legionnaire

As you all can see, I grew up in Pennsylvania, in what was fortunately a rather progressive little Quaker town about an hour north of Philadelphia. There's a joke amongst certain Pennsylvanians (those living at the extreme east or west ends) that goes like this: Q: What do you call the area between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia? A: Alabama. Nowhere is this typified better than in this article on salon.com It's a nice detailing of the controversy surrounding the efforts of a local school board (despite the protests of many residents and the ACLU, and the questionable constitutionality of the move) to try and teach so-called "intelligent design" in lieu of or in addition to evolution as a "competing theory."

Many of you who know me personally know that I'm a pretty rational person, and I pride myself on my level-headedness. But this is one area where I find myself ragingly angry, it pisses me off more than just about anything else I can think of. There is no legitimate reason why anyone should suggest that "intelligent design" is in any way comparable with evolutionary theory. And in fact, in the rest of the developed world (including the Vatican, of all places) this is readily accepted. Except for here, of course, the US. We're like the 15 year old who still believes in Santa Claus but we're so much bigger than everyone else that they're afraid to tell us how idiotic we are.

Those who espouse "intelligent design" are often vociferous in their support for it (being as rhetoric is the only actual tool that can be used to support this dogma, since rationality fails it at every other level) and often have pre-prepared responses to people who dare to question its sanity or basis in anything resembling the real universe that make themselves sound smart and prepared. To combat this, I've prepared a list of my own for you to sally forth and use to defeat this pseudo-intellectual plague before it spreads any further. Therefore, without further ado, I give you:

Legionnaire's Defense Against Creationism or the other title ("Why 'Intelligent' Design is Stupid")

"Intelligent Design" advocates have a list of things they typically use to respond to evolution, and I've listed the most common ones here and how to properly respond back and put them in their place.

1. Much of the scientific community debates the validity of evolutionary theory.
Wrong. There is essentially a complete scientific consensus as to evolution - and they're all in favor of it. While some of the minutiae of the theory are still being worked out, the overwhelming evidence in support of evolution has convinced essentially all scientists that its principles are accurate. This evidence is freely available to whoever would like to view it.
2. Evolution is a theory, and intelligent design is just another theory so they should be treated equally.
Wrong. Evolution is an actual scientific theory, meaning it is the end result of innumerable hypotheses concerned the way organisms change in response to external stimuli that have been experimentally verified. "Intelligent Design" is not even a hypothesis because by its very nature it is untestable, it makes no predictions and is not based on any empirical evidence.
2.a. The bible is enough empirical evidence.
When you can produce a single version of the bible that has not undergone translations, that corresponds directly with observable historical and archeological phenomenon then some elements of it may be considered to constitute empirical evidence. Until that happens it cannot be considered within the scope of this discussion.
3. Science is just another religion, and evolution is one of its tenets.
Wrong. Science is a body of knowledge and theories created through the repetition of experiments that rely on direct and indirect observations of empirical phenomena. Anything that is considered part of science must be repeatable if desired given the proper conditions. Religions are based on acceptance of words as "facts" in the absence of any proof - this is what constitutes faith, an essential tenet of every religion, and what distinguishes it from science. Science also accepts as a precept that with new knowledge existing theories must be similarly balanced to reflect that knowledge, something which religion is typically loathe to do.
4. Biological life is too complex to have evolved on its own, it must be the result of the intervention of some high power or superior intelligence. (so-called irreducible complexity)
This does not constitute a rational argument because it a) presupposes the existence of some superior intelligence and b) makes an erroneous assumption about the complexity of life. In fact, at both the molecular and physiological levels highly complex molecules and structures can be readily broken down into components that have lesser or even wholly different functions. Reducing complexity actually provides a nice molecular mechanism (domain swapping) for how rapid evolution can occur.
5. Evolution is incompatible with the laws of thermodynamics.
Wrong. This somewhat baffling argument is apparently the result of two faulty assumptions. The first is that evolution implies the development of a greater level of organization, that humans are somehow less disordered than other animals so if we were to have developed from less "complex" animals then the entropy of the system (presumably the biosphere) would be decreasing which violates the first and second laws of thermodynamics. In point of fact the entropy of the system is unchanged whether we're talking about a pound of bacteria or a pound of human flesh - it's purely anthropocentrism to assume that humans somehow have less entropy than other organisms. However, even if this were the case, the argument would still be incorrect because of the fatal flaw in the argument - the laws of thermodynamics state that entropy of a closed system must always increase. The earth is not a closed system - it receives energy from an outside source, the sun, and radiates waste heat energy, therefore the entropy of the earth as a whole could hypothetically decrease (even though it doesn't) without violating any laws of thermodynamics.
6. Microevolution has been proven but not macroevolution - there's no proof that new species have evolved from a single species.
Wrong. This distinction is artificial and the terminology was created by opponents of evolution to try and create a false dichotomy between evolution within a species and evolution that creates a new species. Evolutionary theory states that organisms change in response to external selective pressures. This can be easily proven in a single petri dish in an afternoon - just spread some bacteria on the dish and apply a low level of ampicillin or another antibiotic. Most of the bacteria will die off. Some will not. Those bacteria are now resistant to ampicillin, and will eventually grow and repopulate the dish. Voila, evolution. In the natural world speciation (the divergence of animals into different species that can no longer interbreed) has been recorded many times, describd here in better detail than I can give. Suffice to say there are many, many examples.
7. The fossil record is incomplete and does not show evidence of hypothesized transitionary life forms that evolution says must occur.
Wrong. This is fundamentally bullshit, and ignores over a century of paleontological data that has filled in many of the gaps that were present at the time that Darwin wrote "The Origin of Species". Transitional lifeforms that have been observed within the fossil record include Ambulocetus and Rhodocetus both somewhere between a cow and a whale, Archaeopteryx, a transitory form between a reptile and a bird. Furthermore, geological strata show a remarkable consistency across the globe in that we never seen multicellular organisms in eras thought to contain only unicellular, we never see human skeletons with dinosaurs and we never see mammals before the Devonian period. The fossil record is remarkably complete, in fact, considering how rare the fossilization process actually occurs.

Feel free to suggest other commonly used, fallacious arguments that attempt to shoot down evolutionary theory. Make no mistake though - this is and has always been a key intellectual battle, and no one should be willing to give an inch of ground to those who would replace logic, knowledge and reason with superstition and fear. To debate "intelligent design" or whatever else is called is a mistake - it lends it legitimacy by making it appear as if it is somehow on equal footing with evolutionary theory. Instead it should be smacked in the face, hard, with irrefutable data and logic. Scientists have stayed out of the political fray surrounding this mess for too long. It's our job, and the job of everyone else who supports a rational basis for living that it stop now.