We have recently seen Open Forum articles in Dateline on intelligent design by Arthur Shapiro (Jan. 13) and Stephen McCurdy (Jan. 27), who discount it, and Richard Spencer (March 17), who points out that science is not limited to experimental fields, but deductive ones, involving systematic, rigorous appraisal of what is known, to deduce something about how such things came about.

This is the case with evolution, since one cannot experimentally demonstrate evolution. It is a deductive science, based on the initial premise that natural processes resulted in the world that we see around us. In this methodological prohibition, by definition, a designer is excluded. That possibility is ruled out by almost all scientists gathering and analyzing whatever data are discovered.

'A thorny issue'

Thus, while much work has shown that many species are adaptable, and can exhibit microevolution, where subpopulations of some species may sometimes demonstrate remarkable capacity for change in minor characteristics of the subpopulation's members, macroevolution, or the development of new forms or major characteristics, has not been demonstrated, and remains a thorny issue within biology. Much theoretical and experimental work has been done to attempt to extrapolate from micro- to macroevolution, using demonstrable adaptability to try to bridge the gaps between species, yet evolution remains a deductive science, not an experimental one.

Were people, who admitted to some particular religious view, to publish results of studies of fossils gathered in field work, their work would likely be questioned. Yet, when people, who begin with the premise that there is no designer, gather specimens, analyze them and publish their results, this is considered good, trustworthy research. Why is there not any concern that, in the hands of researchers who, a priori, disavow the possibility of a designer, data that support the naturalistic view are eagerly sought, recorded, analyzed and published, while any that support the theory of a designer, are not?

In the theoretical realm, the difficulties explaining origin of life, homochirality, development of new forms, lack of intermediate species and irreducible complexity are not frequently addressed in the naturalistic literature.

When these problems are raised, even by respected scientists, hoping to prompt discussion of thorny issues, the attack on those who raise the issue(s) usually begins with an attack on the objectivity of the one raising the point. An example is the attacks on Michael Behe for his papers and book, Darwin's Black Box, in which he raises, in particular, the issue of irreducible complexity, to challenge the accepted notions of naturalistic evolution.

His espousal of a religious view is always used in the attacks on his work, since that appears to smear his views with fatal lack of objectivity.

Rational scrutiny

The attack on Stephen Meyer, for his article in a respected scientific journal that questioned the ability of the naturalistic model to explain the famous Cambrian Explosion, based on rational scrutiny of published papers, similarly has tried to taint his credibility simply because he questions what has become an institutionalized paradigm: naturalism.

Similar to the accepted science of evolution, intelligent design is a view that examination of existing phenomena, such as complex systems within large complex organisms, or complex structures within simple unicellular organisms, supports the theory that they would not likely occur in random processes, or as the result of unguided evolution of organisms, no matter how much time is allowed.

This argument focuses on those structures and systems that appear sufficiently complex that the statistical likelihood of their arrival on the scene, given random, unguided evolution, the laws of thermodynamics, and the restriction of a relatively limited amount of time, falls below the threshold allowed for other accepted theories.

It should not be enough to convince a skeptical scientist that present-day systems and structures evolved from earlier ancestors simply because they exist. Some reasonable mechanism, or pathway of changes, should be demonstrated to be at least feasible, even if rather unlikely, to avoid the charge of accepting something on blind faith. The basic postulate of naturalism, that there is no designer, limits the openness of those gathering data. They must try to explain everything within the naturalist paradigm.

The more defensible view would include openness to healthy debate between naturalism and creationism, in which scholars are encouraged to weigh and sift the evidence supporting both, so that less time is wasted defending the view less defensible. This would also foster a healthier attitude in the analysis of any new data that is discovered, since there is a good chance that more data to support one or the other view will be uncovered.

Also worth discussion, of course, are the underlying philosophies upon which adherents to naturalism and creationism subscribe, and this is striking, since it is an issue that tends to be strongly emotional, and to derive from deeply held beliefs.

Roger Littge is a staff research associate in the Department of Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering.