The ongoing success “theory” of Intelligent Design is initially baffling. I mean, how can something which is based on a gaping wide logical flaw ever stand up to even the gentlest rational enquiry? To claim that “all living things have a design, therefore there must be a designer” is presupposing the existence of a designer in the first place; “design” is a word that can only ever be used with reference to an act of intellectual creation.

Of course, the reason behind the success of I.D. is nothing to with its logical coherence, but more to do with money and zealotry, in this case primarily backed by the extremely well-funded and extremely wacko Discovery Institute (an ironic name, given that the intellectual laziness of I.D. negates the need to embark on any discovery whatsoever). The main tactic of theirs appears to be, spout their opinions in public, wait for any scientist brave (or foolhardy) enough to counter them, and then claim that there is a ‘controversy’; the fact that scientists are having to consider and refute their claims means that they are serious enough to be treated as a theory (even though I.D. is little more than hypothesis) that is equal to the theory/theories of evolution. This is like saying that someone who turns up to a party without a bottle, then proceeds to guzzle as much booze and food, insult the guests before pissing in the corner and passing out in the host’s bed, is being sociable: they may be at the same place, but they’re not playing by the same rules.

The tactics of the liberal and rational in response to the growing threat of I.D. have been varied, but seem to consist of:

• Ignoring the I.D. mob: Which only leads to them claiming “we’re being excluded from the debate” by a “liberal scientific elite”, and mind-boggling parallels made between themselves and Galileo (whatever you say about fundamentalist Christians, you have to admire their chutzpah).
• Engaging them in rational debate: Which, alas, leads to the claims to legitimisation achieved above. As well as wasting many academics’ time and effort in engaging with the I.D. lot when they could be doing much more valuable work in educating the public.
• Parody: This is where the Flying Spaghetti Monster (the original inspiration for this post) came from. FSM hits some of the most portruding nails on the head, with its cheerful arbitrariness and ignorance of the difference between correlation and causation. But… it’s only preaching to the choir. It’s not going to convince anyone who is not already in on the joke. Although we get some beautiful artwork as a result, I don’t think it’s much more than a morale-raiser for the troops.
• Anger, etc.: The “well if you don’t believe in science then fuck you, and stop using computers and taking medicine” line (example here). The only response which descends to the imbecilic level of the I.D.ers in the first place, both in its confusion of science, technology and medicine (and assuming that science is the sole driver of the three), and in its distinctly anti-Enlightenment view that the benefits of scientific endeavour and rational thought should not be enjoyed by all.

So where does this leave us? Indeed, why should we care? After all, this is an Americo-centric debate, one that doesn’t concern us.

(Actually, it does concern us. In the gleeful abandonment of comprehensive education of recent years, our government has instead devoted itself to promoting “city academies” - schools where private entrepreneurs help put up a tiny fraction of the school’s funding, and in exchange get to dictate the curriculum. Which leads to wealthy Christian fundamentalists such as Sir Peter Vardy being able to set up predominantly state-funded schools that teach creationism in science classes, with the total blessing of those who cravenly claim to be socialists. It’s only a tiny handful of schools at the moment, but give them a few years and I bet you the problem will have spread. Teesside will be the new Alabama, trust me).

The problem that does concern us is a bigger one, one that many people seem to shirk from, namely what does “science” actually mean? The pro-I.D. crowd have taken one aspect of science, namely the controversies that can arise, and attempted to crystallise a meaning of science around it while rejecting any of the conflict resolution mechanisms (peer review, publication, etc.) that go with it. But to take this on means that any other scientific theory is under threat from arbitrary counter-asssertions (it might not be too long before something like this happens). In fact, the many fronts of pseudoscience, from alternative medicine to dodgy adverts, is well beyond a single blogpost, so for the moment I’ll stick with this subject.

The contention that the religious right have taken on postmodern, relativist views of epistemology (such as this) has merit, and is worth detailed exploration, but a simplistic assertion that social constructivism directly undermines or even attacks science ignores the fact that most social constructivists within the field of science studies do appreciate the many other qualities of science (many have a scientific background themselves), and that controversy alone does not define the scientific process. I’m not a ’strong’ social constructivist; even after a year studying at one of the highly pro-constructivist schools of thought, I haven’t been totally convinced. Reality still has some say. But reality is fickle and difficult to get at, especially the deeper we probe; information is scarce, and scientists are humans too, so there’ll always be controversy. But this controversy will always be grounded in uncertainty, with only partial evidence that is unable to fully clinch one theory or disprove another. I.D. is about neither - it’s about one side being certain of something with absolutely no evidence, just blind faith and circular reasoning.

The problem here is that the I.D. crowd are happily trying to redefine scientific controversy on their own terms. What needs to be done then, is to tacklee them with what I call the Crocodile Dundee approach. That is, in public debate, to say “That’s not a scientific controversy… this a scientific controversy…”, before whipping out something that really is exciting to talk about. Did we all descend from just one life-form or did many types spontaneously appear? Does evolution occur in fits and starts or is it continuous? Do genes determine our behaviour? And once the questions are laid out, we start talking about how this is a genuine debate, what evidence is around for either side, how they don’t just rely on smooth talking and false deduction, what the consequences are and what research can be done to help us find out. It marks science’s ground away from the I.D. definition of a scientific controversy, and will thus (hopefully) thwart its attempt to gain a foothold.

To admit to and even embrace the divisions within a scientific field does mean a shift, a more forthright admission in the (occasional) fallibility of science, and less of the attitude that it is by any means a linear or certain process (Aside - is it me or is virtually every popular science book in the shops these days historically-oriented - of the “x that changed the world” type? The existence of a plethora of books all claiming so rather devalues the meaning of that statement…). It doesn’t amount to saying science is wrong, or one of several competing outlooks on the origin of life, or a mere social construct, but it does mean admitting that science does not have and will never have all the answers. It means acknowledging science as a human activity, and one that everyone is welcome to join, debate and explore (nothing in this debate sickens me more than a scientist dismissing the opinions of someone just because they are a ‘non-scientist’). It isn’t enough to say that I.D. doesn’t have any evidence, nor stands up to peer review and scrutiny by others; it needs explaining why we need evidence, why peer review is so important, why the practices of the scientific community are what they are.

Rather than let the disputes within evolutionary theory be a weakness to attack it, it should be a strength; by allowing diverse interpretations of its basic tenets, the strengths of the pursuit of intellectual enquiry are shown. By doing so, we can embrace the fact that we are yet to fully explore and discover the unknown, that we continually seek to find the “pleasure of finding things out”. Science, exploration, learning, they’re all fun, dammit; by obscuring and mysitfying it, excluding people and becoming ever-more dogmatic in the face of dogma itself, we only run the risk of alienating them further.

Ideas for this heavily inspired by/borrowed from this nice article I linklogged yesterday, then given a bit of a science studies spin. The design of that site is shocking but don’t let that put you off exploring it.

Update: Sorry - that was quite a wordy one, wasn’t it? Of course, far more simple and convincing proof of the fallacy of Intelligent Design can simply come from the fact that no supreme Intelligent Designer, whether composed of noodly goodness or not, would have permitted a strawberry this ugly to come into the world.

Further Update: When I wrote this I was completely oblivious to the fact that Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne wrote exactly what I was thinking about teaching real controversies in that day’s Guardian. So maybe I’m onto something.