Cobb County & Intelligent Design

[Joe]

OK, for my midterm take-home exam my Science & Pseudoscience teacher told us to write a mock letter to the Cobb County Board of Education on why intelligent design should not or should be taught in schools. Naturally, I took the opposing position, and wrote this up. It's not the most stellar thing I've ever written and I may have borrowed a little too liberally from the various arguments found on this site, but I'd appreciate any insight on how to improve it.

Dear Mr. Redden:

I am certain that you, above all others, are familiar with the recent decision by the Board of Education to include the teaching of "alternative theories" concerning the origin and development of life on Earth such as Intelligent Design. I am certain that there are many people on the Board who are sincere in their belief that Intelligent Design is a valid alternative to evolutionary theory. That being said, this is not good. Let me be frank. I grew up in Cobb County. I have been well-educated by Cobb County schools. I like Cobb County. I know one of the Board of Education members. And I am very much tired of the widespread belief throughout much of America that holds many of the people of Cobb County and other places like it in the South to be nothing but a bunch of inbred, fundamentalist, slobbering retards. Very tired of it. And by choosing to accept Intelligent Design Theory, which is really just creationism in a cheap tuxedo, as an acceptable alternative to evolutionary theory, the Board has only perpetuated this belief.

Thomas Jefferson, a strong believer in the importance of public schooling, once stated: "It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." And this explains why the Intelligent Design lobby has so vigorously used the political forum as a means by which to perpetuate their ideas; the scientific community has no interest in them, and they cannot stand against true scientific theory. Evolution is a factually proven theory; it can be observed, and the fossil record corroborates it. It stands by itself; it does not require the government's endorsement to make it true. Intelligent Design cannot be observed. The concept of Intelligent Design rests upon the notion of irreducible complexity; that is, the idea that some biological structures and systems are too complex to have evolved naturally, so they must have been created by an "intelligent designer." So, basically, it says: "I'm not capable of explaining this, so God?oops, I mean the 'intelligent designer' must have created it!" This is a leap in logic and a clear violation of Occam?s Razor; it creates an unnecessary entity to explain what likely can be explained naturally based on natural phenomena. Furthermore, many scientists have proven that such systems can reduced in complexity, but this is not really relevant. In any case, we must not resort automatically to divine intervention (which is what "intelligent design" really is) to explain things; we must first attempt to do so with sound scientific, naturalistic reasoning. It would also been reasonable to note that complexity, in biological systems and elsewhere, is not necessarily a sign of intelligence; the structure of quartz crystals is often extremely complex, for example. Does that mean that there is some "intelligent designer" up there churning out beautifully intricate crystals and letting them fall to Earth? No. I wonder how the Board of Education would react, actually, if I demanded that my theory of ?alternative geology? be given equal time with traditional geology in public schools. If anything, complexity is a sign of a lack of intelligence. Go speak with any computer programmer; what do you think he is going to strive for, an incredibly complex product that no untrained individual is able to comprehend, or a simplified system that can be used by anyone? Simplicity is what a real intelligent designer ought to strive for.

With that said, it is also important that we concentrate on legal and moral issues why intelligent design cannot be taught in public schools. I will be frank again; Intelligent Design is creationism. It tries to pretend that it isn't by replacing God with an "intelligent designer" in order to trick people with an aversion to creationism into believing that it is a valid theory. Ultimately intelligent design attributes the genesis of complex biological systems and structures to a supernatural being, which is exactly what Creationism is. It is obvious but not stated that this divine being is God. Therefore, despite the claims of the Intelligent Design advocates, Intelligent Design is just a clever trick by which creationism can be presented in an apparently non-religious context. That does not change the fact that it is indeed religious, however, since it deals with a supernatural being rather than the natural. Both the Georgia State Constitution and the United States Constitution mandate that no law respecting the establishment of any religion may be passed, and an endorsement of intelligent design by the Cobb County Board of Education would amount to just that. This isn't just about science, this is about America. It is no coincidence that the majority of advocates of Intelligent Design are Christians. This is just another example of people trying to force their beliefs on others, and is something that inherently leads to many conclusions about southern religious bigotry. Hence the stereotype described above.

I hope I have at least partially convinced you of the folly of allowing this despicable theory to be taught to our children in public schools. I implore you and the Board to reconsider this action. Perhaps, working together, we can work to knock down stereotypes about the South, not perpetuate them.

