While Ben Stein and the producers of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed have been busy spending millions of dollars to manufacture stories of individuals suffering personal trauma simply for accepting intelligent design, they (and their audiences) remain blissfully ignorant to the large numbers of people who have truly been harmed for accepting the scientific realities of evolution. Many of these people profess their own profound Christian faith, but have been penalized in their personal, professional and spiritual lives, sometimes for just suggesting that evolutionary theory might be compatible with a strong faith. The list here is long: Steve Bitterman (lost his teaching job for not teaching the story of Adam and Eve as literal truth); Alex Bolynatz (fired from a teaching position for claiming evolution and faith are compatible); Howard Van Till (subjected to four years of investigative inquiry for suggesting that biblical accounts were influenced by the cultures in which they had been written); Nancy Murphy (threatened with dismissal for writing a negative review of Philip Johnson’s book, Darwin on Trial); Gwen Pearson (forced to resign from teaching biology after being assaulted and receiving threats like “May Christians have the strength to slaughter you and end your pitiful, blasphemous life”); Chris Comer (forced to resign for simply forwarding an email announcing a Barbara Forrest public talk); Paul Mirecki (beaten and then forced to step down as department chair for proposing a class “Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies”); Erik Pianka (received death threats for suggesting human overpopulation was a threat to the planet); Judge John E. Jones (received death threats for referring to intelligent design as “breathtaking inanity” in his judgment of the Dover case); University of Colorado biology professors (received threats); Terry Gray (forced to recant after a negative review of Johnson’s book – apparently Philip Johnson can dish out the criticism but it too much of a coward to take it).

And what about Professor Richard Colling, a man of strong faith who claimed that one could still have a strong faith and believe in evolution? Colling has been barred from teaching biology and his book, Random Designer, has been banned from use on campus.  I have been in communication with Richard Colling on and off over the last year. He has devoted his life and professional career to teaching sound science to the students of Olivete Nazarene University while fostering a strong faith that does not have to contradict our observations of the real world in order to be meaningful. His students adore him (several have contacted me with personal stories). He has fought a constant struggle with the administrators and “benefactors” of Olivete Nazarene over his name, his teaching career and his integrity both as a scientist and as a Christian.

He recently sent me several manuscripts recounting this episode, portions of which I may publish here in posts to come. However, I was struck more by his recent email to me. It reflects the exasperation and despair of a man who has been beaten down emotionally by a system of “Christian” morality more concerned with its own self-righteous welfare than with any philosophy Christ may have advocated. If there is a god, and if he is good and just and honest, then he must be taking Richard Colling’s side:

I am deeply saddened that the entire situation has come to this point of misrepresentation and organized attempts to discredit and malign my reputation. My heart has always been to offer a means to students and to the general public by which science and faith can be viewed as compatible. My faculty colleagues and students will attest that I have done this accurately, as well as faithfully and sensitively in the classroom and in my book, Random Designer. Yet sadly the university leadership, without willingness to accept responsibility for questionable actions and misleading communications, has apparently chosen to ignore these facts. I have discovered that some of the most fundamental voices in the Christian church and culture only want war, and seemingly will stop at nothing to discredit/destroy anyone who understands the biology/evolution and makes an intellectually honest attempt to communicate peace between Biology and the Bible. This grieves me deeply.

Expelled has fabricated suffering in order to fulfill an all out war on intellectual and spiritual freedom while the same cheerleaders of this movie ignore the true pain and suffering this theological elitism causes. My thoughts go to Richard.

This is one of the reasons why, despite my general foray around the margins of atheism, I still keep reading those with a more spiritual bent then myself, such as James McGrath: I need to get this book. It is not that my atheism/spirituality is absolute, it that it is complex – I cannot abide by simple black-and-white answers to larger problems. And my beef with theism is not its spirituality, it is that it is far too simplistic (in all its varieties) to be credible. If there is anything out there, it is far more complex and magnificent than any Iron-Age text:

I concur absolutely with Comte-Sponville’s challenge to take the world seriously, and even give the evidence from it priority over sacred texts in important respects. “The world is far more interesting to me than the Bible or the Koran,” Comte-Sponville writes. “It is far more mysterious than they are. It is vaster, since it contains them; more unfathomable; more astonishing; more stimulating, since we can transform it, whereas the holy books are reputed to be untouchable; and, last but not least, it is truer, because it is entirely true, something the Bible and the Koran, with all their inanities and inconsistencies, could never be, except insofar as they are part of the world (there is nothing inconsistent about a human text being inconsistent” (Comte-Sponville, pp.103-104).

