Teach the Controversy
Why “Intelligent Design” Endangers Our National Security
SOURCE: AP/Matthew S. Gunby
If conservative policymakers really doubt that the DNA molecule evolves, then they should ignore their doctors’ recommendation to get a new flu vaccine every winter for themselves and their family—a vaccine needed because of the swift evolutionary changes experienced by the flu virus. Above: samples of the Avian Influenza Vaccine, stockpiled in case of a pandemic outbreak.
Print
It’s election time again, which means proponents of the marvelously misnamed “intelligent design” theory are once again arguing this buffed-up version of creationism should be taught “alongside evolution” in schools. These extreme voices of conservatism have been soundly defeated in the courts and before local school boards, yet political candidates wedded to the motivational power of intelligent design continue to tout the mantra to stir up their base.
But those who wish to be our nation’s leaders need to consider the implications for the 21st century power of a citizenry that lacks confidence in science and indeed is taught to denigrate its most basic precepts. History teaches that the most technologically sophisticated powers have vast advantages even over more numerous and desperate adversaries, from Spanish conquests of Central America to Israel’s victories over its Arab neighbors.
Our ability to defend our freedoms is directly tied to our longstanding scientific and technological advantages, not just in the military arena but also in our economy.
This reality has not changed. Our national security is thoroughly bound up with our ability to maintain our lead in understanding and managing the world that surrounds us. Long-term threats to Americans could result if our elected officials decide to pander to antiscientific tendencies among their most forceful constituents. As an adviser to national security and intelligence agencies, I am impressed at the concern repeatedly expressed by military officials and scientists that the gravest threats to our country, and the most promising defenses in the 21st century, lie in emerging fields of science, especially those related to biology.
One concern is that an enemy state or a terrorist organization could genetically modify a biological agent that spreads silently until timed to achieve maximum lethality in a large number of very mobile hosts. Even if the plot is detected early it may be too late to impose measures that minimize the damage very much. In any case, the psychological, social, and economic consequences would be immense.
There are many other nightmare scenarios for the production of biological and toxin weapons that could give an adversary a distinct tactical advantage in the new kind of asymmetric global warfare we face. These weapons are far less costly and cumbersome to produce than nuclear weapons. Largely useless on a traditional battlefield, they may be most impressive to a civilian population that frequents countless soft targets.
And what, besides a modest set of materials, many commercially available, is required to develop such agents? The main requirement is advanced training in modern biology, the organizing principle of which is, of course, evolution.
The same knowledge base can defend against threats from emerging biotechnologies. It may be possible to modify warfighters’ brain cells so that they are resistant to currently untreatable infectious agents like prions. New vaccines manufactured on powerful biotechnology platforms could better protect both soldiers and civilians from traditional bioweapons such as smallpox or new, genetically modified bacteria.
But if policymakers really doubt that the DNA molecule evolves, then they should urge their followers to disregard their military commanders’ decision to inoculate their soldiers against bioweapons. In fact, these extreme conservatives should ignore their doctors’ recommendation to get a new flu vaccine every winter for themselves and their family—a vaccine needed because of the swift evolutionary changes experienced by the flu virus. But those decisions would be poor choices for a country wishing to protect its military and keep its people safe against pandemics and biological weapons.
Then there are the economic costs of teaching “intelligent design.” Already there are alarming signs of a decline in America’s relative strength in science research and development. Although most people don’t usually think about national security in this way, our ability to defend out freedoms is directly tied to our longstanding scientific and technological advantages, not just in the military arena but also in our economy.
The world is becoming a much more competitive place in the global economy of science. We need successive waves of primary, secondary and post-secondary students of science learning about the efficacy of evolutionary theory and its practical application in our increasingly biotechnology-driven economy. The 21st century will be defined by the ongoing biotechnology revolution. Our nation cannot afford to handicap its international economic competitiveness or national security by teaching unrelated religious beliefs in science class.
The nation we all love preserves and protects its citizens’ right to believe pretty much whatever they want to believe, or disbelieve. But in defending that nation we cannot afford to handicap good science. The stakes are higher than a single political campaign. The future safety and prosperity of our nation are on the line.
Jonathan D. Moreno is the David and Lyn Silfen University Professor and Professor of Medical Ethics and of the History and Sociology of Science at the University of Pennsylvania. He is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and Editor-in-Chief of Science Progress.
Comments on this article
Jonathan, I think you express legitimate concerns about the future of our national security in particular and science education and progress in general. However I also feel that your concerns about teaching the theory of intelligent design suggest an equivocation of that theory with a stance that’s anti-science. Despite the possibility that some advocates of intelligent design might also be anti-science, the two can be quite different. While I don’t personally prescribe to the theory of intelligent design, I think it’s important to recognize that what might be at issue is simply the mechanism of change. One does not need to prescribe to the idea of intelligent design to contest the received view of the mechanism of evolutionary theory. One prominent scholar who disputes adaptationalism, for example, is Jerry Fodor (see “Against Darwinism”). I am by no means claiming that Fodor believes in intelligent design as he does not, but his objections should give us pause. He suggests that many scientific theories are “best understood as historical narratives” (Fodor 2008). And I think he makes a good point. A theory of intelligent design that disputes evolution certainly should be rejected, but room should be made for competing explanatory models. The controversy over the mechanism of evolution is certainly something that should be taught, and that is something that would benefit science and technological advancement. I think that until Fodor’s objections are answered intelligent design might have a place in that conversation, and as such it might not be as anti-science as it might seem. As much as we should avoid being anti-science, we should also avoid falling into scientism.
September 4th, 2008 at 4:54 pmIn a less politicized atmosphere, takunda’s comments would sound an important cautionary note. The scientific enterprise requires a willingness to subject even the most “obvious” truths to harsh questioning when phenomena don’t fit the prevailing paradigm. And, yes, there are completely credentialed biologists who have issues with Darwinian theory, but they don’t denounce the scientific method or the general structure of science while they disagree with specifics.
The right, however, has a well-developed strategy of manufacturing pseudo-scientific arguments that are actually political in nature. Both intelligent design and creationism are such erzatz constructs carefully designed by right-wing think tanks–Discovery Institute, most notably–to wedge themselves into the public policy debate, not to advance scientific truths and understanding, but to forward a moral and political agenda.
Prof. Moreno’s analysis of the consequences of allowing such nonesense to alter public education and public policy seems both clear and directly connected to reality. One impact he might have addressed emerges from this exchange of comments. Because of the politicization of every idea, we almost never hear or have an intellectually honest discussion of matters that affect all of us as individuals and our nation as a whole. That is a very profound impact of the ginned-up war on science and the intellect waged by the reactionary forces in the USA that cannot be alleviated by politicians’ promises to end partisan bickering. It is not bickering, but a foundational disagreement on core purposes carried on in an intellectually dishonest way by at least one side of the argument.
September 6th, 2008 at 4:24 pmCreationists do little if any research and do not submit articles to publications. If they are scientists then I deserve a gold medal in gymnastics–I just didn’t go to the try outs. But trust me, I’m as good as Shawn Johnson.
September 11th, 2008 at 5:45 pmI found the focus on bioterrorism and security quite depressing. And it seems to me that linking a scientific knowledge of evolution with increased security, linking liberal-ascribed thought with conservative issues, is itself a political manipulation.
September 11th, 2008 at 5:51 pmCompetition, military, security, freedom….here’s another thought- Better scientific knowledge could help the world battle disease, poverty, and the ravages of climate change.
But that isn’t why we teach evolution. We do it because it is the only scientific theory that explains life on earth.
Mr. Moreno, I’m sorry to say that you appear to have a phobia about people who do not believe the same as you. Yes, the label of “Intelligent Design” is a less confrontational term for “God created”. But it also IS a science!!! Intelligent scientists understand that all radioactive isotopes DO fluctuate, even though they are steady for a period as is today. That is why the new material from Mt St Helens is dated to be a billion years old. Non-creationists do not comprehend things like this.
September 14th, 2008 at 8:16 amIt is better for every scientist to realize that when there is a competing view, that neither view is totally correct. For only in a world of total truth is there no competing viewpoints, for truth has no competition.
And by the way, the existence of a Creator of the Universe has been mathematically and linguistically proven, not to mention the FACT that the Spirit of Jesus Christ lives within myself and other Believers in the Eternal God.
Good article. Interesting link between ID and bioterrorism.
Also, if we are teaching our children, or even mentioning, ID, then they will grow up possibly rejecting evolution to a degree that hinders their scientific progress. ID is not science. It is based on pseudo-scientific claims that are hardly ever tested, and when they are, fail miserably. Examples of such “designed” machinery that the ID’ers hold in the air are the immune system, bacterial flagella, hemoglobin, and some others. However, all of these have a more proper, elegant, and wondrous explanation of their development through evolution. These failings are evinced by the ruling in the Dover, PA trial (trying to get ID taught in the scientific curriculum in the local high school).
ID kills the aesthetic beauty of science and how apparently designed species came to be naturally.
For the simple fact that ID/creationism does not follow the scientific method and is not based on natural phenomena, it is not science. If people would like to read about ID/creationism, go to a “Religious Approaches to Biology” class — not a science class. If we start “teaching the controversy” (what controversy, anyway?), then we are going to have to start presenting alternative explanations to sexual reproduction (namely the Stork Hypothesis), how the brain works (namely a little wo/man is inside our brain controlling everything we do and think), and many other ridiculous, unfounded claims.
September 15th, 2008 at 7:57 pmFurthermore, to the comment’er that mentioned this, there is no debate about evolution and there is no controvery. The only thing that is debated in the scientific community (in the slightest way possible) with the theory/fact of evolution is HOW evolution progressed. Some scientists debate over the minutia of natural selection (e.g. punctuated equilibrium vs. not), but they do not disagree on evolution and natural selection as a whole.
This article puts into context my daily quandary as fifth grade elementary school science teacher in Texas. Neither our state-approved textbooks nor (more disturbingly) our state curriculum even contain the word “evolution” at our grade level. While I very much want to teach my students the basics of biology, to prepare them for what’s to come, I’m hindered by the fact that if I do so using the word “evolution” I may offend the wrong parent–and I have no assurance that I will be backed up for doing so, since some might interpret my teaching to have officially “strayed” from the approved curriculum. If that isn’t bad enough, the Texas science curriculum is up for a rewrite this fall, and with the departure of Chris Comer, (google it) who knows what will happen. This, my friends, is where we are right now. Wish me luck! :)
September 21st, 2008 at 3:15 pmDennis,
If god has been mathematically proven, then let’s see the proof. And, don’t ask me to provide it, you asserted it.
John
October 4th, 2008 at 8:24 pm