimpanzee because somewhere along the line we gained 97% chimp DNA). Religious tendencies are observed strictly in the human species. If human beings are in part ?soul (animal)? then why aren?t such tendencies evident in primates? Could it be because we have something the other animals don?t have? soul = mortal spirit = immortal animal = soul human being = soul + spirit (aura, metaphysical, God's image, sixth sense, etc.) It was the gaining of this 'other' element that enabled 'one' primate to change from animal to human, and unless he had gained it, could not have changed - thus the reason we don't see other primates in various stages of change.
Dr. Kwok has articulate it clearly: pseudoscience has no place in academia. It stands no chance in scientific community, of course. That's why psedoscientists of all creeds and shades place their bet on the weakest chain - the classroom. One has to keep guard at all time and cut their stealth at the root.
I agree that pseudoscience should definitely not be taught anywhere as science. However, ID is a theory that can be falsifiable and thus we must accept its validity as a viable scientific theory. The leading ID scientists do have evidence to back up their claims on the theory. However, there is no evidence for the flying spaghetti monster and other terrible pseudosciences.
To Beiling: I have never heard about ID being falsifiable. All the articles that I've read about ID being falsifiable end up going off on a tangent, or saying that proving Darwinism is the falsification of ID and since one cannot prove Darwinism, one cannot falsify ID. In other words, all we got is circular arguments. I think the problem is that the origin of life is not something that cannot be explained well by current science. In science classes, it's more important to recognize the limits of science than to give an answer to every question that'd ever been asked. If Darwinism is not the answer to the question of the origin of life, then so be it: there's no need to create an equally unsupported alternative called ID.
Oops, typo ... the above should read " ... not something that can be explained well ..."
Dawn Wessel's comment is absolutely wrong. There is huge conflict between Darwinism and bible. Bible says (1) life originated only 5000 years ago. (2) solar system is not heliocentric (remember Galileo) Due to this conflict science has pegged back 1000 years and many scientist lost their life. But today everyone knows the truth....
To H Tse - Let me give you 2 ways ID can be falsified. First of all Michael Behe makes a claim in his book 'Darwin's Black Box' that design is detectable in the bacterial flagellum (molecular machine). He argues that this motor requires all its parts to function (irreducibly complex). Therefore, according to Darwin, small incremental steps over time cannot account for this beautiful piece of biological machinery. All of its constituents have to be put together in an ordered way at a specific time. If some biologist comes up with a way to explain the development of this incredibly efficient and complex mechanical system, therefore the need for it being designed would be obliterated (FALSIFIED IN A NUTSHELL). However, the Darwinian model fails to do justice in its explanation for the development and evolution of this molecular machine.
Second way it can be falsifiable - Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richaards in their book 'The Priviledged Planet' claim that evidence for design for carbon-based life, is the fact that complex life forms like us are able due our location in our galaxy and ultimately the universe to make accurate scientific measurements and observations. If evidence is found that goes against the above statment - ID is falsified. Another example would be a perfect solar eclipse which they say improves the chances of habitability on a planet. If one were to find intelligent life on a planet with out something remately similar to our moon orbiting them, the design argument would fail and thus falsified.
Finally H Tse - I have given you 2 clear ways in which ID can be falsified from its aspects in biology to astronomy and cosmology. Hopefully they do not go off tangent. I agree with you that Darwinism nor ID cannot be fully proven. That is why science has theories and mathematics have theorems (proven theories). Theories should and always be open to scrutiny, for they can never be proven. They only provide the best model for explaining certain aspects in science. However, I agree with you Darwinism does not explain the origin of life. However, if you go through those falsifications I posted, and thus accept ID to be a legitimate scientific theory, one cannot rule out its possibility for being a scientific model to explain why certain biological systems do not fit and are incompatible with the Darwinian model. My view on the subject is that if it is a subject that is not entirely understood, all plausible and possible scientific views on the subject should be taught or none at all at high school and universities. What is the harm in teaching students (who should be critical thinkers) different scientific models. For instance in quantum physics, we are made aware and taught the different interpretations of the quantum world. However, ultimately we make a decision ourselves whether we subscribe to those views or not. As scientists we should always seek to find the best possible models and go where ever the evidence points towards and leads us to without any presuppositions.
(1) The flagellum being 'irreducibly complex' has already been falsified. Please read up Mark Pallen's 'Rough guide to Evolution' where he also summarizes his own work on this matter. In my opinion, the whole concept of 'irreducible complexity' is arguably unscientific, though let's just leave it for the time being. (2) Finding life on another planet does not falsify ID. The IDesigner can create another form of life on another planet and there can even be >1 IDesigner. Similarly, existence of extraterrestrial life does not prove neo-Darwinism.// The proper place where ID and evolution as explanations for the origin of life should be discussed is a philosophy class, and not the science classroom. We don't teach about the existence of God or the meaning of life in the science classroom too. This doesn't mean that God doesn't exist or life is meaningless (or the questions are unimportant), but because it's beyond the current ability of the scientific method to answer these questions. Why should we make an exception for the origin of life??
I agree with you to some extent that it should be taught in the philosophy department. However, I do believe science is a branch of philosophy. In fact it used to be called a philosophy. It is not only till recent times has its lost this association with it. However, the problem today, is that Darwinian evolution with all its fallacies is being taught in high schools and universities (atleast in the British system) and being taught as the only theory out there. Thus, students are left with a philosophical understanding of life being meaningless. I believe one of the main reasons students get drunk, smoke, take drugs, and have sex before marriage and end up with broken relationships, is they are taught that they are a random product of chance - nothing more. A mere collection of atoms which are no different to the atoms making up these letters. They look for the short thrills of life and never are able to find true contentment and purpose in their life. Thus, being an undergraduate student myself, I see this every day. I therefore believe present secular science is indoctrinating, deluding and ultimately endangering our society in a theory (NOT YET PROVEN TO BE FACT) that is not necessarily fully understood and correct.
John, regarding flagella, read this: Its already falsified. http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journal/v4/n10/full/nrmicro1493.html You still haven't explained how ID can be falsified, the only thing you've done is pointed at things we don't yet know about evolution, and say 'we have to keep the possibility open, just in case'. A falsification means that with that data, you say that your theory has to be rejected. So far, you haven't given a good example of that. The link you make between evolution and people taking drugs is actually very offending, I don't think that there is any correlation between atheism and drug/alcohol abuse or smoking. I also haven't seen any evidence that pre-marital sex leads to broken relationships. Why do you think that atheists/evolutionists have no morals?
John Beling writes "I believe one of the main reasons students get drunk, smoke, take drugs, and have sex before marriage and end up with broken relationships, is they are taught that they are a random product of chance - nothing more...." What John is arguing is that the "idea" of evolution is dangerous because it is destabilizing society, causing undergraduates to drink, do drugs, or engage in pre-marital sex. Even if this were true the purpose of scientific discourse isn't to determine which ideas are safe and which ideas are unsafe. The purpose of scientific inquiry is to determine which ideas are true. I tend to believe that exposure to the Darwinian framework would discourage somebody from doing cocaine and engaging in unprotected sex. But that's ultimately irrelevant. The only way for evolution to be judged is whether or not it withstands scrutiny and is consistent with the evidence.
Dear John Beling, I agree with you to some extent that Intelligent Design should be taught in the philosophy department. In fact it used to be called a philosophy. However, the problem today, is that Intelligent Design with all its fallacies is being taught in high schools and churches (at least in the American system). I believe one of the main reasons students abstain from pre-marital sex is that they are taught that they are designed not to have sex until they are married -- nothing more. Thus, students squander their years of peak physical condition masturbating in shame and trolling internet forums instead of having fulfilling sexual relationships with real people. They look to fulfill some abstract, preordained "design" of life and never are able to find true contentment in the moment. Thus, being an graduate student myself, I see this every day. I therefore believe present ecclesiastical "science" is indoctrinating, deluding and ultimately endangering our society in a theory (NOT YET PROVEN TO BE FACT) that is not necessarily fully understood and correct.
Arjen van Doorn, Humans are made up of atoms. Do atoms have morality? What is the density of hatred in the electron? Is there an atom for love? What?s the chemical composition for compassion. Are the basic building blocks of life are responsible for morality? Nonsense. If morals are immaterial entities that cannot be weighed or physically measured, then they can?t be explained in material terms by natural selection or genetics. Please tell if you can, why should anyone obey any biologically derived ?moral sentiment?? Why shouldn?t people murder, rape, and steal to get what they want if there is nothing beyond this world (moral relativism)? Therefore what is your justification for a belief in an innate absolute moral law? Likening morality to mathematics, I cannot subscribe to the view that the laws of mathematics evolved via some unguided random process. It is absolutely absurd. Mathematics like morality would have existed at the beginning of the universe whether we liked it or not!
Arjen van Doorn, you have just told me that ID has been falsified in one area (flagellum). Therefore, you must accept it as a legitimate scientific theory. However, I could also tell you that Darwinian macro evolution has been falsified by saying there has been not enough intermediate evidence in the fossil records between animal species. That does not mean we should stop looking for them or give up on the theory. The same is true for ID, for just because one irreducible complex biological machine has been discredited, it does not mean we should give up on the theory or the possibility of others of the like being found. Science is the search for causes: Intelligent or non intelligent (natural). We should be open and always look at the evidence and follow it wherever it leads to! That definitely does not mean, because we don?t understand it we say God did it and give in to religion. That is bad science. However, if there is evidence which points to something metaphysical we cannot rule it out!
Dear Arjen van Doorn, I do apologize if I offended you earlier. There probably is no correlation between atheists and broken relationships, drug addicts etc. The reason I made my earlier comment was because from what I see and understand is that if one is to be a true consistent atheist, I cannot see any meaningful purpose one would have in this life. However, it is not for me to judge or criticise anyone.
ID does not challenge evolution - change over time or universal common descent. It challenges the specifically Darwinian idea that life is the result of a purely random undirected process that mimics the power of a designing intelligence. The biologist Richard Dawkins says 'Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of design for a purpose'. ID of course takes the opposite view and goes ahead to say that it was designed. ID is not a critique of natural selection. ID is based on our knowledge not ignorance of the cause and effect structure of our world. For instance our knowledge suggests there is a cause that is sufficient to produce digital code. We know that that cause is intelligence from common sense. Bill Gates has said that DNA is like a software programme only much more complex than anything that has ever been written.
Given that evolution has already been proven, the scientifically interesting thing about this debate is the psycology of creationists. In some cases creationists are intelligent people, and exhibit high degrees of rationality in certain areas of their lives. They often firmly believe that their creationist convictions are entirely rational, and in certain cases are convinced that the position of scientific academies and journals world-wide are the result of a vast atheist conspiracy. An interesting explanation of this phenomenon was suggested by John S. Wilkins in his paper "Are creationists rational?". If I understand the paper correctly, Mr. Wilkins suggests that creationists are "boundedly rational". They are capable of being rational, but when it comes to their religious beliefs their mind subconsciously overrides their rational faculties without them realizing it. The reason that their mind does this is to protect what their mind sees as a fundmental building block of that individual's pysche. The subconscious mind effectively takes the decision that it is more important to this individual's wellbeing to maintain a belief that he is going to heaven than to be correct about the origin of mankind. I found this a very interesting and enlightening idea.