NEJM: Intelligent Judging --- Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom

Posted 24 May 2006 by PvM

The New England Journal of Medicine has an excellent article on Intelligent Design titled Intelligent Judging --- Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom

Requiring public-school science teachers to teach specific religion-based alternatives to Darwin's theory of evolution is just as bad, in the words of political comedian Bill Maher, as requiring obstetricians to teach medical students the alternative theory that storks deliver babies

Teach the controversy I say... Storks rule... The article descibes the history of the anti-evolution/creationism movements, culminating in Judge Jones ruling.

Judge Jones summarized the expert testimony in more than 25 pages, concluding that it demonstrated to him that intelligent design is "an interesting theological argument" but is not science for many reasons: it invokes a supernatural cause; it relies on the same flawed arguments as creationism; its attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community; it has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community; it has not generated any peer-reviewed publications; and it has not been the subject of testing or research. The judge quoted from a report on creationism by the National Academy of Sciences as an authoritative and definitive source: "Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of sciences. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief."10

Until ID 'grows up', it is doomed to remain scientifically vacuous. But the cost of becoming scientifically relevant may be too high. Some people have objected to Judge Jones' ruling because of what is known as the 'demarcation problem'. But the demarcation problem merely affects the decision of what is science not what is not. In other words, while it may be hard to establish what is science, it is much easier to establish what is not science or in case of ID, what is scientifically vacuous.

28 Comments

steve s · 24 May 2006

By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in the early drafts is identical to the definition of ID [intelligent design]; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist) which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards.

Ouch. Thanks for playing, "Intelligent Designers".

Dan Hocson, FCD, BBDS · 24 May 2006

I'll be interested to see how my YEC/Creationist/ID colleagues respond to the article. Sadly, as has been well documented here before, being an MD does not mean that you have a grasp of scientific theory.

Kelly · 24 May 2006

Strange.. I think that Darwin's theory was broken so past.

Wheels · 25 May 2006

Obviously this is another example of those liberal medical journals putting a spin on things! They clearly don't understand Intelligent Design, otherwise they'd know it's not Creationism or religious at all. It's entirely scientific! When our grand theistic science/culture revolution comes, these people will be the first against the wall!

I feel dirty just typing that.

Bob O'H · 25 May 2006

Teach the controversy I say... Storks rule...
— PvM

Indeed, we even have data, e.g. Gabriel, K. R. and Odoroff, C. L. (1990) Biplots in biomedical research. Statistics in Medicine 9(5): 469-485. Look! In a proper peer reviewed journal! And I know there has been more data published: with a bit of digging about, we might be able to match the DI's list of published ID ~~research~~ papers. Bob

Parse · 25 May 2006

Storks rule...
— PvM

Lies! Everyone knows that babies come from the cabbage patch. I just picked a son from my garden yesterday!

stevaroni · 25 May 2006

Sigh... It's so disheartening that today, after 150 years of good science, we still have to have serious articles in serious professional journals that still have to point out that yes, we actually do have enough evidence about nature to make some firm statements. Evolution actually does happen. Things really are made of atoms. The sky really is blue.

Tim Hague · 25 May 2006

I think that Professor Stephen Jones in the UK may have been the first to espouse Stork Theory as having the same scientific merit as ID.

He gave a talk at the Royal Society a while back: http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=4400&tip=1

Popper's Ghost · 25 May 2006

I'll be interested to see how my YEC/Creationist/ID colleagues respond to the article. Sadly, as has been well documented here before, being an MD does not mean that you have a grasp of scientific theory.

a) But being a YEC/Creationist/ID colleague does? b) I guess it's a good thing that the author of the article isn't an MD. Instead of going out of your way to look like a moron, and waiting to hear the mischaracterizations and lies of your ideological brethren, how about actually reading the article and judging it on its intellectual merits?

Popper's Ghost · 25 May 2006

Strange.. I think that Darwin's theory was broken so past.

Let me guess, Kelly ... home schooled?

k.e. · 25 May 2006

er Popper on Dan Hocson, FCD =The Friends of Charles Darwin IIRC
perhaps your irony meter needs adjusting

Popper's Ghost · 25 May 2006

Alfred Russell Wallace, for example, who, simultaneously with Darwin, proposed the theory of natural selection as the engine of evolution, believed that the development of the human brain could be explained only by divine intervention.

Bully for him. Aristotle thought that the purpose of the brain was to cool the blood, but he too didn't know much about it.

Nobel laureate John C. Eccles, in his treatise on the evolution of the human brain, was unable to account for the unique individual self and concluded: "I am constrained to attribute the uniqueness of the Self or Soul to a supernatural creation . . . which is implanted into the fetus at some time between conception and birth."

