ARTICLES

The World as Mousetrap

Intelligent Design Conference at University of San Francisco

By Joe Marti

"Public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin's theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured, most recently by spokespersons for PBS's Evolution series, that 'all known scientific evidence supports [Darwin's] evolution' as does 'virtually every reputable scientist in the world.'"

The above statement is printed below the title, "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism," and above a list of approximately 150 names of "reputable scientists" from all over the world. Among these are scientists from major universities, Nobel prize nominees, zoologists, and medical researchers. They have assembled in order to create an atmosphere in the scientific community where dissent from Darwinism is not immediately dismissed as medieval ignorance but, rather, as a well reasoned and researched scientific position that distances itself from the image of creationism as a hallmark of the frothing-at-the-mouth, picket-sign-carrying fundamentalist Christian. The group, which calls itself the Discovery Institute, has as its credo, "we are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Members of the group, sponsored by the University of San Francisco's Jesuit Foundation and the IDEA Center of San Diego, assembled in the McLaren Center on the USF campus on September 27 and 28 to host the IDEA (Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness) Conference, the theme of which was, "a scientific and metaphysical exploration of our origins." Noted speakers included Dr. Michael Behe, a research biochemist at Lehigh University and author of Darwin's Black Box, a widely read book refuting Darwin's theory. The book gained the intelligent design idea a wider acceptance as a serious scientific claim whose underpinnings had more to do with empirical evidence than with faith alone.

As Doctor Edward Peltzer, senior researcher at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, said, "naturalism (the belief that there is no intelligent design in the universe) imposes artificial limits on science." He explained that ruling out intelligent design is not good science, and gave as an example the work of forensic scientists. He said, "forensic scientists determine if the cause of death was natural, accidental, or intentional." To rely on only the natural, according to Peltzer, is to ignore the possibility that extraordinary or supernatural causes may be at work in the business of creation. In effect, he said, it is the living example of what Francis Bacon meant when he said, "a little science estranges man from God. A lot of science brings him back."

Although the conference featured about a dozen well-versed intelligent design advocates, it was clear that the draw of the conference was Behe, a person whose best-selling book on Darwinism has been one of the most discussed and argued books regarding the question of evolution versus intelligent design or creationism. In the beginning of his talk, Behe dived right into some of the more controversial and misunderstood aspects of intelligent design: the role of religion.

In doing so, Behe quoted heavily from the 1986 book by Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall. First, Behe quoted from evolutionist Roger Dawkins' book, The Blind Watchmaker, that stated that the universe "we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pointless indifference." Behe contrasted this with Ratzinger's observation that "microbiology and biochemistry have brought revolutionary insights here.They have brought us to the awareness that an organism and a machine have many points in common.Their functioning presupposes a precisely thought-through and therefore reasonable design." Behe then explained that in claiming to believe in intelligent design, one does not presuppose that evolution is absolutely flawed. As he put it, "a claim of intelligent design is not that natural selection doesn't explain anything; it is that natural selection doesn't explain everything."

Behe's main argument for intelligent design is something he terms "irreducible complexity." He explained, "by [this] I mean a single system which is necessarily composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

Behe's most famous example of this is his comparison of a mousetrap to the tendency for blood to clot. Both, says Behe, are systems that would completely fail in their designed purpose should one element or part be missing. Blood must be able to flow freely throughout the body without clotting. Likewise, if a cut occurs the blood must be able to clot in that specific area. Like the blood, a mouse trap has no superfluous elements in its design. Nothing can be missing in its fabrication, and nothing can make it work better than it does already.

Behe uses this approach to make his point that we can find in nature the same attributes of design that we can in something manufactured. Fending off critics that analyze his work as primarily the writings of a deist, Behe said, "you know design by observing parts working together. That's not necessarily religious."

About 200 people attended the event, among them students, teachers, and critics. One of them, Bob Shreve, is a Protestant who is the director of child evangelism in Contra Costa County. He praised the conference and Behe, adding that he hopes for more room at the scientific table for intelligent design promoters. "If I'm going to say evolution is the only possible explanation for our existence, I'm pre-judging and I'm not practicing science," said Shreve. He continued, "if I do that, I'm claiming a miracle to explain a phenomenon. That's not science."

Other attendees had similar jabs to make at strict evolutionists. One high school biology teacher, who wished not to be named, said that evolutionists have slammed the door on discussion of any possible source of life other than evolution. "Essentially, they've corrupted science," he said. "By not allowing a free discussion to further our understanding of nature and creation, they've corrupted the nature of science. That's back to the dark ages." He continued, "the problem is that the burden of proof has been shifted from the ones proposing a theory (evolutionists) to the ones refuting it (intelligent design advocates.) Where else in science are the tables turned like that?"

TOP