No Data Required: Why Intelligent Design Is Not Science

Author(s): Abby Hafer

Source: The American Biology Teacher , Vol. 77, No. 7 (September 2015), pp. 507-513
Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the National Association of
Biology Teachers
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/abt.2015.77.7.5

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/abt.2015.77.7.5?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

University of California Press and National Association of Biology Teachers are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Biology Teacher

This content downloaded from

203.109.74.50 on Sat, 22 Oct 2022 15:02:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 FEATURE ARTICLE No Data Required: Why Intelligent
Design Is Not Science

• ABBY HAFER

ABSTRACT insist that it is science. And they continue to have success in persuad-
Intelligent Design (ID) proposes that biological species were created by an ing legislators, school board members, teachers, and others involved
intelligent Designer, and not by evolution. ID’s proponents insist that it is as in decisions regarding science education, both in the United States
valid a theory of how biological organisms and species came into existence (Missouri House of Representatives, 2014; Ohio Legislature, 2014;
as evolution by natural selection. They insist, therefore, that ID be taught as Oklahoma State Legislature, 2014a, 2014b; National Center for Sci-
science in public schools. These claims were defeated in the Kitzmiller case. ence Education, 2014b; South Dakota Legislature, 2014; Virginia
However, ID’s proponents are still influential and cannot be considered a
General Assembly, 2014) and elsewhere in the world (National Center
spent force. The question addressed here is whether ID’s claim of scientific
legitimacy is reinforced by quantified results. That is, do they have any
for Science Education, 2013, 2014a). Two states, Louisiana (Louisiana
data, or do they just argue? The ID articles that I analyzed claimed to State Legislature, 2008) and Tennessee (Tennessee State Legislature,
present real science, but they rarely referred to data and never tested a 2012), currently have laws allowing the teaching of Intelligent
hypothesis. Argumentation, however, was frequent. By contrast, peer- Design/Creationism in public schools. Therefore, ID cannot be con-
reviewed articles by evolutionary biologists rarely argued but referred sidered a spent force.
frequently to data. The results were statistically significant. These findings ID’s proponents point to the many, ostensibly scientific, articles
negate claims by ID proponents that their articles report rigorous scientific and books that have been published on the subject. They insist that
research. Teachers will find this article helpful in defending evolution, the question of how biological organisms and species came into
distinguishing science from non-science, and discussing the weaknesses of ID.
existence therefore remains open. It has been pointed out that
articles promoting ID tend not to appear in peer-reviewed scientific
Key Words: Evolution; Intelligent Design; Creationism; science; content analysis; journals (Forrest & Gross, 2004). However, proponents of ID
data; argue; Discovery Institute; science education; strengths and weaknesses;
nonetheless claim that their work is valid science, and further claim
hypothesis.
that many of their articles are, in fact, “peer-reviewed.”
Articles promoting ID often claim to present original research.
However, they rarely contain descriptions of the methods by which
research was done, or the experimental and/or quantitative results they
Introduction have obtained. The explanation of scientific methods I give below
makes it clear why this is important. Ideological
Intelligent Design (ID) is both the successor
Intelligent Design concerns should not prevent publication, but the
to Creationism and a cryptic manifestation
more important question is whether ID has pro-
of it. Proponents of ID have argued that their
ideas about the origins of biological species
(ID) is both the duced any quantified results as evidence to rein-
force its claims of scientific legitimacy. In other
are as scientifically valid as the theory of evo- successor to words, do they have any data, or do they just spend
lution by natural selection. On this basis they
Creationism and their time arguing?
argue that ID should be taught as science.
Here, I address that question by analyzing
These claims have been widely refuted by
biologists and were defeated in the Kitzmiller
a cryptic articles written by ID authors and by evolutionary
biologists, looking for evidence of quantitative
case (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, manifestation of it. reasoning. I outline how I generated my hypothe-
2005), but proponents of ID continue to
sis, what I predicted as a result of my hypothesis,

The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 77, No 7, pages. 507–513, ISSN 0002-7685, electronic ISSN 1938-4211. ©2015 by the Regents of the University of California. All rights
reserved. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press’s Reprints and Permissions web page,
www.ucpress.edu/journals.php?p=reprints. DOI: 10.1525/abt.2015.77.7.5.

THE AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER WHY INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT SCIENCE 507

This content downloaded from

203.109.74.50 on Sat, 22 Oct 2022 15:02:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
the materials I used and how I obtained them, the procedures I is often described, the methods by which an investigation was done
followed, my results, a discussion, a conclusion, and suggestions are explained, the results are given, and conclusions are expressed.
for how this research may be useful to teachers and others involved ID articles frequently seem to this author to be all introduction.
in education. Particular viewpoints are described, and then argued for or against.
To my knowledge, this is the first study of its kind that has This goes on for many pages, with new information generally not
been performed on articles promoting ID. The results I obtained being introduced. The articles seem to be largely argument, and they
are highly statistically significant. This suggests that other studies generally do not even have a results section. This is very unlike
using similar approaches may be fruitful. articles in scientific journals.

Assessing Intelligent Design Articles

How I Generated the Hypothesis It is possible to do point-by-point refutations of ID articles, show-
ing many ways in which they get facts wrong and arrive at errone-
The Roles of Measurement & Quantification in Science
ous conclusions. However, this can be tedious and time-consuming
Measurement and quantification are important parts of the scien- for general readers, so I decided to take a different approach:
tific process (Jinks, 1997). Although scientific investigations in a looking at ID papers as a body of work, to see whether they contain
given field may start with careful observational studies, measure- one of the basic elements of scientific research articles – data.
ment and quantification are expected to follow not long thereafter, Data is something that science cannot do without. By contrast,
if the field is to be productive. For example, the study of Acquired argumentation in scientific papers, though present, is a fairly minor
Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) began in 1981 with the element. Different schools of thought may be mentioned in the
observation that five gay men in the Los Angeles area had rare lung introduction to a research paper, but only as a prelude, as a means
infections and generally weakened immune systems. By the end of of explaining why a particular investigation took place. The rest of
that year, 270 gay men were reported with severe immune deficien- the paper will describe methods, results, and conclusions. For this
cies. Further quantitative studies led to our understanding of the reason, I also decided to look at ID articles to see how much
routes of transmission of AIDS, to the identification of Human argumentation they contained.
Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), to commercial diagnostic tests, Because I was going to investigate a large body of work, it
and, by the year 2000, we had drugs that keep people alive with seemed wise to set limits on the investigation. For this reason, I
the disease over many years (AIDS.gov, 2014). At this point, we chose to search ID articles for two words only: the word data and
can estimate how many people have died when drugs have been the word-root argu. The latter word-root took in the word argue
refused (Chigwedere et al., 2008). in its many forms – argument, arguing, argumentation, and so on.
Thus, in 20 years, AIDS went from being unknown to being I understand that it is not necessary to use the word data in order
largely treatable. From a scientific standpoint, it went from being to have data. For instance, the word results may be used instead.
an observation that some homosexual men had unusual lung and Nonetheless, from many years of experience, I know that scientific
immune problems to being a well-documented, understood, and articles often use the word data when referring to the results that
largely treatable disease, all because hypotheses were tested and have been obtained. Likewise, words formed from the word-root
quantitative procedures were used. argu are often used to describe differences of opinion. Other words,
such as contend and debate, are also sometimes used, but scientific
Disagreements about the Idea of Intelligent investigations are often best when they are simplest. Limiting the
Design as Science scope of this investigation to the words data and argu seemed like
Proponents of ID insist that it is science (Discovery Institute, 2015). the most fruitful approach.
The idea of the intelligent design of biological organisms was for-
mally presented in 1802 by William Paley in his book Natural The- Obtaining Articles on Intelligent Design
ology (Paley, 1802), though he did not use the exact phrase The Discovery Institute is the leading institutional proponent of ID.
“Intelligent Design.” More recently, it was proposed in 1984 in They have a large website that describes their numerous activities.
The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories by Charles One part of their website is devoted entirely to what they say are
B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen (Thaxton et al., scientific articles supporting ID. During my study, these articles
1984). The idea was further promoted in the school-level biology were all available directly from the website and could be down-
textbook Of Pandas and People (Davis & Kenyon, 1989), which loaded free of charge. These were the articles that formed the basis
was edited by Dr. Thaxton and first published in 1989. If some- for my investigation, the articles I searched for data and argu.
thing is being presented in a science textbook meant for school The Discovery Institute has literally provided the language on
children, it is reasonable to assume that the field is well developed. which Creationism/ID-friendly laws are based. The Louisiana Science
Thus, it is reasonable to say that ID has been actively pursued for at Education Act was based on language provided by the Discovery Insti-
least 25 years. This is enough time for a field of scientific enquiry to tute (Washington Post, 2009; Gill, 2011). Likewise, Tennessee House
pass beyond the initial observational stages, and progress into Bill 368 was based on language provided by the Discovery Institute
hypothesis testing and quantification. (Los Angeles Times, 2012; Weinberg, 2012). Both these laws allow
However, the majority of biological scientists do not consider ID and encourage Intelligent Design and Creationism to be taught as sci-
legitimate science. It has been the experience of this author that ID ence in American public school classrooms. The Discovery Institute
articles do not read the way that articles in biological journals do. convinced these two state legislatures to consider ID/Creationism as
In a biological journal article, a subject is introduced, a hypothesis science by referring to the supposedly scientific research articles on

