Burden of proof

September 26, 2005

With a trial about to begin in Dover, Pa., over the use of intelligent-design creationism in public school science classes, the latest skirmish in this extremely annoying culture war is about to get underway. Some are even calling this Scopes II.

I’ve already written about as long a piece on the subject as I could get away with, so I won’t bother restating all the reasons ID is absurd (though some friends of mine have put together a helpful FAQ for anyone who needs a refresher). Like Ezra, however, I find it breathtaking to see the proponents of this nonsense give up on reasonable standards of evidence.

…Alan Leshner, chief executive of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Intelligent Design offers nothing in the way of testable predictions.

“Just because they call it a theory doesn’t make it a scientific theory,” Leshner said. “The concept of an intelligent designer is not a scientifically testable assertion.”

Asked to provide examples of non-obvious, testable predictions made by the theory of Intelligent Design, John West, an associate director of the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based ID think tank, offered one: In 1998, he said, an ID theorist, reckoning that an intelligent designer would not fill animals’ genomes with DNA that had no use, predicted that much of the “junk” DNA in animals’ genomes — long seen as the detritus of evolutionary processes — will someday be found to have a function.

(In fact, some “junk” DNA has indeed been found to be functional in recent years, though more than 90 percent of human DNA still appears to be the flotsam of biological history.) In any case, West said, it is up to Darwinists to prove ID wrong.

First, kudos to the Washington Post for juxtaposing West’s claim with the truth. Second, ID has already been proven wrong; it’s called modern biology and it rejected Paley-esque irreducible complexity over a century ago. And third, since when is it up to the reality-based community to prove pseudo-science wrong?

The Discovery Institute is a “think tank.” By any reasonable definition, it’s supposed to provide research and evidence that bolsters its ideas. These guys say intelligent-design creationism is not only accurate, it belongs alongside real science in public schools. Any proof? No. Any peer-reviewed research? No. And yet, the burden is on the scientific community to disprove their ideas? Please.

They really do want to turn America into a third world country, don’t they?

These ID freaks have to know that teaching our kids to be stupid and filling their heads with idiocy will make them unable to compete for jobs in an increasingly competitive world. I used to think that the republicans just wanted to roll the clock back to the Robber Baron era. Now I’m beginning to think they’ve set their sights on Feudalism.

Serf’s up, everyone!

  • Here we go again… the bible thumpers are going to try and pass of ID as a scientific “theory” even though it’s just a sad attempt to repackage creationism.
    I like the old saying “Don’t pray in my school and I won’t think in you’re church!” Let’s try and keep christian dogma out of the school system, because our country is dumb enough already.

  • Relating a little personal experience. In a summer college communications class, I had an encounter with 2 people devoted to the creation theory. I don’t care about their beliefs or opinions. At one point we got into an argument about gay rights and gay marriage. And during a presentation for a persuasive speech, I had to sit through ‘the reasons evolution aren’t true and the world is about ten thousand years old’. I was embarrassed for them.

    But more importantly I found that I could not take them seriously about anything, intellectually. When it is so easy to turn metamorphic rock into igneous rock and throw away the fossil record, what else is it so easy to debase and pervert?

    Would you want your wife/husband/son/daughter/mother/father/lover operated on by someone who only studied the Bible in medical school?

  • Actually I saw a headline in the current issue of Skeptic magazine that Dembski now has one article in a peer-reviewed journal, but I haven’t had a chance to read the Skeptic article about it yet. Anyone know more on this?

  • I blogged about this. The line I especially liked (though I wrote it):

    There is no direct evidence in favor of ID: proponents simply select some adaptation in a living creature and say, “Can you imagine how that could have evolved from natural selection on random mutations? No? Neither can I. That proves that it couldn’t have. See, Billy? Isn’t science easy?”

  • The ID-er, in his comments, demonstrates that he doesn’t even know how scientific inquiry and proof works. The claimant always has the burden of proof for his claims. The disbeliever never has the burden of proof that the claim is false. Any ID-er who says that detractors must prove ID to be false gives away his ignorance.

  • Along the lines of what LeisureGuy is saying, forget the evidence, what I want to see is some content to the “theory”. How is it any more than just the one line of theological rhetoric LeisureGuy just provided? Is there any more substance to it at all?

  • I am a science prof in CA.

    I think the “peer reviewed paper” is one by DD Axe, in J. Mol. Biol. vol. 341, p. 1295-1315 (2004). This paper argues that you must have very tight `design’ requirements to get well folded proteins, a point not disputed by mainstream biologists/chemists/physicists (this goes under the heading of Leventhal’s paradox and the response to it) who acknowledge that in evolution the space of useful proteins (peptide polymers which fold to useful forms) was thoroughly scanned and random
    peptides just won’t generally do. However, Dembski cites this as evidence of peer reviewed support for ID which even Axe will not claim. It did get lumped in with ID in an article by K. Chiang in the NY Times earlier this year (here is a copy).

    I don’t think there is a peer reviewed basis for ID.

    I got a survey with questions from an undergrad at another state university in CA. He claimed to be doing it for a class, but I suspect that they are trying to root out ID opponents. When I asked back about the class, and where the results would be used I got no response whatsoever.

  • #6 Don: “The claimant always has the burden of proof for his claims. The disbeliever never has the burden of proof that the claim is false.”

    Right on.

    Don again: “Any ID-er who says that detractors must prove ID to be false gives away his ignorance.”

    Speaking of ignorant, ID-ers are not using the brains God gave them.

    And the “Discovery Institute” is certainly a misnomer. Those folks don’t seem to be interested in actually discovering (thru science) what hasn’t yet been explained, simply saying whatever it is is too complex so we’ll just say an intelligent being created it that way. How ridiculous.

  • Come on folks – let’s get ‘Trumanesque’ and speak plainly. These folks are part of a continuum of bigotry and easy assumptions. They would be taken down in a heartbeat by a ‘Stupid Design Club’ in any High School. Why do they want to get ID into High Schools? – because they assume there are minds as malleable to Hierarchy as were theirs! Duh…. There are some, but there are far more drama queens ready to trot out Appendix Mascots for ‘Stupid Design’, there are far more geeky biology lovers ready to point out the absolute brilliance of having a blind spot, young women ready to cheerlead for Male nipples, and young sensualists ready to cry foul over the juxtaposition of the entertainment center and plumbing. Let’s get all our kids to start ‘Stupid Design Clubs’ – Equal Time for Stupid Design!!

    • Comments are closed.