[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.

                          ____________________