Steven H's Reviews > Scientists Confront Creationism: Intelligent Design and Beyond

A SIGNIFICANT UPDATING OF THE ORIGINAL 1983 BOOK

Editor Andrew Petto teaches Anatomy and Physiology at the University of Wisconsin, and Editor Laurie Godfrey teaches anthropology at the University of Massachusetts. This 2007 book (originally published as ‘Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism’) contains essays by writers such as Ronald Numbers; Eugenie Scott; Victor Stenger; G. Brent Dalrymple; Robert Pennock, and others (including the editors).

They note in the “Acknowledgements” section, “It is because we hear questions and concerns from parents, teachers, journalists, clergy, and school administrators that we have such an extensive knowledge of anti-evolutionary pseudoscience. Without them, most of us in the sciences and related fields would spend our time on our own narrow specialties. Because of these people and the challenges that are being raised against evolution in their own communities, we knew we had to bring the original 1983 book---Scientists Confront Creationism---up-to-date, and it is for them that we knew we had to succeed.” (Pg. 9)

They add in the Preface, “Anti-evolutionism is back, and it has new aliases. But, as many chapters in this book will show, these aliases are little more than new labels for the same tired arguments… The substance of the argument has changed little in the years since this book’s first edition… We seek here to address the newer ‘alternatives’ and approaches, such as ‘intelligent design theory,’ and (1) to show explicitly their links to the ‘creation science’ that motivated the first edition; and (2) to provide a critique of more recent anti-evolutionist materials and formulations… Anti-evolutionism is… a phenomenon deeply embedded in cultural history, trends, and institutions. We offer this revised edition as an overview of the complex world of anti-evolutionism at the beginning of the twenty-first century.” (Pg. 14-15)

Eugenie Scott notes in her essay, “The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories proposed a new form of creationism that did not rely directly on the Bible: there were no references to a universal Flood, to the special creation of Adam and Eve or any other creature, or to a young earth. But, echoing creation science, [the book] emphasized supposed scientific problems of evolution. ‘Mystery’ used the language of science, with only brief references in an epilogue to the necessity for intelligence to be involved in the origin of life---and even here, it was claimed that this intelligence need not be transcendent… although the authors express their preference for creation by God.” (Pg. 61-62) Later, she adds, “But who or what is the designer (or Designer)? Here the ID proponents, mindful of the legal problems faced by creation science in being overtly religious, deny that the designer NECESSARILY is God, although that is their preference.” (Pg. 69)

She notes, “Both creation science and ID supporters reject theistic evolution, for largely the same reasons. Both regard it as an unacceptable Christian compromise toward evolution.” (Pg. 86) She continues, “Although presented as a new scientific paradigm, ‘intelligent design’ turns out to be a politically more sophisticated version of creation science… ID has claimed that great scientific insights are just around the corner, as soon as the new paradigm is accepted. Yet even after twenty years, the promissory notes are still out, with no prospect for redemption… given the thinness of the science of ID, if the movement did not have grave consequences for public school education and church-and-state separation, ID would languish in academic obscurity.” (Pg. 94)

Victor Stenger says in his essay, “Many theists see the anthropic coincidences as evidence for purposive design of the universe… Let us examine the implicit assumptions here. Foremost… is the wholly unwarranted assumption that only one type of life is possible---the particular form of carbon-based life we have here on earth. Carbon WOULD seem to be the chemical element best suited to act as the building block for the type of complex molecular systems that develop lifelike qualities… However, to assume that ONLY carbon life is possible is simply ‘carbocentrism’ that results from the fact that you and I are constructed mainly of carbon. Given the known laws of physics and chemistry, we can imagine life based on silicon (computers, and the Internet?) or other elements chemically similar to carbon… Furthermore, nothing in anthropic reasoning indicates any special preference for HUMAN life, or indeed intelligent or sentient life of any sort---just carbon.” (Pg. 145)

G. Brent Dalrymple observes about creationist suggestions that radioactive decay rates may have changed, “It is difficult to see what kind of scientific experiments or observations might be conducted to test whether or not radioactive-decay constants were significantly different between ‘the Fall’ and ‘the Flood’ than they are now. Not only is this hypothesis unscientific, it is incredibly naïve. A significant change in radioactive-decay rates requires changes in fundamental and delicately balanced physical constants, such as Planck’s constant and the speed of light… The result is a universe that no longer works---or at least one that works much differently than the one in which we live.” (Pg. 154-155) Later, he adds, "Isotropic-dating methods were not perfected until the latter half of the twentieth century, and one of the first problems to which they were applied was the geologic time scale… isotropic dating found no errors in the relative order of the major subdivisions of the geologic time scale. The isotropic ages of the time-scale subdivisions fall in the same sequence as their observed relative order.” (Pg. 168)

Another essay suggests, “It has long been thought that feathers characterized birds and no other animals… Their obvious use in flight… has long prompted questions about the original use of feathers and from what structures they were derived… [But] it is clear that feathers with shafts, vanes, and barbs were already present in a variety of nonavian theropods that did not fly, and hence feathers did not evolve FOR flight… Therefore, not only structures but functions may be ‘transitional,’ in the sense that they can have multiple purposes. A structure that originally keeps an animal warm … if its components develop features that stiffen and interlock its filaments, can contribute to a workable airfoil.” (Pg. 208) Later, they add, “half a wing… can be perfectly functional… the first wings and feathers were not at all for flight… It is not necessary to postulate that the first animals that possessed these wings and feathers could fly as well as a bird can today. At first these structures performed different functions entirely, and flight evolved in increments.” (Pg. 219)

Another essayist deals with the evolution of the eye: “The resolution of this puzzle is both simple and surprising: The proteins of the lens are a motley collection of preexisting housekeeping proteins recruited into doing double duty as lens crystallins… These surprising discoveries illustrate a common theme in evolutionary reconstruction: The process relies on the use and reuse of preexisting parts. The evolution of the complex eye did not involve the simultaneous construction, from scratch, of all the parts required to capture, focus, and perceive light. Instead, the eye emerges from the constant experimentation of mutation and the constant sorting of available variants.” (Pg. 242-243)

This is an excellent, well-argued collection of essays, that will be welcome reading for anyone studying the evolution/ID/creationism issue.