“Intelligent Thought: Science Versus the Intelligent Design Movement”
edited by John Brockman Knopf, 272 pages, paperback

The 16 essays in this book all say one thing: intelligent design is not science.

If you are currently able to ignore the evidence of a vast fossil record, the evidence from DNA and molecular biology and the evidence showing that irreducible complexity is completely invalid, then this book is not going to convince you.

However, if you’re into learning more about what academics (such as psychologist Steven Pinker from Harvard University and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins of Oxford University) have to say about the idea of teaching young people in science classes that ascribing the origin of life to an original, omnipotent creator is a valid scientific pursuit, then perhaps you’ll be interested.

Personally, I’m ambivalent about the book. The ideas are sound, but the writing proves that some of these writers made the right choice to go into science. Your best bet is to consider your interest level—if you have enough interest, you can get through anything.

The editor, in the introduction, and some of the authors can be antagonistic toward the intelligent design movement, and several of them present what seem to be atheistic arguments for the lack of a need for any deity. Most essays, however, are sensitive to the faithful. They do not discount religion or belief systems. They simply describe how those systems do not meet the requirements to be considered science. In fact, many of them freely admit that there is no explanation for the origin of life. There are even theories mentioned in the book that allow for an intelligent designer to have initiated the process and then taken a hands-off attitude.

However, the essays do address what came after the origin. The first 14 describe a variety of aspects of the theory of evolution by natural selection and why the scientific explanations are valid. Topics include how evolution can create consciousness and ethical behavior. If you’re a biology teacher or otherwise interested in deeper arguments in support of the theory of evolution by natural selection, then they are well worth working through.

If you’re unsure about evolution and why you should care, then you should start with the last two essays, which are the most relevant to the average person who just wants to know why scientists are so up in arms about ID. The last essay, by Scott D. Sampson (of the University of Utah, where he holds a dual position as chief curator of the Utah Museum of Natural History and associate professor in the Department of Geology and Geophysics), has the scariest information regarding the low percentage of Americans who believe evolution is a valid scientific theory supported by evidence and the high percentage of Americans who believe, despite tremendous evidence to the contrary, that God created humans in toto de novo less than 10,000 years ago.

The second-to-last essay explains why it is dangerous for us as a society to teach as scientific theory concepts supported by belief in a supernatural power. Marc D. Hauser, an evolutionary psychologist at Harvard, explains how this will preclude our students from learning how to do real science—if you’re worried about our international competitiveness, then you should be worried about students learning to disregard 150 years of established evidence in favor of assigning the explanations for natural phenomena to a supernatural power. This is not to say that supernatural powers don’t exist, many of the authors take care to qualify, it’s simply to say that we used to believe a lot of things were a result of divine intervention. We have scientific explanations for many of those things now.

The Appendix offers more context, as it consists solely of an excerpt from the Memorandum Opinion issued in the Dover, Penn., intelligent design case in December 2005. The defendants were the local school board, who passed a resolution requiring that intelligent design be included in grade nine biology course curriculum. In that excerpt, Judge Jones does an admirable job of outlining the reasons why ID does not meet the criteria to be considered science. He clearly describes the evidence presented by the plaintiffs in the trial and the inability of the defense to rebut that evidence. This is actually the most accessible section of the book.

“Intelligent Thought” is, in the end, more than a textbook explanation of evolution. That’s both good and bad for the average reader, as it presumes some background knowledge and an ability to follow an argument. The scientists writing the essays are the tops in their fields, but sometimes they don’t have much sympathy for those of us who just need a good rebuttal for comments like “They’re still trying to prove we came from apes, right?”