Now THAT’s spirituality…

Intelligent Design proponents misappropriating archaeological method and theory as support for their own positions is not the only problem professional archaeology faces today with regard to the creationist crowd. Unfortunately, the issue that Eric Cline has raised regarding the impact of “faux archaeologists” claiming archaeological expertise where none exists should be equally of concern to those of us managing public lands archaeology. Federal archaeologists have done a wonderful job of providing opportunities for the public to volunteer alongside professional archaeologists, but I’m afraid that archaeology’s greatest public benefit may also be one of its greatest weaknesses. I see two problems here: the first is a tendency among “Christian” volunteers on archaeological excavations in the Middle East to return to the United States and then use this limited experience as justification for speaking to public audiences about the nature of archaeological research.  This is not just about the “high profile” faux archaeologists like Cornuke. It’s about a lot of “creation research” faux archaeologists who go to the Holy Land, work on a couple of excavations, and then list these experiences in their online resumes as proof of their professional credentials. The second problem, I believe is more egregious: national antiquity agencies, specifically the Israeli Antiquities Authority, are either turning a blind eye to this problem or is actively providing opportunities for non-professionals (specifically pro-Zionist Christian professionals…there, I said it) to gain a measure of professional respectability that is undeserved.

I had to clarify to my audience on Friday that I did not mean to cast dispersions on archaeology volunteer programs in general , only that the potential problems with volunteers starting to portray themselves as professionals in the field is starting to be a problem here, on public land, and we should begin to think about it. I DID NOT say, although in retrospect I probably should have, that I believe this problem stems solely from the way the Israeli Antiquities Authority appears to conduct business, and does not appear to be a problem with volunteer archaeology projects in general.

Some excerpts from my paper:

The war on science is occurring on multiple fronts, but I am particularly concerned with the battles over creationism and intelligent design. Although traditionally a battle fought by biologists, geologists and paleontologists, proponents of these anti-science positions increasingly enlist archaeology as an unwilling ally. I believe the public impression of archaeology generated by these misleading efforts  is beginning to impact our mission as cultural stewards and science professionals.  When several residents from my home town accompanied Dr. Carl Baugh and members from the Creation Evidence Museum to excavate at the Pool of Siloam in Israel recently, the local paper practically wet itself over the opportunity to extol the virtues of Baugh as an archaeologist who was “proving the Bible correct” by his important archaeological work in Jerusalem. But Baugh is not an archaeologist; he has no legitimate degree; he has never written a peer-reviewed article on any of his so-called “field research”; he has faked evidence and been accused of sloppy, if not incompetent, field methodology. However, the media led the public to believe that “Dr.” Baugh was actually directing the excavations at the site (no mention was made the actual directors of the Pool of Siloam excavations) and portrayed Baugh as a typical member of the professional archaeology community. The media also went out of its way to indicate that the Israeli Antiquities Authority “commissioned” Baugh’s group to work at the site, thus giving him a measure of professional respectability. This would not have been an issue of relevance here today had I not been asked in my professional capacity as a Forest Archaeologist to address whether or not the media actually had it right about archaeology.  I did not answer in an official capacity for fear of putting the Forest Service in the middle of a professional dispute. It was a mistake I will not make again. Nor was the Israeli Antiquities Authority much help – I could get no one from our international counterparts to officially comment on whether or not the IAA regards Baugh as a professional archaeologist.

Snip….

Unfortunately, Baugh’s group is not the only one.  There seems to be a growing trend of non-professionals participating in archaeological excavations for the purposes of gaining a measure of professional authenticity that they then parade in front of home audiences. This is bad enough for archaeology, but it also broadly translates into the perception that these people can speak authoritatively on science in general. Nor are these simply sour grapes on the part of a Darwinian archaeologist concerned with the broader issues of whether evolution or the Bible is true. As a Forest Service Heritage Program Manager, I am tasked with the same mission as the Israeli Antiquities Authority: to oversee the preservation of archaeological sites on public lands and to ensure professional research is undertaken, by legitimate archaeologists with valid credentials. I would no sooner grant a research permit to Baugh and the Creation Evidences Museum than to a group of kindergarten children. But how am I to respond to “But we were allowed to excavate in Israel, why can’t we do it here?” And I kid you not: I have been asked that question more than once, recently, in my professional career as a federal archaeologist.

And of course, I had to promote Eric Cline’s book, From Eden to Exile (which was onscreen during this next segment, along with a choice quote from Eric’s Boston Globe piece on “faux archaeologists”):

My whining to contrary, the important issue of archaeology’s role in educating the public on science has not flown by entirely under the archaeological radar. Eric Cline has raised the problem of the seemingly endless stream of “faux archaeologists” returning from volunteer excavations in the Middle East to explain to the rest of us how archaeology is done. No less an auspicious a journal than Antiquity (that’s the European version, not the American) recently editorialized on the exact question I raise today: is it time that archaeology does something about creationism and intelligent design? Prompted by online comments written by a professional archaeologist, the editorial notes the propensity for archaeologists to maintain a “withering silence” on this issue but suggests that “…there are reasons why silence might not be sensible for ever”.  The principle objections are cited: the abuse of archaeological method and theory by intelligent design advocates, and not allowing “…the numerous cohort of amateur archaeologists to try and prove the Bible was right after five minutes working as a volunteer on an excavation”. More importantly, the editorial concludes that the author, “…shows that far from countering the benighted influence of creationism, [archaeologists] are providing it with ammunition. For the sake of our children, archaeologists must confront it…”

[I started writing this in the airport yesterday, but then got to experience all the joys of flight cancellation everyone else in the country has had to put up with over the last few months - it was a long trip back to northern California].

Discussions around the bar last night in the aftermath of my paper were all positive. What surprised me the most were the number of archaeologists who expressed the idea that “it was about time” we got involved in this debate. Several said it was long overdue. The current SCA president also attended the symposium, heard my paper, and liked the message.  Unfortunately several agreed that there are probably more intelligent design proponents within the crowd than we realize – I knew of at least one in the audience yesterday, just based on casual conversations I have had with this person over the years.

But the intelligent design community is now on notice that archaeologists are at least becoming aware of the issue and many will be engaging the public on this discussion with greater frequency. I am waiting for the fallout from intelligent design proponents on my call, in my capacity as a federal archaeologist, for the archaeology community to get involved. I am expecting some whining on the potential conflict of interest on my part: a federal employee making an official statement on prominent debate in this country. After all, we know intelligent design activists will take advantage of any opportunity to “expel” any criticism of their position from public debate. Most federal employees are quite sensitive (sometimes I think overly so) to maintaining neutrality on controversial issues – our job is simply to ensure that appropriate laws and regulations are followed, not to advocate a particular position (at least not in an official capacity). Most of us take that charge seriously.

 However, I believe I finally understand why federal archaeologists have largely avoided this issue. Those of us who follow it closely know what intelligent design really is: a religious viewpoint. No one I know who opposes intelligent design gives it even the slightest consideration as a scientific viewpoint – we all treat it as a religious position. The federal government cannot discriminate against religious worldviews.

However, we can (and do, regularly) argue over and advocate methodological approaches all the time. We frequently get very vocal, in public and on the job, when we discuss the best way to implement projects, or which scientific approach to implementation is most valid.

If intelligent design proponents are concerned with a federal archaeologist actively arguing against their position, they are in quite a quandary. The only reason for an objection to federal employees commenting in their official capacity is if the argument is based on ID as a religious position. In discussing it as a potential scientific approach, however, it is falls well within our ability to do so. And we should be doing more of that.

I am at the Society for California Archaeology meetings in sunny Burbank, CA this week. As I posted previously, I was working on something to be unveiled today, coinciding with the opening of Expelled. I gave folks a hint in the last post, by referring to the program for the SCA meetings. Anyone looking at that might have noted the following paper being presented in the symposium entitled Public Lands Archaeology: 35 Years of Cultural Resources Management on Bureau of Land Management and US Forest Service Public Lands:

Of Turkeys, Timber Sales and Intelligent Design: Is Federal Archaeology More than CRM? Christopher O’Brien, Lassen National Forest

I gave that paper this afternoon, noting during the presentation the irony of it being given on the same day Expelled is set to open. I even showed the Expelled movie poster for a moment, but then switched to a slide of the Expelled Exposed website, suggesting that the audience would not want to look at Ben Stein’s face for too long. The main thrust of the paper was to suggest to my federal archaeology colleagues that we must do more than just “flag and avoid” archaeological sites. And while I talked about turkey historical ecology in California, the lack of knowledge most of the public has with regard to historical processes, and that federal archaeologists should take a more active role in public education regarding science education, the highlight was my assessment of archaeology’s role in the debate over Intelligent Design. Some excerpts from today’s paper:

The direct issues that we confront as federal archaeologists, especially with regard to a public that does not adequately comprehend the historical context in which we plan and implement on-the-ground projects, is intertwined with a much broader issue that affects us on multiple levels. I am talking about the war on science. If we consider our discipline a scientific endeavor and not merely a casual fulfillment of academic curiosity, then archaeology must pull its collective head out of the excavation pit and recognize when science and science education are under attack. We can no longer simply leave the war to the biologists, geologists and climatologists. Archaeology is part of the science continuum and we must engage aggressively in educating the public about archaeology specifically, but about science in general….

Snip….

Not content with attempting to purloin false archaeological credentials by nefariously claiming directorship status on volunteer archaeology projects, these charlatans of the anti-science movement have now recruited archaeology as an ally in its most current manifestation: intelligent design.  [ I would point out that today the pro-intelligent design/anti-Darwin movie Expelled opens across the country and have note the irony of my presentation at this particular moment in time]. Intelligent Design, referred to by many as “creationism in a cheap tuxedo”, claims there is evidence for design among living organism and that evolutionary theory is not sufficient to account for that design. Many of you are probably familiar with the concept and I won’t bore you with the details at the moment. It  will probably change in the next 20 minutes anyway as the most consistent feature of Intelligent Design is its inconsistency with respect to substance and definition. The issue here is that proponents of Intelligent Design regularly hijack archaeological method and theory to cite as a metaphor for our poor biologist cousins who can’t seem to accept the concept of design in nature. ID proponents insist that the archaeologists are all about “identifying design” in the archaeological record and seem to think there is an analogy to be drawn between an archaeologist’s recognition of intelligent design in artifacts and their own identification of intelligent design in biological systems. Nothing could be further from the truth. Design in archaeology is not “self evident”; it belies centuries of thought on archaeological method and theory, ethnographic analogy, experimentation with raw materials and an appreciation for context. A lot of hard methodological and theoretical work has gone into method and theory distinguishing the signatures of human intervention from those attributed to natural processes. More importantly, archaeologists never separate the design from the designer (something ID proponents do regularly): understanding the material culture is only a proximate goal of archaeology. Archaeology’s ultimate goal is to understand human behavior, i.e. the nature of the designer.

Snip….

Certainly, our academic and contract archaeology brethren are either blissfully unaware of the public perceptions of archaeology or have purposely chosen to remain ensconced in the ivory tower. I once heard a well-known contract archaeologist in California largely dismiss the creation-evolution debate by suggesting, “if you take antibiotics, you have to be a proponent of natural selection”. From an academic biological perspective, how absolutely true; and yet in the broader scheme of public perception…how utterly naïve. When your opponents long ago abandoned issues of microevolution and switched to using analogies with the archeological Antikythera Mechanism as valid scientific methodology for inferring design in biological systems, you are way behind the curve ball in the public debate over science. 

But the following presentation was the highlight:

If you don’t think this issue has anything to do with federal archaeology then I offer you this: the Antiquity editorial was prompted by an article written, not by an academic archaeologist, or a contract archaeologist. It was written by a United States federal archaeologist. As professional scientists we have a role to play in science education; and our role in this is probably greater given the significant public outreach we engage in relative to our academic and contracting counterparts. If you still think this is not federal archaeology’s business, or are more comfortable avoiding such issues and sticking with flag and avoid archaeology, or if you happen to accept intelligent design as a valid scientific method (and I submit there are more individuals accepting intelligent design in the audience than many of you may realize) let me offer you an image.

If you are asking where I’m going with this, in the immortal words of William Wallace…[I then flashed the following picture]:

I’m going to pick a fight.

I challenge the SCA to develop a statement of scientific standing and declare that archaeology is a professional discipline adhering to principles of sound scientific investigation and rejects intelligent design and similar anti-science pursuits because they are not scientific in methodology. I challenge the SAA to do the same. And I challenge federal archaeologists in this room to make proper science education part of every public outreach, be it a brochure, an interpretive panel, a public lecture or a public archaeological project. Emphasize the professionalism of archaeological research and the scientific foundation upon which it is based to your public audiences. Whether we are talking turkeys, timber sales or intelligent design, federal archaeology needs to be more than just CRM – we are the face of archaeology that the public sees most often; we reach the largest audiences; we are presented with the best opportunities to engage the public and educate them about the importance and professionalism of archaeology.

I plan to clean the paper up, expand some points a bit and add some references. I’ll have it available to anyone who would like a copy after that. I’ll also let everyone know what kind of feedback I get at the bar tonight….

I apologize for the blogging being a little light of late, but I’m trying to put the finishing touches on something that will be unveiled, coincidently, on the same day Expelled is supposed to premier across America (this Friday). I wish I could take credit for planning it that way, but it was just the nature of the scheduling.

The annual meetings for the Society for California Archaeology begin this Thursday (April 17) in Burbank, California. I’ll be flying down to attend. If you’re interested in the program for this year, you can download it at the SCA homepage. I’ll be blogging from the meetings.

Just about any argument against homosexuality can be considered theocratic in nature if not direct substance. The only reason for opposition to someone’s personal adult sexual preference is because of a religious stance on the issue. If you wish to live by your personal religious preferences, that’s fine, but your religion is no excuse for affecting the lives of others. Consider, for example, the latest flap over a lawmaker being allowed to take her lesbian spouse on a taxpayer-funded trip on a military flight:

A conservative group is calling on the Pentagon to apologize for its decision to permit a liberal lawmaker to take her homosexual partner on a taxpayer-funded trip overseas.