We don't accept this sort of ad ignorantiam tripe in regard to evolution when theistic scientists reject it because it contradicts their religious ideology, nor should we accept it in regard to cognition and consciousness. Aside from deriving his views on the self from his religious ideology rather than from science, Eccles was not an expert in the field (his Nobel work was on motor neurons, not "self"), and a huge amount of research has been done since he wrote that. Annas writes as if consciousness is some impenetrable mystery -- much the way the vitalists and creationists refer to life and evolution. Annas writes "There is plenty of room for diverse opinions and beliefs on these subjects" -- well, yes, but there's no room in science for the "goddidit" views expressed by Wallace and Eccles. The self is not beyond the scope of science, nor is it beyond its reach.

Popper's Ghost · 25 May 2006

er Popper on Dan Hocson, FCD =The Friends of Charles Darwin IIRC

Oops. Well, pretend my comments were directed to a creationist dufus, rather than a non-creationist non-dufus.

perhaps your irony meter needs adjusting

Perhaps the word "irony" is often applied to things that aren't.

k.e. · 25 May 2006

PG maybe my irony meter is too finely tuned. Dans comment seemed to be a dig at his creo friends at first glance. Maybe his friends are MD's:)
Then his statement would make perfect sense to me ...no irony intended.

Ron Okimoto · 25 May 2006

Scientific Storkism has been kicking around talk.origins for, probably, over a decade. I guess today it would be called intelligent storkism or possibly the stork controversy for creationists that are just coming up to speed with the latests creationist scam.

bigdumbchimp · 25 May 2006

I pilfered Scientific Storkism a month or so back from here.

It seam quite logical to me, at least compared to ID or creationism.

Scientific Storkism

bigdumbchimp · 25 May 2006

grrrr

the check spelling button is there for a reason

Middle Professor · 25 May 2006

Why do people continue to cite Gould as if he solved the religion-science incompatibility controversy (as did the NEJM article)? Gould found that science is compatible only with a kind of religion that he invented and that no one practices.

I can do that with natural selection and ID. For example, no one would claim a watch is intelligent but our "intelligence" is no different than that of a watch, apparent intelligence is merely an emergent property of a completely deterministic system. Natural selection is the same. Its a system that is completely deterministic at a reductionist level but apparent intelligent design emerges at a higher level. Voila - intelligent design and natural selection are compatible and natural selection is the intelligent designer.

But just as Gould's definition of religion is not satisfactory to real people who are religious, this definition of intelligent design will not be satisfactory to actual people who care about intellilgent design. So in the end, nothing is solved.

pough · 25 May 2006

Strange.. I think that Darwin's theory was broken so past.
— Popper's Ghost
Let me guess, Kelly ... home schooled?

Looks like ESL to me.

Anton Mates · 25 May 2006

Why do people continue to cite Gould as if he solved the religion-science incompatibility controversy (as did the NEJM article)? Gould found that science is compatible only with a kind of religion that he invented and that no one practices.
— Middle Professor

I think plenty of people approach their religion from a Gouldish perspective. It's just that anyone who finds a conflict between science and their religion is, necessarily, not one of those people, and telling them they'd resolve the conflict if they'd just exchange their religion for a better one is...kind of counterproductive.

normdoering · 25 May 2006

Popper's Ghost wrote:

Strange.. I think that Darwin's theory was broken so past.

Let me guess, Kelly ... home schooled? Maybe not: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/25/education/25exam.html

Dan Hocson, FCD, BBDS · 25 May 2006

Okay, just to clarify:

1) I am an MD
2) I do have a keen grasp of science, the scientific method and evolutionary theory.
3) ID ain't in the same ballpark as actual science.
4) I have MD colleagues who think that ID is the cat's pajamas.
5) I find #4 to be both sad and funny
6) In future posts, I shall endeavor to make clearer my position.

FCD= Friend of Charles Darwin
BBDS= Banned by Dave Scot

k.e. · 25 May 2006

hahahahaha
Dan
AISFYS2BLT=As I Suspected for your statement to be logically true

Shalini · 25 May 2006

[Let me guess, Kelly ... home schooled?]

Or not schooled at all?

Shalini · 25 May 2006

[BBDS= Banned by Dave Scot]

I was asked to leave Uncommonly Dense by D_mbski. Anyone got a nice acronym for that?

Dan Hocson · 25 May 2006

Shalini:

BBWAD (Banned By William A. Dembski) has a nice ring to it ;)

Albion · 25 May 2006

By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in the early drafts is identical to the definition of ID [intelligent design]; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist) which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards.

...to say nothing of cdesign proponentsists.

Shalini, BBWAD · 26 May 2006

[BBWAD (Banned By William A. Dembski) has a nice ring to it ;)]

Thanks, Dan!