508 THE AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER VOLUME. 77, NO. 7, SEPTEMBER 2015

This content downloaded from

203.109.74.50 on Sat, 22 Oct 2022 15:02:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
their own website. Therefore, it was appropriate to concentrate on Institute” and clicked on the Discovery Institute’s website (Discovery
those articles in this investigation. Institute, 2010). (2) There, I clicked on the section labeled “Science
and Culture,” which brought me to the Center for Science and Culture
A Control Group: Peer-Reviewed Research Articles website. (3) There, I found the heading “Scientific Research and Schol-
by Established Scientists arship,” under which was a subheading that read “Peer-Reviewed &
A control group was needed. Since ID claims to be science, it was nec- Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelli-
essary to compare the work of ID authors with that of known scien- gent Design (Annotated),” followed by a defense of this somewhat
tists. The fairest comparison, as I saw it, would be to the work of unusual designation:
another institute; this one known for its high-quality scientific research.
Editors’ Note: Critics of intelligent design often claim that
Because I had obtained the Discovery Institute’s articles by download-
design advocates don’t publish their work in appropriate
ing them from their website, it further seemed fair to obtain my control scientific literature. For example, Barbara Forrest, a philoso-
group’s articles in the same way. For these reasons, I selected articles phy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University, was
from the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI), which is quoted in USA Today (March 25, 2005) that design theorists
known for doing high-quality biological research and whose articles “aren’t published because they don’t have scientific data.”
were all available online through their website. An entire section of Other critics have made the more specific claim that
the website was devoted to research in evolutionary biology, and I design advocates do not publish their works in peer-
used these articles as the control group in my investigation. reviewed scientific journals – as if such journals repre-
sented the only avenue of legitimate scientific publication.
In fact, scientists routinely publish their work in peer-
Hypothesis & Prediction reviewed scientific journals, in peer-reviewed scientific
books, in scientific anthologies and conference proceed-
ID writers often specifically claim to be doing scientific research. In ings (edited by their scientific peers), and in trade presses.
fact, they write papers that may sound scientific to the untrained Some of the most important and groundbreaking work in
reader. They use many scientific-sounding words. My question was the history of science was first published not in scientific
“Are they really doing science?” I approached this question by looking journal articles but in scientific books – including Coper-
at the articles that ID writers at the Discovery Institute claimed were nicus’ De Revolutionibus, Newton’s Principia, and Darwin’s
Origin of Species (the latter of which was published in a
scientific research and asked a more specific question: “Do they pri-
prominent British trade press and was not peer-reviewed
marily rely on data or on argumentation?” Reliance on data is a hall- in the modern sense of the term). In any case, the scien-
mark of scientific investigation, while reliance on argumentation is tists who advocate the theory of intelligent design have
not. Reliance on argumentation may be the hallmark of other fields published their work in a variety of appropriate technical
of scholarship such as philosophy, but it is not a hallmark of science. venues, including peer-reviewed scientific journals, peer-
My hypothesis was that these ID writers do not do scientific reviewed scientific books (some in mainstream university
research. I predicted, therefore, that they would use the word-root presses), trade presses, peer-edited scientific anthologies,
argu more than they would use the word data. By contrast, the known peer-edited scientific conference proceedings and peer-
scientific researchers at the prestigious STRI would use the word data reviewed philosophy of science journals and books.
in their articles more than they would use the word-root argu. We provide below an annotated bibliography of tech-
nical publications of various kinds that support, develop
or apply the theory of intelligent design. The articles are
Materials Used grouped according to the type of publication. The first
section lists featured articles of various types which are
In order to perform this analysis fairly, I developed a set of rules for of higher interest to readers, which is then followed by
obtaining the articles. These rules were made in advance of my a complete list of the articles. The featured articles are
downloading the articles, so I could not base a decision to use or therefore listed twice on this page (once in the featured
not use an article on whether or not I liked it. Specific pathways were articles section and again below in the complete list).
used, based on the websites for the Discovery Institute and STRI as
These paragraphs were followed by the heading Featured
they existed in August of 2010. This careful selection process allowed
Articles – the papers that the Discovery Institute itself claims are
a fair comparison between articles from the Discovery Institute and
scientific research. Put simply, I took the Discovery Institute at its
articles from STRI. All articles in this study were downloaded during
own word – these are the articles that the Discovery Institute says
August 9–11, 2010. Only articles in English were used.
are its scientific research articles, so I treated them that way. I cop-
ied each featured article in turn, starting with the first one.
Obtaining Intelligent Design Articles I obtained all the ID articles included in my study exclusively from
ID articles were all obtained from the website of the Discovery this section of the Discovery Institute website.
Institute because it is the leading institutional proponent of ID. Because this study was interested only in original scientific
During my study, an entire section of its website was devoted to research, I rejected review articles and books, though chapters of
articles about ID produced by authors with whom the Discovery books that the Discovery Institute claimed were original research
Institute was associated. were included. All articles from this section of the Discovery Insti-
My exact procedure for obtaining articles from the Discovery tute’s website that met these criteria were used. In each case, the
Institute website was as follows. (1) I Googled the words “Discovery entire article was analyzed, including the abstract (if there was