Politico.com reports Defense Secretary Bob Gates granted Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) a special exception to House rules so she could allow Lauren Azar, the same-sex partner of Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin), on a military flight for a congressional fact-finding trip to Europe. Baldwin and Azar reportedly “confirmed their commitment to each other” in 1998, and one news service says Azar is registered with the House as Baldwin’s spouse.

Peter LaBarbera, president of the group Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, is condemning the Pentagon’s accommodation of Baldwin. He says it is “outrageous” that the Pentagon gave in to Pelosi and the “homosexual agenda.”

LaBarbera’s tantrum no doubt results from his personal religious views, which have no place in dictating policy to the rest of us. (By the way, I remember Tammy Baldwin when she was just starting her political career in Wisconsin in the late 80s/early 90s when I was a graduate student there).

I’ll tell you how to solve this: ABSOLUTELY NO SPOUSES, heterosexual or otherwise, on tax-payer funded overseas trips.

Through Blog of The Airtightnoodle I came across this excellent post on the threat of creationism and intelligent design, not to science, but to faith. The author clearly understands the threat that the creationist/intelligent design fairytale poses to a child’s faith in the long run:

Those who are teaching their children using creationist curriculum are in particular danger of setting their children up for this fall. To see why, I’d like to offer a challenge. Take your child’s creationist materials and look at whatever footnotes and references are provided. Now take an evening and look up the names of the authors cited. Odds are excellent that virtually all of the authors are creationist scientists. Now, take the names of any mainstream scientists who are quoted or whose work is referenced and attempt to track down their work. Specifically, see if you can find the particular quotes used in your child’s materials. Google books can be a great way of doing this. Now, read through whatever you can find with an eye towards evaluating the accuracy of the quotes provided (ie are words changed, relevant sections replaced by “. . .”). Also try and honestly evaluate if the author of your child’s materials has accurately conveyed the substance of what the author is saying.

 If you drink, you may want to keep some strong drink nearby to sustain yourself during this process, because I promise you, you will not be happy with what you find. Unfortunately, the only way creationist materials are able to create the appearance of validity is by only referring to the work of “creation scientists” (who don’t do research, BTW. Their work is limited to analyzing the work of others to look for potential holes which might be able to be seen as supporting a creationist perspective. This is not science.). When creationist materials do refer to the work of mainstream scientists, conducting actual research, they almost uniformly misquote and misrepresent them. If you do not believe me, then take a weekend or two and do the research yourself. The internet is a wonderful tool.

The author goes on to point out that an “…idea which is true should not depend on deception”. Yet “deception” is the only substantial argument against evolution that creationists and ID proponents can muster. Kids will ultimately see through the deception once they encounter the evidence of science as explained by real scientists and not creationist pseudoscience or intelligent design propaganda movies. If you, as a Christian creationist, really think you are protecting your child’s faith, then you are sadly delusional. As an instructor and teacher I encounter more and more students every year who have walked away from their faith precisely because their parents, pastors, whoever insisted that in terms of proper theology it was their way or the highway. Most students find the highway much more enlightening and fulfilling.

I should know: Darwin did not force me to leave the church; fundamentalist Christianity forced me away. There came a time when I was no longer being allowed to follow my faith on my own accord – the church was insisting that I accept faith on its terms, including requiring that I accept intelligent design. It was demanding that I ignore intellectual pursuits when they conflicted with traditional teaching. If people really want to know why I left then I have to lay most of the blame at the feet of the church herself.  

 I posted this some time ago on my old blog, but I don’t think too many folks saw it. Basically, the argument is that Intelligent Design offers nothing in the way of research that would allow us to address issues of consequence in the modern world. If you are going to use intelligent design as your theoretical basis, then anything is possible and no real world applications of science can be generated. Natural resource management would come to a standstill if we did not have evolutionary theory upon which to hang management practices.

Part I: Nature of the Problem
The yellow pines and white firs of Lassen National Forest in northeastern California may seem removed from the debate over teaching Darwinian evolution or Intelligent Design Theory to high school students, but in fact they are inexorably linked. The popular struggle over which version of science should comprise the foundation of biological thought also directly impacts the foundations of natural resource management. At their core, methods of resource management, be they ecological restoration, fuels reduction, invasive species eradication, selective harvesting or a host of other techniques, are derived from assumptions about the way in which the natural world, specifically forest ecosystems, operate. To the extent that management techniques provide us with a desired result they are successful precisely because they have gotten the underlying assumptions correct.

