Dear Discovery Institute,
Today we will be discussing Dean Kenyon and whether or not Intelligent Design is linked to Creation Science. It is perhaps best to let Kenyon's own words express his viewpoint, so let's let his own words speak for him.
Dean Kenyon is a prominent defender of Creation science. In fact,Answers in Genesis lists him in a listing of Creation Scientists (see list http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp), and he was a witness in the Edwards v. Aquillard evolution-creation case in favor of Creation Science(see link for trial transcript with Kenyon)(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/kenyon.html ). Let's consider parts of his affidavit:
" It is my opinion, although not in the area of my expertise, that creation-science is as nonreligious as evolution."
This shows that Kenyon accepts Creation Science as scientifically valid. Thus, it calls into question the validity of Pandas...ie could Of Pandas and People be a Creationist text in disguise? Let's see another quote from the above link:
"Creation-science means origin through abrupt appearance in complex form, and includes biological creation, biochemical creation (or chemical creation), and cosmic creation. Evolution-science is equivalent to evolution. Evolution is generally understood by scientists (although some would disagree) to include biological evolution (or organic evolution) from simple life to all plants and animals, biochemical evolution (or chemical evolution or prebiotic evolution of the first life), and cosmic evolution (including stellar evolution) (of the universe). Creation-science does not include as essential parts the concepts of catastrophism, a world-wide flood, a recent inception of the earth or life, from nothingness (ex nihilo), the concept of kinds, or any concepts from Genesis or other religious texts. The subject of origins is a part of evolution, and the origin of the first life and tre-origin of the universe are generally regarded by the scientific community as part of evolution."
This almost sounds like an early discussion of Intelligent Design. Perhaps that is because it is. In "Of Pandas and People", Kenyon and Davis state the following:
"Intelligent Design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an abrupt agency, with their distinctive features already intact--fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc." (Kenyon and Davis 1989)
Intelligent Design appears to be the same thing as Creation Science according to Kenyon. Would the Discovery Institute support such a text? If yes, then it would be evidence that the Discovery Institute accepts Intelligent Design as Creation Science. Here, we see Stephen Meyer, a major player at the Discovery Institute, actually writing a "note to teachers" to be published within the textbook supplement ( http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1671 ). Shows that at least some at Discovery Institute at one point at least accepted the validity of the textbook, and thus Creation Science as a whole. Is it possible that the book itself never was a Creationist textbook supplement? No. In 1986, this exact textbook was published as "Creation and Biology". The only differences between the 2 books are the name and the fact that Creation science is changed to intelligent design in the 1989 edition. Telling. So the Discovery Institute (or at least some of its higher-ups) support an initially Creationist textbook supplement.
Time for another statement by Kenyon (from the trial transcript linked):
"The creationist scientific conclusion is that empirical data currently in hand demand the inference that the first living organisms were created. This view of the origin of life is based on a detailed analysis of laboratory information from molecular biology, biochemistry, organic chemistry, the simulation experiments on chemical evolution, as well as relevant aspects of physics, geology, astrophysics, probability and information theory."
Again, sounds exactly like Intelligent Design theory. There seems to be some sort of pattern here. Let's read some more from the trial transcript:
"At the heart of the molecular activity of all living cells is the genetic coding and protein-synthesizing machinery which stores and translates biologic information. This information is contained in the specific linear sequences of the subunits of DNA, RNA and proteins. At least 20 different proteins are required for the replication of DNA. At least another 50 proteins are needed to transcribe and translate the information stored in the DNA molecules into the amino acid sequences of proteins (J. Fox 1978; Sheeler and Bianchi 1980). Among these proteins are the aminoacylsynthetases, the enzymes that link the various amino acids to their respective transfer RNA molecules. In the absence of even one of these enzymes, protein synthesis does not take place. The genetic code is actually read by the aminoacylsynthetases since they match an amino acid with its own transfer-RNA molecule. If we go back into the past to the first time the protein-synthesizing machinery functioned, we are faced with the problem of the origin of the necessary aminoacylsynthetases. Where did the proteins come from before the protein-synthesizing system originated? One can postulate that the necessary proteins formed abiotically in the primitive ocean, but there is virtually no experimental evidence for such a postulate. "
Here we have Behe's Irreducible Complexity concept, proposed as part of Creation Science. But Intelligent Design isn't the same thing as Creation Science. Or is it? What can one do to explain these extremely close similarities without accepting the two "sciences" as one in the same? Perhaps ignore the evidence and paper trail? Let's look at one final quote from the trial transcript:
"These scientific considerations form the core of biochemical creation, and show that it is as scientific as chemical evolution, and in fact is preferable in scientific plausibility to chemical evolution. These are weighty issues of fact. Evidence often taken to support a naturalistic chemical origin of life, actually, upon close analysis, points in another direction, namely, toward the conclusion that the first life was created. The data of molecular biology, especially the details of the genetic-coding and protein-synthesizing systems, lend further powerful support to this view. Probability arguments applied to the problem of the origin of genetic information also confirm the creationist view of origins. Laboratory data and theoretic arguments concerning the origin of the first life lead one to doubt the evolution of subsequent forms of life. The fossil record and other lines of evidence confirm this suspicion. In short, when all the available evidence is carefully assessed in toto, the evolutionary story of origins appears significantly less probable than the creationist view."
Attacks on naturalistic explanations for life? Sounds like...Wedge Strategy. Probability attacks? Brings to mind the work of William Dembski. Sounds like Intelligent Design really does have a lot in common with Creation Science after all! What would be thoroughly damning for Discovery Institute's claim that Intelligent Design is not science would be to have a Creation Scientist, such as Kenyon, as a member. And surprisingly enough, Dean Kenyon is indeed a fellow of the Discovery Institute! http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=89&isFellow=true
Dear Discovery Institute, if you hope to uphold any scientific validity, you have a lot of explaining to do. It seems as if Intelligent Design is closer to Creation Science than you claim to accept. Perhaps we are not getting the whole story from you.
Davis, P. and Kenyon, D. "Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins". Haughton Publishing Company. Dallas. 1989
Edwards Vs Aguillard trial transcript links:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0482_0578_ZD.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/kenyon.html (Kenyon's affidavit)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/482/578/case.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment