Kerry Clark’s Feb. 17 guest column, “Intelligent Debate,” presented precisely the type of misinformation characteristic of intelligent design proponents who argue against evolutionary theory. To begin, evolution and abiogenesis are completely distinct, and evolutionary theory does not make claims concerning the origins of life. Rather, evolution makes claims about biological entities which already fulfill the criteria for life. Granted, proponents of evolution may make claims concerning these matters, but such claims do not reside in the domain of evolutionary theory. Either this is a misunderstanding on the part of Clark, or it is a willful mischaracterization of the facts, made in an attempt to weaken the arguments for evolution. Either way, such statements should be dismissed.
Moreover, Clark claims that no evidence for speciation (so called macro-evolution that leads to novel species) exists. Rather, he states that there are “evolutionary stories.” This claim is patently false. There are many examples of intermediate or transitional forms – species which reside on the evolutionary chain between other species and allow us to track the process of speciation. In certain cases, these intermediate forms are still alive. In many other cases, they are extinct, yet have been discovered even given the tremendous sparsity of fossil records. I am appalled by how many intelligent design proponents and creationists lay claim to the absence of transitional forms in the face of direct evidence.
It is true that species exist, both currently and in the fossil record, for which we have not discovered the intermediate forms. Indeed, given the sparsity of the fossil record, the vastness of the space to be searched and the meticulousness of the search process, there will likely be many species for which we never find these “missing links.” However, it is irrational to take this as proof against evolution. If I were to drop an assorted medley of 100 objects to demonstrate to Clark the nature of gravity, would he deny its existence because I had not performed a demonstration with every object he knows to exist? Clark claims that “the role of science is not only to search for what is true but also to allow the evidence to form reasonable conclusions.” The veracity of this statement may be debated by philosophers of science, but if he accepts this claim, then there is certainly a tremendous, objective and verifiable evidentiary basis for the theory of evolution. The same cannot be said for intelligent design.
Finally, Clark argues against the idea of Non-overlapping Magisteria (NOMA) as proposed by the late professor Stephen Jay Gould. Simply stated, this principle claims that religion and science are concerned, and therefore only appropriately invoked, with respect to distinct and mutually exclusive domains. For example, no proper scientific theory should attempt to answer the question, “What is the meaning of life?” There is a particular reason that scientists do not invoke God when formulating scientific theories. Science makes claims and develops theories concerning the natural world and natural systems. To invoke a supernatural cause for something which is not yet sufficiently explained by an existing theory would be antithetical to the entire scientific perspective. To be scientific, a theory must be falsifiable and, hence, testable by natural means. Since claims to God, or to any supernatural cause, are by definition not natural, they are inherently unscientific. Throughout the course of human history, there have been innumerable phenomena which people have been unable to explain. It was often easy or customary to attribute such occurrences to some supernatural cause, or to claim they were the work of God. Yet, time and again, scientific progress has allowed these seemingly mystical phenomena to be properly explained in the context of a scientific theory, relying solely on natural processes.
There will likely always be mysteries to explore. Many scientific discoveries yield more questions than answers — that is part of the fun of science. Yet, to claim that natural phenomena we do not yet understand are the work of some supernatural being or force seems an irresponsible position. Natural phenomena reside in the magisterium of science. In this magisterium, why not adopt the more modest and responsible position? Instead of claiming, “God did it,” proudly proclaim, “I do not yet know!”
Rob Patro is a graduate student studying computer science. He can be reached at rob.patro@gmail.com.
