One word in the opening paragraph of Adrian Ng's op-ed sums up his highly misleading piece: "Apparently, in the field of astrophysics, there is a resurgence of religious interest" ("New Conclusions About Origins," Aug. 15).
"Apparently," Ng continues, "A growing number of scientists have called certain aspects of macroevolution into question. ... Cell and molecular biologists now tell us that an extraordinary level of information exists even in the simplest life forms.
This leads many of them to question whether it is still reasonable to believe that random chance has produced such remarkable amounts of informational complexity and intricacy they consider 'design' and 'intelligence' as reasonable language with which to describe life and potential additions to their paradigm."
What? Sure, there are some scientists of faith out there who, on their own time, have called certain aspects of macroevolution into question. Dr. Michael Behe, who brought his amusing but groundless arguments in favor of intelligent design to Dartmouth recently, is one of them.
But, more importantly, there has not been a single study espousing or supporting intelligent design to appear in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Well, there was one, in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, but the journal quickly retracted it in embarrassment after it realized the study was not properly scrutinized and failed to meet the standards of legitimate science.
Thus, when Ng asks about intelligent design, "are these findings actually valid? Are these findings the fruits of vigorous and honest scientific work?" the answer is, then, either "no" or simply "not applicable." There have been no findings supporting the theory behind intelligent design, which is actually a metaphysical conjecture that cannot be tested. Intelligent design does not qualify as science, period.
Moreover, do not be fooled by Ng's vaguely ecumenical language when he says, "Adding 'design' and 'intelligence' to our paradigm does not make us theists (or deists). It simply implies that we no longer find random chance an intellectually satisfying paradigm through which we understand life and the universe.
This month's New Republic does a thorough job exposing what's inside the Trojan horse of intelligent design: Christian creationism. In fact, "Scientific Creationism," the textbook in which the contemporary intelligent design position was first laid out, came in two versions for different audiences: one purged of all explicit mention of God, and one complete with a long appendix of textual references to specific Biblical verses. The think tank responsible for developing intelligent design "theory," the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, says in its own mission statement that it "seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies."
At a conference called "Reclaiming America for Christ," the leader of the intelligent design movement, Phillip Johnson, plainly explained, "The objective is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to the truth of the Bible and then the question of sin and finally introduced to Jesus."
Intelligent design is a thinly veiled attempt by Christian fundamentalists to undercut science and replace it with creationism. Although Ng claims that "science is not at stake here," it is foolish to ignore the implications of adopting a new paradigm of evolution for the field of science in general. In any major societal shift, arguments and opinions must be both fully stated and comprehensible. When proponents of intelligent design promote their beliefs in public, they almost invariably cloak them in the kind of baseless generalizations, omissions, half-truths, and distortions that Adrian Ng's op-ed contains.
