React Online: Questions That Won't Go Away: Darwin and Intelligent Design, Winter 2005-06, Notre Dame Magazine Online

Everytime I read an article posting evolution vs. intelligent design (Winter, '05-'06), I always think of God and how much He/She (a topic for another discussion) must be laughing at how we humans try to make neat, little boxes of so many things.

I teach in the sociology departments of two colleges, and I have noticed how so many scientists and quasi-scientists attempt to cookie-cutter their theories while giving, at best, only a passing consideration to other opinions/theories on the same topic. It's as though everything must be black and white with no consideration for the usually very big gray area(s).

Here's the way I like to look at this issue. A long, long . . . time ago, and moments (seconds, minutes, hours . . . again, a topic for another discussion) before the Big Bang/Creation, God put into place a set of rules (let's call them Laws of Nature) that would cover all growth, change, mutation, permutation, etc, etc . . . that might occur on this earth, and then, in His/Her magnificent wisdom shouted GO! What a sight that must have been.

I too have given my scenario a name: Intelligent Evolution.

In the article, Michael Behe is quoted as saying "Evolution . . . looks like a setup job." And, why not? For God was, is, and ever shall be the uncaused cause of all causes.

Guy J. Bentivenga, '57
Frankfort, Illinois

My congratulations to John Monczunski for the superb piece on evolution and intelligent design. I have read a number of books on the subject, but was never able to quite put it all together in my mind until I read this piece. This article reduces the complex arguments to their essence.

Living near Dover, Pa. there has been much in the news on this subject and many letters to the editorial page of our local paper. As a believer in evolution, although agreeing with opponents that there are some problems with the "theory", I had noticed that the local letters opposing evolution had a distinctive non-science, literal biblical slant. I finally realized that the loud opposition to evolution from some, including the former school board in Dover (they were voted out in the November '05 election) is not motivated by a desire for scientific accuracy but a frantic attempt to defend their literal belief in the events of the Bible.

Mr. Monczunski, thank you for a superb review of an incredibly complex issue.

Jonathan B. Tocks, MD, '69
Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania

A recent National Geographic (Nov. '04) featured an article titled "Is Darwin Wrong?" suggesting that if Darwinian Theory is not wrong it must be right. The fact is it is neither all right nor all wrong -- it is, like science itself, incomplete.

As Nobel Laurate physicist Charles Townes observed: "Nothing in science is absolutely proved." That science is inherently limited is the salient fact that must be recognized, if science is to remain science and not ideology.

Kenneth A. Stier Jr.
Great Neck, New York

The timing of Judge John E. Jones ruling on the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case could hardly have been worse for John Monczunski's article, "Questions That Won't Go Away" (Winter 2005-06). It is too bad there wasn't time for the author to add even a short statement addressing the decision, since a significant portion of the article is now outdated.

The philosophical and theological implications of creationism/ID vs. "evolution" will continue to be debated, but the information summarized in the judge's ruling (http://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/kitzmiller_decision_20051220.pdf) shows that in the scientific area, including what should be taught in science class, the debate is over.

Contrary to the title of the article, questions on the science have in fact gone away.

Frank May '65
East Nassau, New York

Recently an ND alum passed along a copy of the Winter '05-'06 issue of the Notre Dame Magazine, a read I enjoyed, even tho a graduate from -- ahem! -- the University of Southern California. Especially intriguing was John Monczunski's "Questions That Won't Go Away," dealing with Intelligent Design. Two or three questions came to mind when reading it. First, do "scientists" want to neatly exclude hose outside their fields from talking about their specialties, hence rigidly draw the parameters? Oddly, scientists do not hesitate to speak publicly on political, linguistic, or religious topics, yet they rule out as unfair those from outside their fields reflecting on "science." Is there some insecurity, even duplicity, here?

Furthermore, if the history of science tells us anything, it surely reveals that pioneers in chemistry, physics and astronomy (to name three disciplines) dared to allow their nonscientific predilections to spill over into their theory and experimental work. Must we scold them for this? Moreover, the claim of Notre Dame's Philip Sloan that any pro-ID claim can be easily countered by an equally valid Darwinian explanation seems a bit of a stretch. Indeed, do we have here a philosopher speaking about science?

My point is that in a classroom/laboratory environment why forbid teachers/professors even noting that on some issues, "The scientific method does not speak to this question. Clearly something else is at work here. Maybe we'll know more about that at some point down the road." Would that not suggest some humility by and logical consistency in scientists?

Finally, R. Joe Brandon's proffering of 8,000 signatures of scientists who support Darwinianism is patently flawed as any significant proof of Darwinianism, unless we choose to believe that truth is verified by numbers. If one surveyed 10,000 imams in the Muslim world -- individuals who know well their religion -- and asked them about the West, and if 8,000 signed a statement declaring that it is the Great Satan and deserves total destruction, does that mean that their statements are true? Apparently Mr. Brandon would say yes. Most thinking people would respond, "It ain't necessarily so."

