Signs of desperation at C4ID

I can't remember exactly how I got on the mailing list of the Centre for Intelligent Design, but the result is I get the occasional peevish missive from its director Alastair Noble:

Dear Paul,

Teach science, not secular dogma

You may have noticed that the Education Secretary, the Rt Hon Michael Gove MP, announced recently that the revision of the National Curriculum will include teaching evolution in primary schools.

Now you may wonder what is wrong with that, given that the scientific establishment regards evolution as a 'fact'.  Well, there are two problems.  Firstly, every scientific theory is tentative and subject to revision as fresh evidence is uncovered.  You can be sure that the growing body of evidence against the all-pervasive theory of evolution will not be considered.

Sounds like Noble is against teaching of the theory of gravity as "fact" because it is "tentative and subject to revision as fresh evidence is uncovered."

And here's what children won't be told about evolution:
Evolution has no explanation for the origin of life in the first place.  By saying evolution doesn't deal with that, while implying it does, just highlights its deficiency.

But neither does the theory of gravity explain the origin of life. Is this a reason for not teaching children about gravity? Gravity doesn't deal with the origin of life — and as far as I'm aware no-one claims (or implies) that it does. Neither does anyone (apart from creationists) imply that evolution deals with the origin of life.

Random mutation and natural selection cannot explain the synthesis of the hundreds of complex bio-molecules, like proteins, which are necessary for life.
The mechanism of evolution - natural selection acting on random mutation - has been shown to be unequal to the task of creating new organisms[1].

May I suggest Alastair Noble peruses the Talk Origins archive? There's really no excuse for this kind of wilful ignorance.

The 'junk DNA' hypothesis, an integral part of the teaching of evolution, has now been abandoned in light of recent work on the human genome[2].

The fact that science changes its theories in the light of new evidence is one of the reasons it actually works and is a path to new knowledge.

The much-vaunted 'tree of life' is being increasingly shown to be highly speculative and at odds with the evidence[3]. The fossil record is not consistent with the numerous slight successive changes required by evolution, as Charles Darwin himself recognised[4].

I note that this reference to Darwin is footnoted not to Darwin's text but to a book by an ID proponent (as are all the references, which doesn't inspire confidence in the impartiality of Noble's sources).

Evolution is completely unable to explain the existence of the complex genetic information carried by every living cell in its DNA[5].

It's true that there are gaps in the theory, but "completely unable" is over-egging the argument, especially as ID has no alternative explanation.

Evolution has no explanation for mind and consciousness, other than that it is an accidental by-product of chemistry and physics[6].

"[A]ccidental by-product" or "emergent property" — take your pick. The alternative offered by ID proponents isn't an explanation, so I don't understand what their problem is.

Any other scientific hypothesis with such glaring deficiencies would certainly not be taught as 'fact' in schools.

Noble is spinning these imponderables as "glaring deficiencies" when they are merely the fuzzy edges of a science that is on a constant quest to elucidate and illuminate the world we live in, bringing amazing new discoveries every week. To suggest that it should not be taught in schools is tantamount to criminal intellectual negligence.

But the second problem is that, behind all this, there are now, as Prof Phillip Johnson has pointed out, two definitions of science[7].  The first is the popular definition which insists science can only deal with natural processes and, for example, cannot contemplate any explanation about origins which suggests a non-material explanation such as 'mind before matter'.  The older and more honest definition is that science goes where the evidence leads and does not rule out any possible explanation before it is given due consideration.

Science must be confined to methodological naturalism if it is to make any progress. The alternative — the invocation of some undefined, unknown, untestable causal agent — has zero explanatory power. Worse, it has nowhere else to go. It you decide to "explain" some phenomenon by saying NotGoddidit, what's the next step? What are you supposed to do in order to expand your knowledge of this "causal agent"? Pray?

It is clear then that evolution is based on the first definition.  It is essentially materialistic dogma, not science.  It persists for ideological reasons, despite the evidence.

It is clear Alastair Noble doesn't understand what science is. We should be grateful he is no longer inspecting schools.

So what is going to be taught in primary schools is the secular, humanistic, naturalistic worldview which rules out any possibility of design in nature, even before the evidence is considered.  It is, in fact, a form of secular indoctrination.

Perhaps Noble would like to state what evidence there is for "design in nature" — other than "it looks terribly complicated, and I can't imagine how it could come about by natural processes."

The scientific study of origins is unlike any other because it has to consider the possibility of deliberate design in nature.  That's why we argue that Intelligent Design should also be considered in any scientific study of origins.

Intelligent Design is not science. By all means discuss it (and its implications) in a philosophy class, but it has no place in science classes.

Interestingly, in Radio 4's Today programme on March 6th, 2004, Sir David Attenborough said, 'The problem Darwin never solved was how one inorganic molecule became a living one.  We're still struggling with that one.'  That's the kind of honesty science needs, even though it is less apparent in some of his nature programmes.  And in the film 'Expelled'[8] Richard Dawkins, in an interview with Ben Stein, validates intelligent design by admitting that the intricacies of cellular biology could lead to us to detect the existence of a 'higher intelligence' or 'designer' (his words).  So why wouldn't we explore that with students?

The reason why we shouldn't explore that with students (at least in a science class) is because science education should be about teaching established science. David Attenborough was talking about abiogensis, which is not what evolution is about, and as for Expelled — the less said about that despicable piece of trash (more or less outright lies from start to finish), the better.

It is high time we stopped indoctrinating pupils with the philosophy of naturalism dressed up as the scientific consensus.  We should do what all honest scientists do, which is to go where the evidence leads.  As has been observed, it takes years of indoctrination to miss the obvious signs of design in nature.

It's interesting that ID proponents are unable to tell us how they can tell that something is designed — other than "it looks like it" — despite their insistent claims.

If schools are not going to be allowed to explore all the dimensions of origins, then perhaps it's time parents and churches did so!  Or maybe even Free Schools! 

Churches? What happened to "we're not saying anything about the designer, nudge nudge, wink wink"?

The rest of the email is taken up with a call to arms — encouraging parents and others to write to Michael Gove and to sign up for the C4ID email newsletter. There are also the footnotes: references to pro-ID books and Noble's "32-page booklet 'An Introduction to Intelligent Design'" available for £2 (plus pp!). Is cash-flow at C4ID so strapped that Noble has to shill for a 32-page document that could easily be linked as a PDF? Perhaps we should take that as a good sign.

Intelligent design in the pub

Today I received email from someone willing to give talks on their chosen subject, anywhere in the UK, for free. This person is also "happy to participate in more intimate settings like a dinner or supper event."

Sounds to me a bit like Skeptics in the Pub, so I'm wondering if I should suggest this person to Trish — the convenor of my local (Portsmouth) Skeptics in the Pub — as a possible future speaker. My emailer's subject is one that concerns many skeptics, and is often discussed when skeptics get together.

The talks seem likely to be of a professional standard, after all the email states: "I have a number of illustrated presentations which are suitable for college, university, church or public audiences..."

Seems too good to be true, although that fleeting reference to "church" might give one pause. Perhaps I should write back to the sender, thanking him for his kind offer, and (after consulting with Trish) suggest a few dates. Of course I'd have to come clean as to my own identity and my own stance on his particular subject, as I've blogged about my emailer before — which might make him think twice about travelling the length of the country in order to give a talk to an audience who would most likely disagree with him.

So despite his claim that he's happy to "speak at any event, anywhere in the UK, which you may wish to organise," I think this is one invitation Dr. Alastair Noble, Director of the Centre for Intelligent Design, would probably decline.

An inference to the only valid admission: "We don't know"

After blogging about 4thought.tv's series last week, "Is it possible to believe in God and Darwin?" and discussing it during the recording of Skepticule Extra 007 yesterday, I checked out Alastair Noble's introduction video again, at the Centre for Intelligent Design's website. The video is embeddable, so I include it below:



Noble is saying much the same as he did in his 4thought.tv contribution, but expanded a little. He appears to be claiming that methodological naturalism is an unwarranted philosophical constraint on the progress of science, and that intelligent design is an inference to the best explanation. But I still don't see how "Someone did this, we don't know who (and even if we think we do know, we're not saying)" is any kind of explanation. If you can't tell how something happened, how is it scientific to conclude that someone must have done it? The correct conclusion is to admit that you don't know how it happened, and then to attempt to find out. If you convince yourself that someone must have done it, where do you go from there?

Not enough 4thought? Channel 4 goes for "balance" on evolution

All this week Channel 4's daily "let's have some controversial views, but not too much — in fact let's keep it down to under two minutes" slot, called 4thought.tv, has been attempting to answer the question "Is it possible to believe in God and Darwin?" An odd question — if to "believe" in something means you think it exists. I think Darwin existed. There's documentary evidence to show that Charles Darwin actually walked this Earth, and — famously — sailed the seas, as well as perambulating the tangled bank, and so forth.

That's not what Channel 4 means, I suspect, which gives us an indication how seriously or rigorously it's taking the real question, which I assume is "Is belief in God compatible with an understanding of Darwin's theory of evolution by random mutation and natural selection?" As a further demonstration of their lack of commitment to rationality, on Monday Channel 4's choice of first participant to discuss this important issue was a Young Earth Creationist:

http://www.4thought.tv/4thoughts/0339-Dr-Sandr%C3%A9-Fourie-Is-it-possible-to-believe-in-God-and-Darwin-

Dr Sandré Fourie comes out with some dreadful nonsense that makes her credentials as a veterinary surgeon distinctly dubious (note the stethoscope round her neck, to add verisimilitude to her utterly unconvincing contribution — though to be fair I wouldn't be surprised if this medical adornment was at the instigation of the show's art director).

Next, on Tuesday, we have a voice of sanity with Simon Watt, an evolutionary biologist, who makes several valid and relevant points — including that the Bible story is not meant to be taken literally and is in a completely different category from what science has shown us about evolution, and that he's not irrevocably wedded to the theory of evolution. If something better comes along, he's ready to take on new scientific ideas:

http://www.4thought.tv/4thoughts/0340-Simon-Watt-Is-it-possible-to-believe-in-God-and-Darwin-

Wednesday we heard Dr. Alastair Noble, director of the Centre for Intelligent Design, telling us that if something looks designed, it must have an intelligent cause. Not that Channel 4 mentions Noble's affiliations anywhere, only that he's been involved in science education (he's actually an ex-inspector of schools) and that he thinks science should take the "theory of intelligent design" seriously. A scientific theory, however, should make specific, testable predictions, which intelligent design has so far failed to do. Noble claims that evolution (he calls it "Darwinism") is inadequate to explain the complexity seen in living things. But then he says that intelligent design is a sufficient explanation, when it clearly isn't an explanation at all. ID is a philosophical idea — there's nothing scientific about it. He mentions that the cell is very complicated, and that anywhere else such complexity is observed (he means in engineering) we infer a designer. As usual he leaves out an important component in this inference: what we actually infer when we see such engineering is a human designer — every time. Even William Paley inferred a human watchmaker. We have no other examples of design intelligence, apart from human intelligence. ID proponents make an invalid extrapolation from an inadequate sample size:

http://www.4thought.tv/4thoughts/0341-Dr-Alastair-Noble-Is-it-possible-to-believe-in-God-and-Darwin-

Thursday and we're back to real science with Alanna Maltby, who announces that she's an evolutionary biologist and an atheist. Echoing Simon Watt she mentions the elegance of Darwin's theory, and the overwhelming evidence in support of it. She also hopes that there aren't too many people who believe in six-day creation and a 6000-year-old Earth. I hope so too, but so far in this series we've had two evolutionary biologists, a Young Earth Creationist and an intelligent design proponent:

http://www.4thought.tv/4thoughts/0342-Alanna-Maltby-Is-it-possible-to-believe-in-God-and-Darwin-

On Friday Dr. Ruth Bancewicz began by saying "My Christian faith tells me who made something out of nothing. Science can't answer that question." She ought to realise that though science does not at present have an answer to that question — if indeed it's a valid one — the idea that her Christian faith does have an answer is obviously absurd. Christianity, or any other religion, just makes up an answer. There's no compelling evidence or reason supporting it, only variable interpretations of ancient texts of dubious provenance. Dr. Banciewicz goes on to tell us she has a PhD in genetics, and she thinks the word creationist has been hijacked by the young-earthers. She prefers to think of all people who believe that God set things in motion — including evolution — as creationists. I think she could  be fairly described as a theistic evolutionist, but of a particularly vague and woolly kind:

http://www.4thought.tv/4thoughts/0343-Dr-Ruth-Bancewicz-Is-it-possible-to-believe-in-God-and-Darwin-

Is it significant that of the five contributors so far, all three of those claiming that evolution is untrue, that "Darwinism" is inadequate, or that Goddidit — have "Dr." in front of their names?

There are two more "4thoughts" on this subject to come — I'm guessing we'll have one believer and one non-believer — as if such a near even split is representative of scientific opinion as a whole.

Premier's screening of Expelled — 27 February 2010

I was initially reluctant to take up Premier's offer of attending a screening of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed followed by a debate about the issues it raised. I'd already seen the film (thanks to the wonder of the internet) and I knew what a pile of (ahem) misrepresentation it was. But I'd never been to Imperial College, despite passing it scores of times over the years on my way to the Royal Albert Hall. Then I hit on the idea of going to the Darwin Centre at the Natural History Museum in the morning, which I felt would be an appropriate precursor to (and inoculation against) the horrors to come. (I'll post later about the Darwin Centre and the Cocoon.)

Just in case anyone doesn't know what the film is about, the theme of Expelled is that scientists in America who espouse intelligent design are being systematically expelled and excluded from universities, and journalists who write articles sympathetic to ID — or its proponents — are losing their jobs, and that this whole thing is a Darwinist conspiracy. I won't go into the merits or otherwise(!) of the film here as I've made my views on it clear enough elsewhere.

The debate panel comprised, on the pro-ID side: Steve Fuller, Professor of Sociology at Warwick University, who appears in Expelled, and who also testified in the Dover trial in favour of ID; Alastair Noble, an ex-schools-inspector, who not so long ago wrote a disturbing piece for the Guardian exposing his ID credentials. On the panel against ID were: Susan Blackmore, Visiting Professor in the School of Psychology, University of Plymouth, and whom I've seen debate before (this time she was without her signature multicoloured locks); Keith Fox, Professor of Biochemistry, Southampton University, a theistic evolutionist — he's a Christian who doesn't believe ID is a valid proposition for explaining the presence of complexity in DNA. Justin Brierley, host of Premier's Unbelievable? radio programme, moderated. At the end of the debate Mark Haville, responsible for bringing Expelled to the UK, read a statement (see below).

I'd met up with MSP and a friend of his in the foyer, and as the three of us sat down in the third row of the Alexander Fleming lecture hall at Imperial College (I wanted to be sure of being able to hear) I joked that we ought to have a label in front of us reading "Atheist Contingent". I actually had no idea of the audience make-up and it remained unclear even during the screening, when there was a good deal of laughter at certain points in the film.

Once the debate began, however, it became clear that we were much in the minority. Sue Blackmore was interrupted in her opening remarks (though Justin Brierley is to be commended for his instant quelling of any potential for heckling). Alastair Noble began by congratulating Premier Radio for bringing Expelled to the UK (not an entirely accurate portrayal of events as I understand them) and hoped that every student in the country would see it. This brought a round of applause.

He said, "I have found it to be the most interesting, the most thought-provoking, in many ways the funniest film I have seen in a long time, but also a film with a deeply serious message." He stated his opposition to the materialistic "bias" of science as follows: "In the area of origins, you cannot limit yourself only to material and physical explanations. You must consider intelligent causation, and that's what lies at the heart of intelligent design, and that is what is ruled out by an arbitrary definition of science." (In his opening remarks he didn't suggest — given what the endeavour of science actually is — exactly how scientists might be expected to investigate anything that wasn't material or physical. If we wanted to know how science might investigate the nature of the soul, for instance, I guess we'd have to wait.) He did give us his definition of ID: "a minimal commitment to the possibility of intelligent causation." But just how minimal is minimal? Goddidit? I-don't-know-who-or-what-didit? Calling this "science" is a bastardisation of the term.

Keith Fox's opening remarks answered Alastair Noble directly, making the obvious point that the physical and material is all that can be addressed by science, and ID is therefore not science. He went on to criticise the film for its distortion of the idea of freedom of speech, and for its offensive muddling of the relationship between belief in God and evolutionary theory. He also condemned its erroneous linking of evolutionary theory with eugenics, and other misappropriations.

Steve Fuller began by excusing the tone and style of the film as comparable to anything produced by Michael Moore (as if that was somehow a recommendation), and went on to maintain that what happened to Michael Reiss (when he was ousted from the Royal Society for his soft approach to creationism in the classroom) is comparable to what was portrayed in the film with regard to scientists losing their jobs if they so much as mentioned ID.

The ensuing debate was hopelessly muddled — confusing creationism, intelligent design and abiogenesis, and included disagreements as to whether IDers actually were being expelled from academia. The panel represented a mix of overlapping views and beliefs, with Steve Fuller (who appeared in the film) seeming especially hard to pin down, despite being extremely vocal on the side of the film's producers. In contrast, ex-schools-inspector Alastair Noble was responsible for the most egregious and forthright comments of the afternoon. He's an unabashed IDer, plainly parroting the buzzwords of William Dembski and other ID ilk ("functional specified information", "front-loaded with information" etc) but did not follow his argument through to its next stage. He claimed that DNA code is evidence for a designer, stating that all examples of coded information that we know about come from an intelligent mind, so why should that be different for DNA?

It could well be different, and here's why. It's because his characterisation of "all examples of coded information that we know about" as originating from an intelligent mind leaves out a vital corollary of that intelligent mind, which is this: it's a human mind. All examples of coded information that we know about originate from intelligent human minds. Does Alastair Noble believe, therefore, that the coded information in DNA comes from human minds? Apparently not, and neither do I. But the only intelligence we know about, that's capable of producing coded information, is human intelligence. The commonality here is not "intelligence", but "human intelligence". How many different types of intelligence do we know about, that are capable of producing coded information? One: human intelligence. (I'm sorry to belabour this point, but the IDers really need to get it.) It's invidious to attempt to extrapolate from the capabilities of the single example we have of an intelligence that is capable of producing coded information, to claim that all coded information of any kind must therefore be produced by intelligence.

To put it another way — there are too many variables in this equation; coded-information-produced-by-non-human-intelligence is one. Non-human-intelligence is the other. Since one of these variables is contained within the other we will get nowhere in speculating about cause and effect. It's a bit like trying to solve simultaneous equations in algebra — you need at least as many independent equations as you have variables to solve. With intelligent design you have at least one more variable than you have equations. The scientifically correct, current answer to the question of where the coded information in DNA comes from, is "As of now, we don't know".

The IDers claim they have an answer ... wait ... no they don't, they claim they have a question — the same question that legitimate science has: where does DNA code come from? The difference is that while legitimate science says "we don't know but we're working on it", the IDers say "we don't know but we're not working on it".

And they expect this stuff to be taught in schools.

There was a significant exchange towards the end of the Q&A, when Alastair Noble invited Keith Fox to read Department of Education & Science guidance of a few years ago, about how intelligent design was to be handled within science. He said it stated that ID was "not to be regarded as science." He then went on to say, "And that's the problem — we do not have freedom of enquiry in this matter." Keith Fox effectively rebutted this saying that in schools, when teaching at a basic level, only accepted science should be taught.

If the IDers want intelligent design taught in schools, they need to provide evidence that it's a viable theory. So far they've not done so. For a movement that talks so much about science, it has remarkably little actual scientific research of any kind to show for itself. Alastair Noble stated that Alexander Fleming (for whom the hall we were in was named) noticed something that no-one else had noticed. He maintains that likewise IDers have noticed something. Very well then, show us the evidence. Evidence is what the scientific community needs in order to consider a theory viable; until that scientific evidence is presented ID will continue to be treated, rightly, as unscientific, and no amount of bleating about unfairness and ostracism will change that fact.

As the Q&A session came to a close the make-up of the audience had become a little clearer. Several of Alastair Noble's emotive but puerile comments were applauded instantaneously, as were some smart-alec interjections from Steve Fuller, including an entirely gratuitous, unjustified denigration of David Attenborough. Some of the questioners were obviously creationists who denied evolution outright, and at least one questioner self-proclaimed as a fundamentalist. Given that the event was put on by a Christian organisation, with the assistance of a pro-ID DVD company, to promote a pro-ID DVD, it's not surprising that the majority of the audience would favour the faith-based viewpoint.

What I did find surprising was the low-key wrap-up provided by Mark Haville, responsible for the promotion of Expelled in the UK. He announced some generous discount offers on his company's range of ID and creationist DVDs, then went on to read a prepared and somewhat long-winded statement. I've transcribed it from my recording — I omitted to ask for a printed copy — so there may be transcription errors in what follows. He said it was aimed at the press, so I assume it's OK to post here:

Once again, welcome to the debate. I hope, and dare I say pray, that this event will bring much-needed change, and promote truth in science where it is lacking. Science can mean knowledge, and many people rightly expect truth to go hand-in-hand with that knowledge. Winston Churchill once said truth is incontrovertible, panic may resent it, ignorance may deride it, malice may distort it, but there it is. Knowledge and truth are important for a stable society, and whilst it is beyond the remit of empirical science to speak to every kind of knowledge, especially metaphysical things, it is therefore an undeniable hypocrisy when atheism, materialism and scientism are being promoted by so many today under the guise of authentic science. Atheistic philosophies and world-views, which have no foundation in empirical science, are routinely forced upon students, professors and the general public alike without the logical, ethical and moral implications of those ideas being explored or explained. Magical and mythological hypotheses like inanimate molecules producing life, and eventually consciousness, while time, space and matter coming into existence from nothing, or the eternal existence of matter, are only a few of the invisible fabrics woven together to form the atheists' new clothes. Such theories are not testable science, based on observation and experiment, and people who have this religious faith in such notions have no right to continually force their world-view or agendas on everyone else, while simultaneously denying free scientific enquiry from those who doubt Darwin's dubious deductions, or to castigate those with opposing world-views. As you heard in the film, evolutionists are free to believe there is no evidence for morality, no ultimate foundation for ethics, no free will, and that for some it may be better to shoot yourself in the head than to endure prolonged suffering from a brain tumour. Or to believe a person who doubts macro-evolution means that he is insane, stupid or ignorant. But these are implications evolutionists believe science reveals and are not scientific facts in and of themselves. And so the question that must be allowed, without boilerplating, additional distortion, misrepresentations or even lies, is where does the evidence lead. There must now, more than ever, be the freedom to challenge unsound theories, examine new evidence, and most importantly there must be the liberty to follow that evidence wherever it may lead, or conversely the individual freedom to ignore the moral and ethical implications if one so chooses. But not to fear investigation or worse still to silence, ridicule or vilify those who question materialistic concepts dressed up as science. Those scientists who hold such radical views should not dictate what is scientific fact, as this is the clearest case of the foxes guarding the scientific hen-house. This must change, as negative effects of scientific atheism on our society are now far reaching. So today I would like to announce the beginning of a national campaign to expose this bias to the public and to hopefully legislate necessary changes, so that science can have the freedom to advance and serve mankind to its fullest extent, whether in our schools, our laws or our lives. And again, thank you for attending, and for listening.

I have to say that it was a bit sneaky, putting this in at the end without the chance of a reply, chock-full as it is with fallacies, straw men and most of all projection. But hey, that's ID for you.

Creationist twaddle in the Guardian

This article by Alastair Noble in the Guardian's Comment is free section was flagged at RD.net. No doubt it will be kicked to death — deservedly so — but I did find some particular dumbosities that made me wonder whether the Guardian is being deliberately provocative having it appear on their site:

As a former science teacher and schools inspector, I am disturbed that proposals for science education are based on near-complete ignorance of intelligent design. I also think the views of most British people in this matter should not be so readily set aside.

I am disturbed that a former science teacher and schools inspector should propose the teaching of non-science in a science class. "Near-complete ignorance" is pretty much the most anyone can know about intelligent design, because there's nothing there. And scientific truth is not a matter of public popularity — even if every last British citizen thought creationism was true, that would not make it so.

It is an all too common error to confuse intelligent design with religious belief. While creationism draws its conclusions primarily from religious sources, intelligent design argues from observations of the natural world. And it has a good pedigree. A universe intelligible by design principles was the conclusion of many of the great pioneers of modern science.

Intelligent design is a religious belief (and was declared so by Judge Jones in the famous Dover trial in America). If you look at the natural world and conclude that it was intelligently designed, you must take the next step and ask who designed it. Aliens? God? You choose, but you must base your choice on scientific evidence. If you have no evidence, then why are you proposing this as science? Intelligent design does not have "a good pedigree". It's true that great pioneers of modern science were creationists, but they were pre-Darwin. They were also religious, along with the majority of the population at the time.

It is easily overlooked that the origin of life, the integrated complexity of biological systems and the vast information content of DNA have not been adequately explained by purely materialistic or neo-Darwinian processes. Indeed it is hard to see how they ever will.

Actually the integrated complexity of biological systems has been largely explained by evolution and natural selection. The information content of DNA will probably be explained too. It may be hard for you to see how, Mr. Noble, but just because you can't imagine it, that's no excuse for throwing your hands in the air and proclaiming it must have been done by aliens or God. There's progress on the abiogenesis front too — I understand it's been suggested in some quarters that the production of life in the laboratory may be achieved within a few years.

In an area such as this, where we cannot observe what happened directly, a legitimate scientific approach is to make an inference to the best explanation. In the case of the huge bank of functional information embedded in biological systems, the best explanation – based on the observation everywhere else that such information only arises from intelligence – is that it too has an intelligent source.

The "observation everywhere else" is that information is created by human intelligence. That's a sample of one, from which you cannot extrapolate anything because it's statistically unsound. Much of biology that was once thought to be irreducibly complex has now been shown to have evolved, or to have plausible evolutionary pathways to its present form. There's no reason to suppose that the presence of information in DNA will not be similarly explained.

There is a tendency in school science to present the evidence for evolution as uniformly convincing and all-encompassing, failing to distinguish between what is directly observable – such as change and adaptation over time through natural selection – and the more hypothetical elements, like the descent of all living things from a common ancestor. The evidence for these various strands is not of equal strength.

The research accruing from the complete sequencing of both the human genome and the genomes of other animals makes it far more likely that all living things have a single common ancestor, now that we understand so much more about how DNA works. Evolution by random mutation and natural selection is a scientific theory that's been consistently hammered for 150 years. Every scrap of new evidence uncovered has had the potential to falsify the theory, but instead has reinforced it, to the extent that evolution can be considered as much a scientific fact as the "theory" of gravity.

If you insist that intelligent causation is to be excluded in the study of origins then you are teaching materialist philosophy, not science.

I'm at a loss to know how intelligent causation could actually be taught in a science class. What do you tell the students? What demonstrations do you devise? Let's say, for instance, you're looking at the structure of primitive, single-celled organisms and you want the students to understand how they might have come into existence. You might talk about amino acids and self-replicating molecules — or you might simply close the textbook and say, "An intelligent causative agent caused the first cells to come into existence." That's not science, that's an intellectual cop-out.

I believe current government guidance is wrong in denying intelligent design the status of science. However, it does encourage teachers to handle it "positively and educationally". That's a small step in the right direction.

"Intelligent design" is not science.