The assumptions to which I refer, are of course the mechanisms for how species reproduce, compete, adapt and subsequently change through time. Not quite 150 years ago, Charles Darwin referred to this as “descent with modification” and proposed the mechanism of “natural selection” as an explanation for how these processes work. Although the terms have come to have different meanings in different contexts, the broader concept Darwin advanced is more popularly recognized today as evolution. Individuals vary in their characteristics (some are shorter, some are taller; some reproduce faster than others; some resist fire more effectively, etc.) and these are passed from generation to generation. However, because of these character differences, some individuals are better able to cope with changing conditions in the environment. In effect, some individuals are better adapted to their environments and as a result, tend to leave more offspring than those who are less adapted. Over time, characteristics providing better adaptations become more common and the make up of the population appears different. Because many of these adaptations are physically apparent, later generations actually begin to look different from earlier ones. The numerous transitional forms we see in the fossil record, which show accumulated change through millions of years, are best explained by the processes of natural selection.

The reader is probably familiar with the concept of evolution through natural selection (what I refer to as Darwinian evolution), at least on a general level. And unless you have been living in a cave for the last several years, you are probably also familiar with the growing controversy over whether Intelligent Design Theory (IDT) should be taught alongside evolution in public school science classes. The components of IDT vary, but are summarized largely as follows: First, IDT proponents claim there is evidence for design among living organism and that natural selection is not sufficient to account for that design. In effect, there must be a Designer that is responsible for species’ origins. Although such a position has significant religious implications, serious IDT proponents make no claims about who or what the designer might be, maintaining that this question is irrelevant to the methods of revealing design in nature, which they consider a legitimate pursuit. The second component follows directly: IDT proponents claim theirs is an idea fully consistent with the framework of science and is not religious creationism in disguise. Third, IDT proponents argue that Darwinian evolution is flawed and that IDT serves as an alternative explanation for how the natural world operates. Taken at face value, these arguments for IDT would appear sufficient to legitimize it as a theory worthy of discussion in high school biology classes. So what do these two, supposedly legitimate, theories have to do with contemporary natural resource management?

In science, theories are not “educated guesses”, although this is the popular perception. Theories are well-substantiated explanations of some aspect of the natural world. More importantly, theories comprise a body of knowledge against which scientists can test new ideas. In effect, theories should guide practical applications of scientific knowledge. When a significant number of observations repeatedly fail to be explained by the theory, then the theory itself is in need of revision, or outright rejection and replacement by a different theory that better explains the scientist’s observations.

Two questions arise from this line of reasoning. First, does natural resource management rely on an underlying body of theory at all? Are the principles of natural resource management dependent on assumptions derived from more general statements about how the natural systems of the world develop, interact and change? Second, if there is indeed a greater body of theory forming the foundations of day-to-day decisions in natural resource management, then what are the implications if we change that theory? If principles of Darwinian evolution currently form the bedrock of biological thought, then what are the implications for how we manage natural resources if IDT is a viable alternative?

Part II: How is Darwinian Evolution Connected to Natural Resource Management?

There can be no mistake that natural resource management is based on Darwinian evolution. Pick up any major scientific journal covering forestry ecology and management issues and it becomes readily apparent that the contents are imbued with Darwin’s ideas, although the connection may not be obvious to the lay reader. Terms like “natural selection” and “evolution” are likely to be absent, and even Darwin’s name will be missing from most articles. In several randomly picked articles from recent (2005 or in press) issues of Forest Ecology and Management, I noted that the terms “Darwin”, “evolution” or “natural selection” occur only three times. However, terms like “adaptation”, “competition”, “differential reproduction”, “variability”, “mutation”, “mortality” and “survival” are mentioned in abundance. These are principles of evolutionary biology and depend on the broader concepts of Darwinian evolution in order to make sense. “Adaptation”, for example, has no biological meaning outside of an evolutionary context. I found these evolutionary principles further codified in more colloquial management language that also frequents research articles on which agency officials depend: “shade tolerant”, “fire-dependent”, “historical trajectory”, “best fit to existing conditions”, “trajectory of forest types”, “selective harvesting”, “fires favor the largest trees with the thickest bark”. The list goes on. These are clearly describing management applications of variability, competition, differential survival and reproduction, all bedrock principles of evolutionary theory. The language of forest management belies its Darwinian framework.

In an effort to be fair to IDT advocates I limited my perusal of resource management articles to those that had clear management implications and did not already clearly invoke evolutionary principles in their titles or abstracts. In reality, it is difficult to find examples of forest management research that do not explicitly invoke evolutionary assumptions. My point is that research articles not explicitly stating their evolutionary framework are clearly still assuming Darwinian principles to discuss management practices that would give us healthier forest resources. The research and management arms of the USDA Forest Service and other agencies tasked with land and species management cannot escape Darwin’s legacy.