THE AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER WHY INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT SCIENCE 509

This content downloaded from

203.109.74.50 on Sat, 22 Oct 2022 15:02:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
one) and the captions of tables and figures (if any). I did not Results
include reference lists in the analysis.
Among the 63,024 words from the Discovery Institute and 143,172
Evolutionary Biology Articles words from the Smithsonian Institute for Tropical Research that
were analyzed, the word frequencies were as follows: The word-
The articles in the control group were all obtained from the website
root argu was used 88 times in the articles from the Discovery Insti-
of STRI. As stated above, STRI is known as a producer of high-
tute, but only 11 times in articles from STRI. By contrast, data was
quality scientific research. My exact procedure for obtaining these
used 270 times in the STRI articles, but only 24 times in articles
articles was as follows. (1) I Googled the Smithsonian Institution
from the Discovery Institute. These results are shown in Table 1
(Smithsonian Institution, 2010). Then I clicked on (2) the Smithso-
and Figure 1.
nian’s Home Page, (3) “Research” at the top of the Home Page, (4)
“Tropical Research Institute (STRI),” (5) “Programs” at the top of Statistical Analysis
that page, and (6) “Evolution” on the left-hand side of that page,
I performed a Pearson’s chi-square analysis on these results. The chi-
which led to an entire section of the website devoted to research
square test is appropriate for categorical data such as these. More-
articles about evolutionary biology, produced by authors with
over, the sizes of the control and experimental populations do not
whom STRI was associated. There was a list, in alphabetical order,
have to be the same when the chi-square test is used (McHugh,
of STRI scientists who had published papers on evolutionary biol- 2013). The result of this analysis was extreme: P < 1.9 × 10−53.
ogy. From there, one could click on each scientist’s name, and a list It is therefore very unlikely that the differences reported here are a
of articles became available. result of random chance.
The articles were listed in chronological order of publication,
starting with the most recent articles. These were all available for
downloading. Only papers from STRI that were listed by the insti-
tute under the category of Evolution and that had been published Table 1. Numbers of times that the word-root
in peer-reviewed scientific journals were considered. Of these, only argu and the word data occur in 11 articles
original research articles were used. Reviews, review articles, and from the Discovery Institute and 28 articles from
books were not included. Of the original research articles, exactly the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute.
four per author were used, and they were the first four by each
argu data
author that met these criteria (so that more prolific authors would
not be overrepresented in the sample). The entire article was ana- Discovery Institute 88 24
lyzed, including the abstract (if there was one) and the captions Smithsonian Tropical 11 270
of tables and figures (if any). I did not include reference lists in Research Institute
the analysis.
Note: The numbers in the upper left quadrant and the lower right quadrant
are both very high, while the numbers in the upper right and lower left
quadrants are very low; these strong diagonals are an indication of statistical
significance.
Methods
I analyzed a total of 63,024 words in 11 articles from the Discovery
Institute and 143,172 words in 28 articles from STRI. In both
cases, the articles were copied entirely and then pasted into a sepa-
rate document. After all the articles had been copied, with the Dis-
covery Institute articles placed in one document and the STRI
articles in a different one, the content analysis began. I used the
“Find” tool in Microsoft Word to search each compilation of
articles, first for data and then for argu. I went through each article
personally, using the “Find” tool.
When counting the instances of the word data, all words
with the root data were chosen when they referred to quantita-
tive results, such as data and database; words containing data
in reference to organisms, such as chordata, were excluded. As
stated above, I used only the content of the articles, including
titles and captions, and excluded everything in the reference Figure 1. Numbers of times that the word-root argu and the
sections. word data occur in 11 articles from the Discovery Institute and
When counting instances of the word-root argu, all words con- 28 articles from the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute
taining the root argu were used, when they referred to persuasion (STRI). Scientists at STRI made heavy use of data but rarely used
and disputation. These included the words argue, argument, and or cited argumentation in their articles. By contrast, Discovery
arguing, for example. Again, the content of the articles, including Institute writers rarely referred to data, and never to testing a
titles and captions were analyzed, and reference sections were hypothesis, but they referred heavily to argumentation. The
excluded from analysis. difference is significant (P < 1.9 × 10−53).

