[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 74 (Wednesday, June 14, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H4480-H4482]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT A SCIENCE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, on June 1, I received a letter that was
written by seven members of the biology department and one professor of
psychology from Baylor University in response to my co-hosting a recent
conference on intelligent design, the theory that an intelligent agency
can be
[[Page H4481]]
detected in nature, sponsored by the Discovery Institute.
The professors denounced intelligent design as pseudo science and
advocated what is bluntly called the materialistic approach to science.
Mr. Speaker, I am appalled that any university seeking to discover
truth, yet alone a university that is a Baptist Christian school, could
make the kinds of statements that are contained in this letter. Is
there position on teaching about materialistic science so weak that it
cannot withstand scrutiny and debate?
Intelligent design theory is upheld by the same kind of data and
analysis as any other theory to determine whether an event is caused by
natural or intelligent causes; just as a detective relies on evidence
to decide whether a death was natural or murder, and an insurance
company relies on evidence to decide whether a fire is an accident or
arson. A scientist looking at, say, the structure of a DNA molecule
goes through exactly the same reasoning to decide whether the DNA code
is the result of natural causes or an intelligent agent.
Today, qualified scientists are reaching the conclusion that design
theory makes better sense of the data. Influential new books are coming
out by scientists like molecular biologist Behe, Darwin's Black Box,
the Free Press, and mathematician William Dembski, the Design
Interference, Cambridge University Press, which point out the problems
with Darwinian evolution and highlight evidence for intelligent design
in the university.
The tone of the letter I received seems to suggest that my
congressional colleagues and I were unsuspecting honorary co-hosts in a
conference on intelligent design. That is not the case. My good friend,
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady), chairman of the House
Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution has considered holding a
congressional hearing on the bias and viewpoint discrimination in
science and science education. Ideological bias has no place in science
and many of us in Congress do not want the government to be party to
it.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) approached several people,
including the Discovery Institute, about plans for such a hearing. The
people at Discovery suggested that instead we allow them merely to put
on a modest informational briefing on intelligent design. That is
exactly what happened, and we regarded the result as very valuable.
Nevertheless, many of us continue to be concerned about the
unreasoning viewpoint discrimination in science. This letter dismisses
those who do not share the philosophy of science favored by the authors
as frauds. It is ironic, however, that the authors do not ever actually
get around to answering the substantive arguments put forward by people
at the Discovery Institute. The authors support a philosophy of science
they call materialistic science. The key phrase in the letter is that
we cannot consider God's role in the natural phenomenon we observe. Yet
this assumption is merely asserted without any argument.
How can the authors of this letter be so confident that God plays no
role in the observable world? Once we acknowledge that God exists, as
these professors presumably do since they teach as a Christian
university, there is no logical way to rule out the possibility that
God may actually do something within the universe He created.
In addition, the philosophy of science the authors talk about is just
that, a philosophy. It is not itself science, even according to the
definition of science put forward by the authors themselves. They
state, for example, that all observations must be explained through
empirical observations. I am not sure what that means but I do know
this: This statement itself is not verifiable by observation or by
methods of scientific inquiry. It is rather a philosophical statement.
If they prefer it to the alternative that they suppose it advanced by
the Discovery Institute folks, then the preference itself cannot be
based on science. It is a difference of philosophy, but they are
biologists not philosophers. They have no special authority in
philosophy, even the philosophy of science.
Even more egregiously, they say that God cannot be proved or
disproved. Now there is a philosophical statement for you. Of course
many philosophers agree with it, but there are philosophers of stature
who disagree with it, too. Why should the philosophical viewpoint of a
group of biologists enjoy privileged status?
And then there was Darwinism. This letter treats Darwinism as a
straightforwardly scientific position despite the criticism advanced by
many responsible, informed people that Darwinism itself rests not on
demonstrable facts but rather on controversial philosophical premises.
In other words, serious people make a case against Darwinism, precisely
the case that Baylor's biologists themselves are trying to make against
intelligent design.
Yet the Baylor biologists simply ignore these criticisms. One senses
here not a defense of science but rather an effort to protect, by
political means, a privileged philosophical viewpoint against a serious
challenge.
In digging into this matter further, it turns out that an
international conference related to this topic, the Nature of Nature,
was held recently at Baylor University. It was hosted by the Polanyi
Center at Baylor and sponsored by the Discovery Institute and the John
Templeton Foundation. A number of world-class scientists participated
in the event, and contrary to the assertions made in this letter,
advocates of intelligent design, as well as materialism, presented
their ideas publicly. The authors of this letter have been part of an
intense effort to close down that center, which was founded in part to
explore these issues.
I would like to insert the rest of this statement in the Record, as
well as the letter from the professors at Baylor University.
I would like to reference the words of the Israeli statesman, Shimon
Peres: He said, ``Science and lies cannot coexist. You don't have a
scientific lie, and you cannot lie scienifically. Science is basically
the search of truth--known, unknown, discovered, undiscovered--and a
system that does not permit the search for truth cannot be a scientific
system. Then again, science must operate in freedom. You cannot have
free research in a society that doesn't enjoy freedom. . . . So in a
strange way, science carries with it a color of transparency, of
openness, which is the beginning of democracy . . .''
Dr. Bruce Alberts, President of the National Academy of Sciences made
a recent speech where he said ``Scientists, as practitioners, teach
important values. These include honesty, an eagerness for new ideas,
the sharing of knowledge for public benefit, and a respect for evidence
that requires verification by others. These ``behaviors of science''
make science a catalyst for democracy. Science and democracy promote
similar freedoms. Science and democracy accommodate, and are
strengthened by, dissent. Science's requirement of proof resembles
democracy's system of justice. Democracy is buttressed by science's
values. And science is nurtured by democracy's principles.''
There seems to be a tension between science as democratic, welcoming
new ideas and dissent--and science as a lobby group, seeking to impose
its viewpoint upon others. As the Congress, it might be wise for us to
question whether the legitimate authority of science over scientific
matters is being misused by persons who wish to identify science with a
philosophy they prefer. Does the scientific community really welcome
new ideas and dissent, or does it merely pay lip service to them while
imposing a materialist orthodoxy?
Only a small percentage of Americans think the universe and life can
be explained adequately in purely materialistic terms. Even fewer think
real debate on the issue ought to be publicly suppressed.
I ask my colleagues to join with me in putting aside unfounded fears
to explore the evidence and truthfulness of the theories that are being
presented by those on both sides of this debate.
I want to thank Philip Johnson of the University of California at
Berkeley. Robert * * * of Princeton University, and others is drafting
this response.
Baylor University,
June 1, 2000.
Dear Congressman Souder, We became aware of a meeting on
May 10, 2000 that you and other legislators attended with
members of the Discovery Institute from their website.
According to the website, the main topics of the meeting
involved the scientific case for design, the influence of the
Darwinian and materialistic worldview on public policy, and
how intelligent design will affect education. As citizens
concerned with science education, we wish to give you the
[[Page H4482]]
perspective of mainstream scientists and science teachers.
intelligent design is not science
It is an old philosophical argument that has been dressed
up as science. We and other mainstream scientists refer to it
as intelligent design creationism. Some have referred to it
as `creeping creationism' due to the methods used by its
proponents to sneak creation science into the classroom. The
hypothesis of intelligent design is that living creatures are
too complex to have arisen by random chance alone. However,
we have yet to see any scientific, empirical data to support
this hypothesis. Some of the proponents use statistics to
show the improbability that living creatures have arisen by
random chance, but this does not say that living things could
not have arisen through such means. The members of the
Discovery Institute stress that the idea of design is
entirely empirical. If this is true, then their data should
be presented to the scientific community. If mainstream
scientists deem the data as evidence for design, then your
office will be flooded with messages from professional
scientists asking for more funding for design research.
However, as the supporters of intelligent design have never
openly presented their data, we have to conclude that either
there is none or that it does not provide evidence for
design.
the proponents of intelligent design do not operate as legitimate
scientists
In science, all research must go through some sort of peer
review. A scientist requests funds from various agencies,
such as the National Science Foundation (NSF), which requires
the scientists to give a detailed explanation of the research
to be conducted. After conducting the research, the scientist
then publishes or presents his/her findings in peer reviewed,
scientific journals or at meetings sponsored by scientific
organizations. In this way, other scientists can critically
study the research, how it was conducted, and if its
conclusions are correct. Proponents of intelligent design do
none of this. Their funding comes from think tanks such as
the Discovery Institute which have their own agenda. They do
not publish in scientific journals nor present their ideas at
meetings sponsored by scientific organizations. Rather, they
publish books for the general public which go through no sort
of review process except by editors at publishing companies
who are often concerned more with the financial gains and
less of the scientific merit of the book.
intelligent design does not belong in the science classroom.
Because intelligent design has no scientific, empirical
data to support it, we see no reason why it should be allowed
into the science classroom. The proponents of intelligent
design would say that they should have equal time in the
classroom as a competing theory against Darwinism. However,
in science, a theory isn't given equal time, it earns equal
time. Ideas should be allowed into the science classroom only
when they have amassed so much empirical evidence as to gain
the support of the scientific community. Intelligent design
has not risen to this level.
intelligent design could have a serious negative impact on science
education and research.
Much of the proposed research from intelligent design deals
mainly with understanding the personality and limits of the
designer. Within the intelligent design paradigm, a possible
answer to any scientific question is ``That's how the
designer wanted it''. This does not answer anything at all.
How are science teachers to inspire curiosity into the
natural world when the answer to every question is `That's
just how it is', Also, we fear that future school board
administrators would cut funds for science education because
the role of science will have shifted from an exploration of
the natural world to an exploration into the mind of a
supposed designer. This could also have a negative impact on
scientific research. Future Congresses with the need to
balance budgets may cut funding to the National Science
Foundation, Center for Disease Control, or National Institute
for Health for the same reason as the school board
administrator.
the members of the discovery center are misrepresenting materialistic
science.
The current philosophy of science states that all
observations must be explained through empirical
observations. Materialistic science does not say that there
is no God. Rather, it says that God, due to His supernatural
and divine nature, cannot be proved or disproved, thus we
cannot consider His role in the natural phenomena we observe.
Therefore, the existence of God is not a question within the
realm of science. Many scientists have a strong belief in a
divine God and do not see any conflict between this belief
and their work as scientists.
materialistic science has greatly increased the american people's
quality of life.
Considering that materialistic science has been the
predominant paradigm of science for about 150 years, let us
look at life in America before and after the 1850's. First,
all races were certainly not considered as equals. Women were
considered inferior to men in every way. Also, the number of
cause of death in women was giving birth. The infant
mortality rate was equal to any Third World nation today.
People died of diseases such as polio, small pox, and
influenza. Mentally ill people wee locked up in institutions
that resembled the horrors of the Inquisitions. The average
life expectancy for people born in the 1850's was in the
early sixties. Since the advent of materialistic science we
have shown that all the races are much more alike than they
are different. Medical health for women has improved to the
point that couples rarely worry if the woman and/or child
will die during birth. Also, women have become more empowered
than any other time in human history. Diseases such as polio
and small pox have essentially been wiped out in America.
Also, due to improved sanitation and health regulations,
typhoid, cholera, and malaria, are unheard of in America
today. Mental illness is seen as a treatable, if not
curable, disease. Children born in the 1990's could expect
to live to be ninety years old.
The proponents of intelligent design are making an emotional appeal and
not a scientific argument.
The proponents of intelligent design are trying to use
meetings such as the one that you attended to make an
emotional plea to the general public about the ills that face
our society. They would have us believe that all of our
problems in society can be blamed on Darwinism. As a U.S.
Legislator, we are certain you are aware of the many
problems, great and small, facing America. As any concerned
citizen, we watch the news and wonder why is there violence
in the schools, why does racism and intolerance persist, and
why can't the greatest nation in the world feed and house all
of its people? The answer to these questions is neither
Darwinian evolution nor materialistic science. Rather
materialistic science could be the cure for many of society's
problems.
We thank you in advance for considering the above
information and for seeking more complete information
regarding this important issue affecting the congressional
debate regarding science education programs in this country.
Sincerely,
Cliff Hamrick, Biology Department, Baylor University.
Robert Baldridge, Professor of Biology, Baylor
University.
Richard Duhrkopf, Associate Professor of Biology, Baylor
University.
Lewis Barker, Professor of Psychology & Neuroscience,
Baylor University.
Wendy Sera, Assistant Professor of Biology, Baylor
University.
Darrell Vodopich, Associate Professor of Biology, Baylor
University.
Sharon Conry, Biology Department, Baylor University.
Cathleen Early, Biology Department, Baylor University.
____________________