But what of IDT as an alternative to Darwinian evolution? If IDT is a scientifically valid theory on a par with evolution, as its advocates insist, then what implications would this idea have for forest management? What mechanisms does IDT purport to offer as replacements for evolutionary theory? The problem is divining what IDT really is. Even allowing IDT the benefit of the doubt as a scientific proposal this is no easy task. Amongst ID proponents there is no consistent definition as to what IDT looks like as a scientific endeavor. Components of IDT are often criticized as a “moving target”, and clearly with justification. IDT proponents seem to generally accept the idea that species have a history and have changed through time; however, this position is not always clear. Many IDT advocates accept this premise for some species but are uncomfortable applying it to others (there seems to be no problem that camels exhibit an evolutionary trajectory, but there appears to be some discourse over whether the same can be said for humans). Some reject it outright. There is also some suggestion that this component of IDT is largely a façade, made to make IDT more palatable as a scientific idea and to avoid entanglements with religious ideas of creationism that are rejected by the court system.

Assuming IDT accepts Darwin’s concept of “descent with modification”, what it probably does not accept is its mechanism, although here again IDT is a moving target. IDT proponents appear to largely reject natural selection as a mechanism driving species change, suggesting that life particularly at the cellular level is too complex to have been derived by “natural” mechanism such as Darwinian selection. Many biological structures are considered “irreducibly complex” in that if one component is removed the system completely stops functioning. Given the apparent complexity of some biological structures, natural selection would have had to create the entire sequence with all of its parts in a single event. Or so the argument assumes. Clearly, they argue, natural selection is incapable of such a feat. Instead they suggest creation of species is guided, at least at some level, by an undefined Designer, and not through Darwinian natural selection. If natural selection is inherently flawed, as IDT proponents suggest, then concepts of adaptation, competition, and variability have no useful application under IDT. Natural resource management strategies essentially become nothing more than “shot in the dark” efforts.

IDT advocates would probably counter that some combination of natural selection mechanisms and IDT principles is possible, but again they offer nothing more than another moving target, against which it is impossible to draw testable hypotheses. That still begs the question of exactly where in the natural system mechanisms are thwarted by intelligent design imposed from above. IDT may or may not accept a historical relationship between species and it may reject natural selection as a mechanism driving species change, but either way IDT cannot describe functional relationships among living organisms that exist in absence of natural selection. IDT proponents are not specific about the instances, locations and conditions under which Darwinian mechanisms are overridden by Designer intervention, because the idea is immune from testable propositions.

Instead, IDT’s main argument falls on criticism of evolutionary theory. They constantly repeat the mantra: many biological features are irreducibly complex and cannot be the product of natural selection; the Cambrian explosion indicates the sudden occurrence of major animal body plans that cannot be explained by Darwinian principles; and no transitional fossils exist in the paleontological record to indicate species change as the result of an accumulative process like natural selection. Irreducible complexity seemed to initially catch the evolutionary research community off-guard when it was proposed in the early 1990s, but only for a moment. Solid research has since demonstrated time and again that supposed irreducibly complex systems can be reduced further and easily explained by natural selection. Components of supposed irreducible biological systems are now found to function quite well without some parts of the system, find “short-cut” pathways to accomplish the same function, or simply serve other functions. IDT activists have covered up the paleontological reality of the Cambrian explosion to give the impression that birds, reptiles, mammals, fish and insects arose suddenly some 500 million years. Not only did the so-called “explosion” last for tens of millions of years, but new research in the Pre-Cambrian period is showing a steady rise of complex features in organisms. Further, IDT advocates purposefully (or ignorantly) misuse the term “body plan”: no birds, no mammals, no insects, no reptiles and no fish are to be found in the Cambrian. These “groups” as we know them today all arise much later in time, their fossil histories marked in many cases by clear transitional steps. The suite of transitional fossils familiar to paleontologists in all areas of research belies the claim made by IDT advocates that none exist. The pine tree forests managed by the Forest Service are just such an example. The fossil record shows transitional steps from their origin in the Jurassic some 150 million years ago. Their slow accumulations of characters adaptive to drier (and more fire prone) ecosystems is clear. The fact that managers today take advantage of those adaptive characteristics is testament to the fact that evolutionary theory offers practical applications for ecosystem restoration and restoration of “healthy” forests. In contrast, IDT offers resource management nothing of practical value.

I have attempted to give IDT the benefit of the doubt as a scientific endeavor on a par with evolutionary theory as its advocates would like. It is clear, however, that IDT proponents cannot answer basic questions about their supposed theory, because there is nothing about ID for which one can form testable hypotheses. It violates a primary requirement of theory: that it generate testable hypotheses to determine its ability to explain natural phenomena. Its proponents will cry foul and claim a bias against IDT bordering on abject prejudice, simply because it has religious connotations. But the reality is that IDT is not science. IDT exists not because it has advanced scientific knowledge but because its proponents have waged a successful public relations campaign (much like astrology). It has used popular dislike of evolution and manufactured “controversies” in evolutionary theory to camouflage its lack of a scientific approach and inability to offer anything of scientific value.

Part III: Conclusion

IDT has no practical application to the management of natural resources that supercede or replace Darwinian natural selection. We now realize that species change can occur very rapidly, and each year there are more and more studies documenting measurable physical differences between populations in no more than a few decades. This is documented for a host of species including salmon, cichlid fishes, squirrels, rats, guppies, mosquitofish, finches, and a host of plant species. We depend on these evolutionary principles of species variability, inheritance and adaptation to develop management techniques to reach a desired ecosystem condition. There are, however, serious philosophical implications for natural resource management and conservation if IDT is legitimized as scientific inquiry through no other mechanism than public appeal.

The fact that IDT proponents have convinced the broader public that a non-scientific idea merits discussion alongside serious scientifically backed theories does not bode well for biological conservation and management science. Christopher Mooney, in The Republican War on Science, has documented a concerted effort by the current administration to either limit (in some cases outright censor) scientific research or promote scientifically vacuous ideas as legitimate science. While this occurs under all political philosophies, attacks on science have been particularly egregious over the last five years. Biologists, ecologists, foresters and others who maintain scientific approaches are increasingly forced to defend their conclusions against non-professional administrators with the ability to elevate baseless conjecture to the status of alternative theory in the public arena. Whether it is outright dismissal of solid data on sage grouse distributions without appropriate countering data or warping collection of blind test data on lynx to promote a public perception of unethical behavior on the part of agency biologists, the methods mirror those of IDT advocates. Other agencies are affected as well. The current re-write of the National Park Service management rules to eliminate any reference to evolutionary biology is a clear attempt to remove scientific approaches to management.

If there is an implication for natural resource management that stems from ID, it’s that conservation biology is irrelevant. It is, after all, not much of a logical leap to go from “we don’t need an explanation, the Intelligent Designer just did it that way” to “we don’t need to worry about causes for species extinction, it’s just all part of God’s plan”.
If it is true, as some ID theorists suggest, that the only way a cell could make a flagellum (or the only way some conifer species are more fire resistant than others) is if the characteristics were already coded for in their DNA. If this pre-structural coding is the result of intelligent design, then why bother limiting competition through selective harvesting? Moreover, is genetic information necessary for implementing management methods that take advantage of the genetic make-up of populations? Under evolutionary theory, the answer is decidedly “yes”; under IDT the practical applications of genetic information are absent. In response, IDT proponents may suggest that some combination of natural selection mechanisms and IDT principles is possible (another moving target!). But IDT does not apparently accept the evolutionary premises on which genetic variability, inheritance, adaptation and selection are based, therefore IDT has nothing useful to say about natural resource management. IDT proponents are not specific about the instances, locations and conditions under which Darwinian mechanisms might be overridden by Designer intervention. So if ID proponents accept some Darwinian mechanisms such as adaptation, then why not all? What separates some principles from others? With IDT there is no way for managers to predict the outcome of their management strategies and adapt to new conditions.

Of course the ultimate goal of IDT is not to develop testable hypotheses and build applicable knowledge to real world problems. If there is any goal of IDT advocates, it is to justify their personal belief in an omnipotent, intelligent designer. However, considering the prevalence of extinction throughout life’s history, the presence of genetic anomalies like mutation, and more importantly, the inherent ability of the human species to manipulate and change the environment seemingly at will, the broader implication of IDT is not an omnipotent designer, but rather a significantly impotent designer.

Land management agencies rely on Darwinian principles to maintain species, restore forest health, develop genetically appropriate species for reforestation, combat invasive species, promote sustainable ecosystems, and help protect the environment in which we live. Unfortunately, most agency scientists do not understand the nature of the creation-evolution debate or the impacts it has on their own fields of expertise. Biologists, ecologists and other environmental scientists within land management would do well to pay attention and get involved in debates over evolution and science. They can start by checking up on their local school districts to ensure their children are getting a proper science education. They can volunteer to present good science in the classrooms. They can publicly support teachers who are being pressured to offer non-science alternatives or find it easier to just stop teaching science. They can be more vocal in identifying the evolutionary principles underlying management to a broader audience. They can include more evolutionary theory in interpretation and public outreach. Our public lands are too important to be managed on anything but the best available science.

 Blogging will be light for the first part of this week. I’m going turkey hunting – the hunt will actually be filmed for an outdoor show and I’ll be interviewed about the research I’m doing on the historical ecology of wild turkeys in California.

More soon….