510 THE AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER VOLUME. 77, NO. 7, SEPTEMBER 2015

This content downloaded from

203.109.74.50 on Sat, 22 Oct 2022 15:02:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Further Analysis stipulation has allowed science to advance in ways that would have
The above results alone seriously damage ID’s claim to be a well- been unthinkable had supernatural explanations been allowed.
developed branch of science. The rarity of references to quantified Invoking a deity may seem like a reasonable idea at times, but it
data in these articles indicates a field that is either not well devel- is a nonproductive one. Our knowledge of the natural world has
oped as a science or is not a science at all. However, it seemed progressed specifically because science has rejected supernatural
appropriate to take this investigation a step further and examine explanations for phenomena, and sought real ones. Verifiable
every instance in which Discovery Institute authors used the word explanations based on reality have then been found. If supernatural
data at all, to see whether this usage ever referred to testing a explanations of natural phenomena had been accepted, then further
hypothesis. After all, a field of science well developed enough to research, which led to correct, non-supernatural answers, would
merit inclusion in science textbooks and instruction should be well never have been done. For instance, referring back to the history
developed enough to have done some hypothesis testing. of AIDS that I outlined earlier, if scientists had accepted that the
In essence, I was giving ID another chance. If any of the cause of AIDS was the wrath of a deity, we would never have dis-
Discovery Institute’s references to data had led me to a report of covered HIV, which is the real cause of AIDS.
active hypothesis testing, it would at least indicate that some writ-
ers at the Discovery Institute were attempting to do legitimate sci- Intelligent Design, Supernatural Explanations, &
entific research. One or two tested hypotheses would not alone Predictability
make ID worthy of inclusion in biology textbooks, but it would ID breaks a number of the rules that I have listed above. First, and
at least indicate integrity on the part of the Discovery Institute writ- obviously, it resorts to supernatural explanations. That, in fact, is
ers who claimed that they were doing valid research. entirely what ID is – a supernatural explanation for how biological
species came into being, in contrast to the non-supernatural expla-
Results of Further Analysis nation given by evolution by natural selection. Second, by resorting
I found that out of the 24 instances in Discovery Institute- to supernatural explanations, it would appear that ID makes pre-
published papers in which the word data was used, 19 referred diction impossible. This is not simply an assertion on my part.
to data generated by other people, usually data on Cambrian fossils. Dr. William A. Dembski, a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Insti-
This was not active scientific research. These articles simply talked tute’s Center for Science and Culture, has written the following:
about other people’s work, without any predictions or testing being “Yes, Intelligent Design concedes predictability” (Dembski, 2001).
done by the authors of the ID articles. Of the remaining five
articles, four referred to data as a concept. That is, they talked Intelligent Design, Quantification, &
about what data might look like, if they had any. Finally, there Experimentation
was one paper that had original data, but there was no hypothesis Despite admissions by its proponents that ID is a supernatural
testing. In short, in all of the purportedly peer-reviewed ID litera- explanation and that it concedes predictability, these proponents
ture that the Discovery Institute had published, there was not a still insist that ID is science and should be taught in American pub-
single instance of hypothesis testing. lic schools as such. They base this extraordinary claim on written
work by ID proponents, which they say is scientific research. Much
of the work sounds scientific to the untrained reader, since it
Discussion addresses scientific and technical subjects and uses scientific
Science is a method of investigation that is used to obtain a better terminology.
understanding of reality. It involves a series of rules and methods So, supposing for a moment that supernatural explanations are
that are needed to move forward in this process. In addition to possible, how would a scientist find this out? By doing careful
the careful observation and quantification mentioned earlier, sci- observations and controlled experiments, in order to show that
ence makes further demands on its investigators. I have listed some no explanation other than the supernatural one is possible. It is rea-
of these further requirements below (University of California at Ber- sonable to expect that a field that has been in existence more than
keley, 2014). 25 years – and that expects its work to be taught to school children
Hypotheses, Predictions, and Falsifiability. At some point in in science classes and placed in textbooks – would have completed
the development of a given field, hypotheses must be produced, many carefully controlled, quantified experiments to back up their
and predictions based on these hypotheses, that are testable at least extraordinary claims.
in principle, must be produced. If there is no way that an idea One would expect to see a plethora of experimental data, and a
could ever be tested, at least in principle, then it falls outside of corresponding plethora of references to it. Instead, my research has
the realm of science. It must further be possible to design a test shown that even the Discovery Institute, the leading institutional
of the hypothesis that would prove that the hypothesis is wrong. proponent of ID, could find no experimental results with which
This is called falsifiability. to justify their claims. If the Discovery Institute did have any exper-
Reproducibility. It must be possible for other investigators to imental evidence to show for its efforts, it would certainly publicize
get the same results, if they carefully use the same methods of that material. Not only do they have no experimental results to
investigation. That is, for results to be accepted, they must be show for 25 years’ worth of writing, they rarely even refer to data,
reproducible. which is the lifeblood of any developed scientific field. The com-
No Supernatural Explanations. Another important rule is that parison between how the bona fide scientists at STRI wrote their
science cannot resort to the supernatural for explanations. This papers versus how the writers at the Discovery Institute wrote them

