GUEST COLUMN

(12/12/2006)

The Scientist (Not)

Evolution and proof of the negative

BY DR. RALPH E. HATCHER

In the December 6, 2006, issue of The Scientist, Dr. Jack Woodall, director of the Nucleus for the Investigation of Emerging Infectious Diseases in the Institute of Medical Biochemistry at Brazil's Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, wrote an article titled “Intelligent Design: The Clincher.”

In it he describes the commensal relationship between the Large Blue butterfly (Maculinea arion) and a species of red ant (Myrmica sabuleti). The Large Blue butterfly of Great Britain has a complicated lifecycle that depends upon a red ant for its survival. After being laid in the closed buds of thyme flowers at a very specific stage, the Large Blue eggs hatch and feed on the thyme flowers for a while. They eventually drop to the ground as caterpillars and produce a sugary secretion from glands on their backs. Red ants are attracted to this substance and take the caterpillars to their nest to feed on these secretions. The caterpillars, instead, feed on the ant larvae. After a few months the caterpillar becomes a pupa and, through the magic of metamorphosis, later becomes a butterfly (I wonder if Dr. Woodall is awed in the slightest?). Regrettably, Dr. Woodall tells us that the Large Blue is near extinction in England because of a number of environmental factors that mostly have to do with man’s destruction of the environment (no surprises here).

Now, Dr. Woodall presents this story as a “clincher” of an argument against Intelligent Design! That’s right, he really did! He said that were he a designer he would surely come up with a lifecycle that was less fastidious; that allowed for more than one kind of plant and one kind of ant to participate in the survival of the Large Blue (along with several other specific criteria such as soil conditions). Lest I be accused of distorting his argument, here is what Dr. Woodall wrote:

So here you have an insect that depends for its very existence on a fragile chain of circumstances that is easily broken by bad weather, changes in exposure to grazing due to human intervention and disease, loss of its unique food plant, and loss of its protector ant species. If I were to design such a silly system I'd at least choose the most abundant, hardy species of ant to host my caterpillars, and ensure that they could feed on other plants beside thyme, and at other stages than the bud. To me, the case of the Large Blue is conclusive disproof of the theory of intelligent design. (Emphasis mine)

Why, I wonder, does Dr. Woodall consider this a “silly system?” Is his a scientific opinion? On what basis does he come to this conclusion? Does he have a comprehensive understanding of the ecological niche of these creatures? Does he possess profound knowledge of the molecular, biochemical and behavioral aspects of this incredible system? Richard Dawkins thought he understood the vertebrate eye sufficiently to complain that the layers of the retina were wrong, proving there was no omnipotent Creator. Well, Richard Dawkins was wrong, but he’ll never admit it.

Finally, I’d like to know upon what principle of the philosophy of science one comes to a pronouncement of “disproof?” “Conclusive” no less! It sounds a little like he has declared that he has proven a negative — a first in the history of modern science. If this is so, Karl Popper is surely spinning in his grave. Freshman science students learn that you cannot prove a negative. To claim so, is prima fasciae evidence that the argument is not one of science, but of perspective.

Dr. Woodall and the editors of The Scientist ought to be ashamed. They claim that proponents of Intelligent Design are unscientific. Well, people who live in glass houses….

Dr. Hatcher is a practicing physician and university professor living in Indianapolis, Indiana.