Robert W. Smith (AB, USC, 1950)

Catholics who care about the future of religious freedom in America would do well to read the text of federal judge John E. Jones III's ruling in the Dover intelligent design case. In addition to ruling that ID is nothing more than sham science, Judge Jones found that members of the Dover school board had "time and again lie(d) to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the I.D. policy.'' That "real purpose" is to force public schools to advance a "particular version of Christianity," one based on a literal interpretation of Scripture.

John Monczunski's glib conclusion - that Catholics are free to believe in ID or not, since neither ID nor evolution are dogmas of faith - misses the point entirely. ID advocates are attempting to impose fundamentalist Christian beliefs on American public education and, ultimately, on American public life. Given the historical animosity of fundamentalist Christian sects toward the Church, Catholics can ill afford to watch from the sidelines while the wall between church and state is steadily chipped away.

Mark Sloan MD, '75
Santa Rosa, California

You do a great job though I read very very few of the articles therein; sometimes their summaries or previews (or sidebars).*

What I wanted to point out is that (and I am not absolutely certain since it may be 3rd-5th hand or so) but in the Winter issue, 2005-06 on page 48 Darwin is quoted.

I have no quarrel with the quote but I believe he wrote The Origin of Species, not "...the species."** You can check this.

The the might have been inserted later by someone who objected to being related evolutionarily to a type of ape or a fish or something of the sea or water like an alligator. With psoriasis if complicated by eczema and/or pruritis, I can see why those species with a lot of keratin; maybe fish, scaly animals, etc. are sometimes mean, such as alligators, caymans and their relatives. Maybe they just itch like crazy most of the time.

PS: * Many words are often used to say very little. though I am certain any of your contributors are certain that they are exempt from that personal observation.

PPS: **I believe that he also wrote some thing(s) about humanity.

Art Goldkamp '51

Although I am not well versed on the specifics of ID, on the surface it does not qualify as a scientific theory. To be scientific, a theory must be specific enough so that it can be tested against nature. A famous example of theory passing such a test is Einstein's General Relativity. A consequence of his theory is that light from background stars is bent by the gravity of the Sun. This was verified by the Eddington expedition during the solar eclipse of 1919. Had this prediction not been verified, Einstein's theory would have been rejected. If a theory such as ID cannot be proven false, it is faith and not science.

Chris Kopp '95
South Setauket, New York

I found your article very helpful by giving a clear overview on this issue. It is important to understand that those who support the evolution case are divided into those who affirm or deny the existence of a divine creator. I note from Genesis and the New Testament that God made a very incomplete world, and that this incompleteness is precisely what fuels evolution. I think we should all enjoy being part of completing God's work.

Keep up the good work, especially with the controversial moral/religious issues. We graduates depend on you to keep us current with the above average analysis that you guys are so good at.

Joe Bellon '52
Port Washington, New York

It might well have been Intelligent Design that Max Planck was describing when he wrote, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light; but rather because its opponents die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." If Darwinism is replaced, it will ultimately be because its explanations have been found wanting. Taboos and threats can not long sustain dogmas under intense challenge.

Dennis Larkin '71

ID proponents would be better advised to look to cosmology instead of biology to make their arguments. Contemplating the development of the vast universe that we inhabit from something that may have been as small as a human fist -- via the Big Bang -- and thinking about how and why that happened, and what came before it, should cause wonderment in any honest scientist.

Make no mistake -- it very much matters that people of faith hold their own in this debate. If an atheistic view of the world were to become the norm, perhaps because those with faith leave the field to those who contend that biological evolution proves that there cannot have been a Creator, the philosophy of such as Peter Singer may become acceptable. If that happens, human life will no longer be regarded as sacred. Without a Creator, no truths about equality will be self-evident and neither life nor liberty will be an unalienable right.

Scientists must explore the origins of all things and cannot admit to have come to a dead end. That is as it should be. But when scientists argue that they have discovered the answer to all such origins, it is up to people of faith, and intellect, to point out where they have not met the burden of proof. Other than that, people of faith should -- to paraphrase a well known ID proponent -- give unto science the things that belong to science and to faith the things that belong to faith.

Richard Carter '68

Thorougly enjoyed your treatment of "Intelligent Design."

An article published in the Jan. 17 edition of L'Osservatore Romano by Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna argued that Intelligent Design does not belong to science and no justification exists it be taught alongside the Darwinian explanation. It went on to say that unfortunately some Darwinian scientists tend to view everything in absolute and ideological terms as if everything, including first causes, can be attributed to chance.

The article went on to say: "Science as such, with its methods can neither demonstrate nor exclude that a superior design has been carried out." From a religious point of view, it said there is no doubt that the human story "has a sense and a direction that is marked by a superior design."

Victor Matous '52J.D.
Shoreline, Washington

Regarding the article on intelligent design and evolution: It's time scientists actually acknowledge that there are points (such as the random creation of life from stardust) that have simply NOT been satisfactorily answered by the scientific community.

According to the present models, the odds of randomly creating amino acids from random primordial particles are still ridiculously long -- not to mention the subsequent formation of a living cell.

If we (I include myself with the scientific community) can start admitting we are still stumped in some areas, perhaps the walls will begin to break down between the two sides. The criticism of our president as "living in a bubble" and "never admitting mistakes" reminds me of the stance of the scientific community in this regard.

Personally, I am glad there are still scientists who are willing to risk being called heretics. We have much to learn from their courage and, yes, even their research, if we care to look.

James Ringlein '81

John Monczunski's article continues to be evidence of why many "senior" alumni look forward to receiving our copies of the Notre Dame Magazine. It is an excellent essay on a current issue giving an informative synthesis of the current thinking "out there" with the thoughts of Notre Dame "faculty."

As a physician, I've come to see myself as a product of the study of "hard" Science, the "social" Sciences, and of the Humanities. Accordingly, practicing in a field where the best "physician/doctors" (I dislike the term "healthcare provider") are not necessarily the best "scientists," I find I can comfortably rectify evolution scientifically with the tenets of my Faith. Simply put, although the world is a product of "Science" and therefore of "Evolution," the Soul need not be and I would submit, based on Faith, is not. A human being is composed of body and soul. Evolution as a scientific doctrine is subject to scientific inquiry and the Scientific Method; the existence of the Soul, as a matter of faith, need not be.

Michael P. Wujciak, M.D., '71
West Caldwell, New Jersey

Thank you for the comprehensive perspective regarding the theory of evolution in "Questions That Won't Go Away." I felt though that Professor Gary Belovsky misspoke when he said: "In the classroom we don't give alternatives to gravity, do we? We don't because gravity is the accepted scientific explanation." Well, scientists know that there are at least two different theories of gravity: Newton's and Einstein's General Relativity (cf. Einstein's Cosmos by Michio Kaku) As sports fans know -- records are made to be broken. So to in science, theories are made to be overthrown. Regardless how much present day scientists insist that the theory of evolution is "accepted," it too will one day be overthrown by a superior theory ("Intelligent Design" may or may not be that improvement). We of faith have nothing to fear from science, or the theory of evolution, for as the Catholic Church has rightly pointed out, science is the pursuit of Truth and will necessarily lead us closer to our God, who is the God of Truth. (For example, Darwin's theory of evolution made possible the spiritual masterpiece The Phenomenon of Man by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.)

Stephen Sladek M.D., (father of Emily '07)

John Monczunski's article on intelligent design usefully illuminates the intent of its advocates to use the idea as a "wedge" to split apart the atheistic metaphysics they associate with Darwinism. However, a badly designed tool can harm the person who wields it. It's the blunt axe, the dull chisel, that's likely to hurt the user.

Lawrence Krauss is exactly right in saying that ID is a "dead end" as an explanation within the life sciences. From the perspective of theology, it is worse than a dead end because of what it suggests about the designer. A dead end merely stops progress. Much worse is a path that leads to a precipice.

Grant that some organisms ---- such as Michael Behe's bacteria ---- do exhibit "irreducible complexity," and that one can infer from such complexity a "designer." What can we infer about the designer? To begin, what justifies using language that assumes there is just one and not a plurality of designers? Further, is there evidence that the designers are still active, introducing new organisms? If not, can we be sure that the designers have not abandoned the world, or died? To say that the work was all done by a single, ever-living, and caring Creator, who remains present to the world, is to import an idea that cannot be derived from the "scientific" inference of design alone.

From the fact that some species are designed, can we infer that all species are? If we can't, then ID argument fails, for it will account for only a few exotics deliberately introduced into the Terrestrial Terrarium. The rest of will have evolved. Some designer! But grant, again, that all species are designed (and somehow manufactured, as they must be), and grant as well William Dembski's assertion that we should want to know the "purpose" of the organisms. What would the "purpose" be of the Plasmodium protozoa that cause malaria, the Treponema spirochetes that cause syphilis and yaws, and the Guinea worm? What would it be reasonable to infer about the mind-set of the designers? Shakespeare would have had it right, when he made King Lear say: "As flies to wanton boys, are we to the gods; / They kill us for their sport."

Richard C. Allen '79 Ph.D
Mishawaka, Indiana

What happens if you move Intelligent Design - Creator to just before the Big Bang?