THE AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER WHY INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT SCIENCE 511

This content downloaded from

203.109.74.50 on Sat, 22 Oct 2022 15:02:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
makes it uncomfortably clear that the latter have not been doing quantitative research indicates that they either do not understand
scientific research. what science is or do not care. In either case, it indicates a cavalier
attitude toward science that makes it even less likely that they are
doing serious scientific research.
Conclusion This will be a useful study for teachers to know about. It will
also be very useful to school board members and those who deal
Proponents of Intelligent Design claim that it is science. The
with school boards; and to legislators and those who deal with
results here, gleaned from their own writings, strongly contradict
legislators. All these individuals may need some useful quick refer-
this claim. Yet the claim that ID is valid science is having a pro-
ences when dealing with other individuals who are inclined to
found effect on how science is taught in this country as well as
accept ID.
overseas – for instance, in Brazil and Turkey. Legislatures, the
If school board members, legislators, and others who control
writers of state science standards, school boards, teachers, and
school curricula really want to insert ID into school curricula on
parents are too often persuaded by the scientific-sounding lan-
the grounds that ID is science, then it is very important to establish
guage used by ID proponents.
that ID is not science. This is important both from the standpoint
The results presented here are strong evidence that ID cannot
of teaching legitimate science in science classes, and from the
be considered a scientific discipline because it does not follow the
standpoint of constitutional separation of church and state.
basic requirements for scientific research. First, it is a supernatural
explanation. Second, it cannot be used to make predictions. Third, Scientific Literacy
it relies on argumentation rather than on data and the testing of
Science is becoming an increasingly important and inescapable
hypotheses. Given these drawbacks, it is clear that ID writers at
aspect of people’s lives. People are required to research different
the Discovery Institute were not doing scientific research. It may
types of drugs that they may need, to understand articles on water
be appropriate to consider their work scholarship, perhaps of a
quality, and to decide whether or not to vaccinate their children.
philosophical nature, but it is not science. Likewise, instruction
These are just a few ways in which written information about sci-
regarding the idea of ID might be appropriate in a class on the his-
ence affects people’s lives.
tory of ideas, but not in a science class.
An exceedingly important part of scientific literacy is the ability
It should be reiterated that the ID papers analyzed here are the
to distinguish science from non-science. It can be particularly diffi-
ones the Discovery Institute specifically listed as their scientific
cult to distinguish science from non-science when an article or
research papers, not opinion papers. This makes it clear that the
story on television is about science and uses scientific-sounding
Discovery Institute does not readily distinguish between fact and
words. It is necessary to train students to look for objective evi-
argument.
dence, hypothesis testing, and other hallmarks of scientific
These results can inform the debate as to whether or not ID
research.
should be included in a science curriculum. The method used here
This is particularly important at present because scientists are
may prove useful in further studies of this kind. Below, I discuss a
sometimes having their findings attacked for political reasons. In
number of ways in which the information in this article will be use-
addition to evolution, this is true for climate science, especially
ful to teachers.
global warming. Creation of doubt, based on argumentation rather
than on careful research, is one of the many ways in which scien-
How This Information Can Be Used in tific results are called into question for nonscientific reasons.
Many science teachers at both the high school and college
the Classroom levels give assignments that involve reading popular media (news-
Defense of Teaching Evolution papers, magazines, blogs, and so on) for articles on scientific sub-
jects. A useful element in this type of instruction would be to
This study’s results provide a straightforward defense of teaching
have students analyze articles for scientific quality, as well as simply
evolution and not Intelligent Design. Rather than having to refer
stating what the article is about. This is often easier than it sounds.
to point-by-point refutations of ID articles, which can be tedious
Here are some simple questions to ask regarding any article about
for most general readers and listeners, a teacher can point to this
science:
study, which examines many of ID’s said-to-be-scientific articles,
and point out that ID isn’t science. • Does the article refer to data, or does it just argue?
There is very little data in articles by ID writers and lots of argu- • Is anything quantified?
ing, whereas true scientists do the reverse. A complete lack of • How were the data, if any, obtained?
hypothesis testing points to a field that is at best undeveloped,
• Were conditions controlled, and if so, how?
since ID proponents have had more than adequate time to progress
to quantified studies and hypothesis testing. The fact that they • Is anything testable, or tested?
haven’t done this despite 25 years of constant arguing, publicity, This article can be used as a starting point in a discussion about
and lobbying for their views indicates a far greater interest in how to evaluate writing about science. One approach would be to
arguing, publicity, and lobbying than in doing authentic scientific print an article from the “Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific
research. Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design” section
The fact that ID proponents want their ideas to be a part of of the Discovery Institute website, and contrast it with an evolu-
biology textbooks before they have produced a large body of tionary biology article from STRI. The differences were, to this

512 THE AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER VOLUME. 77, NO. 7, SEPTEMBER 2015

This content downloaded from

203.109.74.50 on Sat, 22 Oct 2022 15:02:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
reader, striking enough to start her on a new line of research, and I Jinks, J. (1997). The Science Processes. Illinois State University. [Online.]
suspect that the differences would be obvious to high school and Available at http://my.ilstu.edu/~jdpeter/THE%20SCIENCE%
college students as well. 20PROCESSES.htm.
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005). 400 F. Supp. 2d 707
Strengths & Weaknesses (M.D. Pa. 2005).
Los Angeles Times (2012). ‘Monkey’ business, again, in Tennessee.
If a teacher is unfortunate enough to live in a state or district that
[Editorial.] Los Angeles Times, April 10.
allows or encourages the teaching of ID/Creationism, she or he will
Louisiana State Legislature (2008). The Louisiana Science Education Act.
probably be told to teach the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolu- http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=631000.
tion. If one is going to teach the “strengths and weaknesses” of
McHugh, M.L. (2013). The chi-square test of independence. Biochemia
evolution, one should teach those of ID as well. Teachers can use Medica, 23, 143–149.
this article to inform a discussion of the “strengths and weaknesses” Missouri House of Representatives (2014). Missouri House Bill 1472. http://
of ID (or at least the weaknesses). Doing a point-by-point refutation www.house.mo.gov/billsummary.aspx?
of ID articles can be very tedious – though doing so with a single bill=HB1472&year=2014&code=R.
article, in a classroom as an exercise, may be a good idea – but this National Center for Science Education (2013). Continuing concern over
study gives teachers another option. When under pressure to pres- antievolutionism in Turkey. [Online.] Available at http://ncse.com/
ent ID/Creationism in class, in the name of showing both sides of news/2013/07/continuing-concern-over-antievolutionism-turkey-
the “controversy,” it is important to establish that the controversy 0014890.
is a political and not a scientific one. This article, which shows National Center for Science Education (2014a). Creationist legislation in
Brazil. [Online.] Available at http://ncse.com/news/2014/11/creationist-
the lack of scientific research behind many ID proponents’ claims,
legislation-brazil-0016007.
will be invaluable in these efforts.
National Center for Science Education (2014b). Update on South Carolina’s
mammoth debate. [Online.] Available at http://ncse.com/news/2014/
Teachers in Other Fields
04/update-south-carolinas-mammoth-debate-0015517.
Teachers in non-science subjects may also find this article helpful. Ohio Legislature (2014). Ohio House Bill 597. http://www.legislature.ohio.
For instance, I have had several requests for materials from teachers gov/.
and professors of writing. These instructors often need articles for Oklahoma State Legislature (2014). Oklahoma House Bill 1674. http://www.
their students to read and then write about. Having students read oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=HB1674&Session=1300.
and write about the problems with Intelligent Design can educate Oklahoma State Legislature (2014). Oklahoma Senate Bill 1765. http://www.
