The Discovery Institute, a creationist think-tank, has produced another anti-science film, this time on butterflies. A group rented the auditorium of the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History for a “premier” on Sept 19. Based on the film’s promotional materials and the content of the institute’s previous projects, we expect it to follow a familiar formula. It will show that butterflies are beautiful, complex and generally amazing. It will use a scientific-sounding presentation to try to convince viewers that butterflies could not have evolved. And it will promote the notion that butterflies were designed and created by some intelligent entity. Here are some things to think about if you see the movie.
Several of their featured “scholars” have areas of expertise unrelated to insect biology. It is curious that they have conspicuously excluded all scientists who are actively working and publishing on mechanisms of insect metamorphosis.
They will attempt to cultivate the notion that “an increasing number of scientists” doubt the efficacy of evolution to produce complex structures and processes. If they had a legitimate case, they would not need to fabricate controversy where none exists in the scientific community.
They frequently support their case with misleadingly edited quotations from well-known scientists who support evolution. Their last film portrayed paleontologist professor James Valentine of University of California at Berkeley as if he doubted evolution. This misrepresented his views and was done against his wishes. Good science does not employ deception.
The “compelling proof” in the movie is based on an argument from incredulity; to paraphrase, ‘I just cannot believe that such beautiful and complex creatures could have arisen by chance, therefore they must have been designed.’ Being too amazing to believe is not compelling proof; it is not even a scientific argument. They also make arguments from authority. We are simply told the process that produced butterflies must have foresight, can visualize complexity and is indistinguishable from intelligence. We are also told that butterfly metamorphosis takes a miracle. These claims are simply personal opinions that are not scientifically justifiable, no matter who says them.
This film also plays to so-called ‘God of the gaps’ arguments. Such arguments focus on areas where knowledge is currently limited to invoke a putative supernatural agent. Evolution explains every biological structure or process for which we have a thorough understanding. If we do not yet understand a particular phenomenon, it does not falsify evolution; it just means we have more to learn about that phenomenon. To assume that things not currently known are unknowable, and must be explained by magic or miracles, is to completely abandon the best tool we have for filling gaps in our knowledge — science.
Would it even be possible to test the idea of design via the methods of science? No. The supernatural, by definition, falls outside the realm that may be investigated by science. Design is simply not science.
Nature is wonderful and still holds many mysteries, but that does not mean we need to suspend rationality in favor of mysticism. The Discovery Institute will have to do more than just make pretty movies and play politics with school boards and state legislatures. They will have to formulate falsifiable hypotheses with testable predictions, conduct experiments, show us the evidence, expose these to independent verification and publish in real scientific journals. Until they can do this, intelligent design will remain in the realm of astrology or crystal balls. We’ll stick with science.
Richard Broughton, Ola Fincke, Kenneth Hobson, Victor Hutchison, Rosemary Knapp, Cecil Lewis, J.P. Masly and Bing Zhang, OU science faculty
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
Samsonlike 8 months, 1 week ago
Your opinion piece states; "Design is simply not science."
I hope this gem of wisdom wasn't taught to the engineers who designed the automobiles Richard Broughton, Ola Fincke, Kenneth Hobson, Victor Hutchison, Rosemary Knapp, Cecil Lewis, J.P. Masly and Bing Zhang drive to school tomorrow. I don't think they'll arrive safely.