[Darth Wong]

Intelligent Design is not a valid scientific theory. It fails to define all of its terms, and it cannot make concrete predictions. At best, it simply generates the same predictions as evolution theory and attributes them to the redundant term of a mysterious intervenor with no testable or even identifiable intervention mechanism. No one with even a passing familiarity with the scientific method would recognize it as a valid theory for these reasons.

Frankly, that's the only reason you need. Science class is exclusively for scientifically valid theories, not political pandering to a special-interest group.

[Joe]

Intelligent Design is not a valid scientific theory. It fails to define all of its terms, and it cannot make concrete predictions. At best, it simply generates the same predictions as evolution theory and attributes them to the redundant term of a mysterious intervenor with no testable or even identifiable intervention mechanism. No one with even a passing familiarity with the scientific method would recognize it as a valid theory for these reasons.

Frankly, that's the only reason you need. Science class is exclusively for scientifically valid theories, not political pandering to a special-interest group.

Oh, I realize that, and I'll revise it and address that a little better. But the teacher wanted around 750 words, so I had to put in all that other stuff.

[Dalton]

...nothing but a bunch of inbred, fundamentalist, slobbering retards.

This does not look professional, nor will it make your case any stronger. You're dealing with a public official, not some moron on SDnet, so I'd recommend steering clear from any outright insults...

[Captain tycho]

...nothing but a bunch of inbred, fundamentalist, slobbering retards.

This does not look professional, nor will it make your case any stronger. You're dealing with a public official, not some moron on SDnet, so I'd recommend steering clear from any outright insults...

Dalton's right; it's a little too belligerent and forceful for a school paper.

[Kuja]

Try cutting that second paragraph in half. It'll be easier on the eyes.

[Joe]

...nothing but a bunch of inbred, fundamentalist, slobbering retards.

This does not look professional, nor will it make your case any stronger. You're dealing with a public official, not some moron on SDnet, so I'd recommend steering clear from any outright insults...

OK, I'll tone it down a little bit. Although, I'm not dealing with a public official, only my teacher will read it. Point taken, still.

How does "...nothing but a bunch of religious zealots" sound?

And Iggy, I'd like to cut it down a little bit, but he wants it to be a certain length, so I can't. Thanks for the advice, though.

[Kuja]

And Iggy, I'd like to cut it down a little bit, but he wants it to be a certain length, so I can't. Thanks for the advice, though.

I mean slice it in half.


What you have now:

Thomas Jefferson, a strong believer in the importance of public schooling, once stated: "It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." And this explains why the Intelligent Design lobby has so vigorously used the political forum as a means by which to perpetuate their ideas; the scientific community has no interest in them, and they cannot stand against true scientific theory. Evolution is a factually proven theory; it can be observed, and the fossil record corroborates it. It stands by itself; it does not require the government's endorsement to make it true. Intelligent Design cannot be observed. The concept of Intelligent Design rests upon the notion of irreducible complexity; that is, the idea that some biological structures and systems are too complex to have evolved naturally, so they must have been created by an "intelligent designer." So, basically, it says: "I'm not capable of explaining this, so God?oops, I mean the 'intelligent designer' must have created it!" This is a leap in logic and a clear violation of Occam?s Razor; it creates an unnecessary entity to explain what likely can be explained naturally based on natural phenomena. Furthermore, many scientists have proven that such systems can reduced in complexity, but this is not really relevant. In any case, we must not resort automatically to divine intervention (which is what "intelligent design" really is) to explain things; we must first attempt to do so with sound scientific, naturalistic reasoning. It would also been reasonable to note that complexity, in biological systems and elsewhere, is not necessarily a sign of intelligence; the structure of quartz crystals is often extremely complex, for example. Does that mean that there is some "intelligent designer" up there churning out beautifully intricate crystals and letting them fall to Earth? No. I wonder how the Board of Education would react, actually, if I demanded that my theory of ?alternative geology? be given equal time with traditional geology in public schools. If anything, complexity is a sign of a lack of intelligence. Go speak with any computer programmer; what do you think he is going to strive for, an incredibly complex product that no untrained individual is able to comprehend, or a simplified system that can be used by anyone? Simplicity is what a real intelligent designer ought to strive for.

What I'm suggesting:

Thomas Jefferson, a strong believer in the importance of public schooling, once stated: "It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." And this explains why the Intelligent Design lobby has so vigorously used the political forum as a means by which to perpetuate their ideas; the scientific community has no interest in them, and they cannot stand against true scientific theory. Evolution is a factually proven theory; it can be observed, and the fossil record corroborates it. It stands by itself; it does not require the government's endorsement to make it true. Intelligent Design cannot be observed. The concept of Intelligent Design rests upon the notion of irreducible complexity; that is, the idea that some biological structures and systems are too complex to have evolved naturally, so they must have been created by an "intelligent designer." So, basically, it says: "I'm not capable of explaining this, so God?oops, I mean the 'intelligent designer' must have created it!" This is a leap in logic and a clear violation of Occam?s Razor; it creates an unnecessary entity to explain what likely can be explained naturally based on natural phenomena.

Furthermore, many scientists have proven that such systems can reduced in complexity, but this is not really relevant. In any case, we must not resort automatically to divine intervention (which is what "intelligent design" really is) to explain things; we must first attempt to do so with sound scientific, naturalistic reasoning. It would also been reasonable to note that complexity, in biological systems and elsewhere, is not necessarily a sign of intelligence; the structure of quartz crystals is often extremely complex, for example. Does that mean that there is some "intelligent designer" up there churning out beautifully intricate crystals and letting them fall to Earth? No. I wonder how the Board of Education would react, actually, if I demanded that my theory of ?alternative geology? be given equal time with traditional geology in public schools. If anything, complexity is a sign of a lack of intelligence. Go speak with any computer programmer; what do you think he is going to strive for, an incredibly complex product that no untrained individual is able to comprehend, or a simplified system that can be used by anyone? Simplicity is what a real intelligent designer ought to strive for.

[Exonerate]

Try to focus more on the legal aspect of it. If they really believe in it, there's no convincing them they're wrong. Your best option is to show that it's against the constitution.

[Joe]

Try to focus more on the legal aspect of it. If they really believe in it, there's no convincing them they're wrong. Your best option is to show that it's against the constitution.

Couldn't, unfortunately; it's a class that deals with Science & Pseudoscience, and we have to display our knowledge of the course material primarily. So it had to take precedent over the legal stuff.

[neoolong]

Try to focus more on the legal aspect of it. If they really believe in it, there's no convincing them they're wrong. Your best option is to show that it's against the constitution.

Couldn't, unfortunately; it's a class that deals with Science & Pseudoscience, and we have to display our knowledge of the course material primarily. So it had to take precedent over the legal stuff.

I suggest you just show why it isn't science. Near the end it seems you go on a sort of rant on Christianity in America.

[Joe]

Try to focus more on the legal aspect of it. If they really believe in it, there's no convincing them they're wrong. Your best option is to show that it's against the constitution.

Couldn't, unfortunately; it's a class that deals with Science & Pseudoscience, and we have to display our knowledge of the course material primarily. So it had to take precedent over the legal stuff.

I suggest you just show why it isn't science. Near the end it seems you go on a sort of rant on Christianity in America.

Ah, that was just a little bonus (besides, he likes that stuff).

[Durandal]

Here's what I wrote to the Ohio State Board of Education on the subject last semester ...

Good day, Ms. Sheets and other respected members of the board. Please note that E-mail addresses for all board members were not available, so I could not send this to all members. It would be appreciated if this E-mail could be made available to those I could not send it to.

I have read that the Ohio State Board of Education is going to vote on adding the Intelligent Design theory to the scientific curriculum (http://www.nbc4columbus.com/News/1294910/detail.html). I am writing to urge the board to vote against this proposal. Please note that, while I am not a resident of Ohio, I believe that this vote will set precedent for other state education boards, and intelligent design is not an idea that should make it into the nation's scientific classrooms.I also have relatives in Ohio who are in school, and they will be affected by this decision. I consider proper scientific education to be important in grammar and high school, and passing intelligent design theory off as valid science will only malign the reception of a proper scientific education.

Intelligent design theory does not belong in the scientific classroom because it is not a scientific theory. No articles dealing with intelligent design theory have ever been published in any scientific journals, and it is not an accepted idea in the scientific community. There is no reason to teach intelligent design other than to introduce religion into public schools.

There are many specific problems with intelligent design theory that make it unscientific, which I will list.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORY MAKES NO PREDICTIONS.
All scientific theories must be testable to account for their validity. In order to be tested, a theory must make a prediction. Intelligent design theory does not meet this criterion, so it is not a scientific theory. It does not predict anything. How are students going to test intelligent design theory? What experiment could they design and perform? They simply can't test the theory, and neither can scientists.

Intelligent design is nothing more than a compromise effort between evolution and creationism. It appeases those who believe in evolution by stating the evolution actually occurred, and it appeases those who believe in God, by stating the God directed the process. However, this compromise is a purely political effort, and intelligent design theory has no formal weight in the scientific community.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORY ADDS UNNECESSARY TERMS TO AN ALREADY VALID THEORY.
The scientific method makes sure that any hypothesis must go through a battery of tests and modification to fit observation before it can be declared a theory. One of these tests is Occam's Razor, the logical principle of parsimony. In science, if two theories both fit the facts and explain observations, the one with the least amount of variables or terms is deemed the better theory.

Intelligent design theory adds unnecessary weight to evolutionary theory. Biologists have observed that evolution is guided by the process of natural selection. Natural selection basically posits that the outcome of evolution will be guided by what mutations develop in a species. If certain members of a species develop a mutation which allows them to survive more easily in their environment, those members will thrive, while members developing disadvantageous or nonadvantageous mutations will not. This is the process which guides evolution.

Intelligent design theory supplements an existing explanation with unnecessary weight. The two competing theories are as follows.

Accepted evolutionary theory: Species evolve according to natural selection. If members of a species develop a survival advantage, they will reproduce and thrive, while other members will eventually die out.

Intelligent design theory: Species evolve according to natural selection and the way God wants them to evolve. If members of a species develop a survival advantage, they will reproduce and thrive, while other members will eventually die out.

Clearly, the current evolutionary model (the first theory) is simpler, and it is regarded as one of the most robust, accurate theories in all of science. The "God" term in the second theory is not required to explain what we observe in nature. As stated before, since intelligent design theory makes no predictions, there is no way of testing it. How are we going to test God's desires or his will? How can biologists demonstrate through experiment that God really is guiding the evolutionary process? They can't. The Intelligent Designer is a redundant, unfalsifiable term. Yes, it is possible that there is one guiding the process, but this does not make the theory valid. Intelligent design theory's claims are tantamount to claiming that God's hand comes out of the ground and pulls objects down to the Earth when they are dropped. There is no reason for that term to be in the explanation of gravity.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORY ATTRIBUTES AN UNINTELLIGENT DESIGN TO AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR.
The human body works, but there is no evidence that requires it to have been intelligently designed, and it has numerous flaws which indicate that no intelligent designer could have possibly directed its creation, such as the following.

Humans use the same pipe to breathe and swallow food. This creates a potential choking hazard which is lethal. Why would any intelligent designer allow this flaw to persist for so long?

The human eye receives input that is upside-down. This requires our brain to do extra work and flip it right side-up. This hampers efficiency, something which is paramount in any design practice. No intelligent designer would have let this flaw slip by.

Human reproduction systems are disastrously inefficient. In a typical ejaculation, millions of sperm will be discharged, but only one will reach the egg, and the pregnancy yield is not even 90%. Many pregnancies will end in miscarriage or fail early on. Reproduction is a basic biological drive, so why would any intelligent designer make reproduction so incredibly inefficient?

The human genetic code is not robust. If one little segment of the human genome is modified, it can result in mental retardation, disfigured limbs or a fatality. Today, such a design is completely unacceptable in everything from computer operating systems to the cars we drive. No one would dare call a computer which exploded or just stopped working upon its CD-ROM drive being removed "intelligently designed," yet the same flaws in the human body are sometimes regarded as evidence of the intelligent design.

Humans retain a useless organ known as an appendix. There is no reason for it to be there, so why would any intelligent designer keep it there? It has been known to cause extreme pain, and it is sometimes necessary to surgically remove it. Its presence is not only an inefficiency, but a danger, as well.

For these reasons, intelligent design should be kept out of any scientific curriculum. It is grossly unscientific in every conceivable way, and you will never find any mention of its validity in any scientific journal. Teaching it as valid science is fraudulent and can only hurt the basic scientific education that students receive in high school. It would tell students that intelligent design is an accepted theory when it is nowhere near such a status.

Please vote against adding intelligent design to Ohio's scientific curriculum. It has no place there.

[Darth Servo]

Here's what I wrote to the Ohio State Board of Education on the subject last semester ...

Did you ever hear back from them? They probably just sent a form letter, right?

[Durandal]

Here's what I wrote to the Ohio State Board of Education on the subject last semester ...

Did you ever hear back from them? They probably just sent a form letter, right?

One of them did; she was a moron. I replied to her obviously pad-response and blasted it to pieces, then the other members of the board E-mailed me, applauding the fact that I'd actually picked up that gauntlet and smacked her across the face with it, whereas others had not.