Notre Dame's Ernan McMullin: "These Intelligent Design proponents don't do believers any favors," the emeritus philosophy professor argues. "They make it seem as if Christian faith and mainstream science are incompatible." McMullin points out that a "chance" event is "as much the work of the Creator as are the laws of nature themselves." He adds, "There is absolutely no reason why long-term selection over random hereditable variations should not have been the Creator's way to bring about the Creator's ends. . . . Indeed, there might have been a reason why this would be the way the Creator would choose.

"If the broad framework of the Darwinian thesis is sound, as almost all today's working biologists believe, there might, just might, I say, have been no other simple way in which the complexities of the living world could have been brought about without the need of further intervention in the natural order on the Creator's part," he says.

Roger Hosbein '50

In "Questions That Won't Go Away," John Monczunski misses a couple of my favorite arguments against Intelligent Design (ID). The first relates to irreducible complexity. This is only a potent argument because we are looking at life from the wrong time perspective. Go back to the beginning, let life start all over again, and you will see what happens. Who can guess how man might evolve? Would we even recognize ourselves as a life form, much less an intelligent being with the keys to Heaven? But for sure someone would still look and find parts that seem unexplainable. There is an uncountable and perhaps infinite number of ways we might have evolved, so it doesn't surprise me in the least that we haven't put the puzzle together yet. In fact, I think it is a truism that we never will.

The second problem with ID is usually presented as the incredible closeness of our DNA to apes. As I'm sitting here writing, I am looking at the trees standing stately in my back yard. A more awesome fact is that I share about half my DNA with them. The connectedness of life that evolution brings is a great comfort and joy to me as I age. However, the wonder of this place makes some people nervous and demand answers. I would like answers and I seek them too, but I am also content to just be overwhelmed.

Thomas (Herschel) Freeman (class of '61, almost)
Columbia, South Carolina

Mr. Monczunski clearly understands the issues dividing the country concerning science education. Last week, in Missouri, a new House Bill proposing to "teach the controversy" was put before the legislature. As a scientist and science educator, I view the ID movement as a serious threat to students and to our country's ability to produce scientists who are able to meet the challenges of the future. This is nothing more than an attempt to slide religion into schools through the "back door" of science education. I applaud Mr. Monczunski for his knowledgeable article on this critical issue.

Dr. Donna Crecelius
Saint Louis, Missouri

Following is my response to John Monczunski's excellent article "Questions That Won't Go Away":

Science takes us back to a point in time when only space, gas and dust existed. These contained all of the intelligent design necessary to ultimately result in the multiverse, which contains our world. Either these always existed, or they were created by God. Take your choice.

If scientists eventually discover predecessors to this space, gas and dust, only the same two alternatives will still exist.

Clarence Quinlan '48

Like virtually all others who opine on the topic, Mr. Monczunski knows not of what he writes. Darwin did not author The Origin of Species. What he did write is On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Do you see the difference, not the obvious but the subtle?

Bruce Tomcik
North Ridgeville, Ohio

Author John Monczunski repeatedly makes a common but regrettable and misleading mistake in his article when he mentions Charles Darwin's famous book. It's On the Origin of Species, not The Origin of the Species.

Martin McHugh
Chicago

John Monczunski's article, "Questions That Won't Go Away: Darwin and Intelligent Design," was a useful and balanced treatment of the topic, although any discussion inevitably gives more weight to Intelligent Design proponents than they have in the scientific community. That is, of course, their intention in asserting that schools should "teach the debate," a position endorsed by President Bush. The Governor of Kentucky recently went so far as to assert that Intelligent Design should be taught in the state's schools because it is the truth.

The real problem for America is surely the alienation of generations of schoolchildren from both modern science and critical thinking in general. Home-schooled children and students in religious schools and colleges are being taught that evolution is a fraud. Schoolteachers in the public schools are avoiding the teaching of evolution, either because they do not believe in it themselves, or because they lack an understanding of how scientific theories achieve acceptance, or because they wish to avoid conflict with pupils, parents, and school boards.

There is no easy way out of this situation. The political will does not exist to demand that biology teachers be required to have taken classes on evolution or on the history and philosophy of science. The growth of home-schooling and religious schools is likely to lead to a steady increase in the proportion of Americans who never hear a positive presentation of the theory of evolution.

As we move into a century where the application of biological thinking looks likely to be one of the most productive areas of technological advance, it is deeply worrying that a very large proportion of the American population still rejects the key findings of geology and biology. Insufficient public understanding of science, as opposed to blind rejection or blind acceptance, is likely to cause increasing problems in public health, technological innovation and the democratic debate of scientific issues.

David Harley
South Bend, Indiana