them in several ways all at once. oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=sb1765&Session=1400.
Paley, W. (1802). Natural Theology: Or, Evidence of the Existence and
Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Printed by S. Hamilton, Weybridge.
Smithsonian Institution (2010). Smithsonian Institution website. http://
My thanks to Dr. David Daggett of the Curry College Mathematics www.si.edu/.
Department and Dr. Bruce Steinberg of the Psychology Department South Dakota Legislature (2014). South Dakota Senate Bill 112. http://legis.
for statistical help, and to Gregg Dinderman of Sky & Telescope sd.gov/Legislative_Session/Bills/Bill.aspx?File=SB112P.
magazine for help with graphics. htm&&Session=2014&cookieCheck=true.
Tennessee State Legislature (2012). House Bill 368 by Dunn, Senate Bill 893
by Watson. An Act to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49,
Chapter 6, Part 10, relative to teaching scientific subjects in elementary
schools. http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/HB0368.pdf.
REFERENCES Thaxton, C.B., Bradley, W.L. & Olsen, R.L. (1984). The Mystery of Life’s
AIDS.gov (2014). Timeline of AIDS. http://www.aids.gov. Origin: Reassessing Current Theories. New York, NY: Philosophical
Chigwedere, P., Seage, G.R., 3rd, Gruskin, S., Lee, T.H. & Essex, M. (2008). Library.
Estimating the lost benefits of antiretroviral drug use in South Africa. University of California at Berkeley (2014). Understanding Science – how
Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 49, 410–415. science really works. http://undsci.berkeley.edu/. [This is a website
Davis, P. & Kenyon, D.H. (1989). Of Pandas and People: The Central devoted to helping the public understand how science works,
Question of Biological Origins. Richardson, TX: Foundation for Thought published by the University of California at Berkeley.]
and Ethics. Virginia General Assembly (2014). Virginia House Bill 207. http://leg1.state.
Dembski, W.A. (2001). Is intelligent design testable? [Online.] Available va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?141+ful+HB207.
at http://www.discovery.org/a/584. Washington Post (2009). ‘Strengths and weaknesses’; will the Texas Board
Discovery Institute (2010). Discovery Institute website. http://www. of Education evolve backward? [Editorial.] The Washington Post,
discovery.org. March 25.
Discovery Institute (2015). Is intelligent design a scientific theory? [Online.] Weinberg, H. (2012). Gov. Bill Haslam should veto ‘Monkey Bill.’ Knoxville
Available at http://www.intelligentdesign.org. News Sentinel, April 5.
Forrest, B. & Gross, P.R. (2004). Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of
Intelligent Design Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Gill, J. (2011). Louisiana’s Science Education Act Lacking in Science. The DR. ABBY HAFER is a Professor at Curry College, 1071 Blue Hill Ave., Milton,
Times-Picayune, June 11. MA 02186; e-mail: [email protected].

THE AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER WHY INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT SCIENCE 513

This content downloaded from

203.109.74.50 on Sat, 22 Oct 2022 15:02:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms