8/19/2005
Well, President Bush’s comment on August 2nd has certainly touched off an interesting firestorm. What words did he utter that led to this firestorm? When asked about the debate over teaching evolution in schools and competing theories, such as a new theory called “Intelligent Design,” the President said this: “I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought,” Bush said. “You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.”
Of course, proponents of philisophical materialism (Darwinists) immediately hit the airwaves to denounce the President’s “ignorance” on the subject and to insist that Intelligent Design (ID) Theory was just “another form of creationism.” Really, some of these science-types sounded almost desperate to quickly quell the controversy, which I imagine some of them really are.
What are these believers in all things material trying to hide? Or do they really just believe that the only REAL science is the study of the materialistic universe? I think you’d likely find many Darwinists who honestly believe that evolution is the likely explanation for life, the universe, and everything. But some really do want to quell this new approach called ID Theory.
Why? Because it employs real science and because, believe it or not, it is a completely valid and testable approach in terms of the scientific method.
So, for the uninitiated, what is ID? Intelligent Design is, basically, a theory which posits that life in all its forms here on planet Earth is a product of design. The theory does not try to offer conjecture regarding who the designer might be, instead, it uses modern science to show that the enormous complexity which most living organisms demonstrate could not have occurred “accidentally.” After over 100 years, evolution still cannot account for events such as the Cambrian Explosion, where thousands of species appear all at one time in the fossil record and all within a very short span of time. According to Darwin, such a thing could never happen in a series of gradual steps. So what could account for such an event?
I have no idea, but we should at least acknowledge such challenges to evolution rather than gloss them over. And we should let other scientists come to the table with competing theories; one of which happens to be ID.
So, how can we scientifically examine the possibility of an intelligent designer? Well, we have several very popular and sophisticated sciences which we already employ just for the purpose of detecting intelligence as well as intelligent causes, not just here on Earth, but out in the universe as well.
Here are a few examples:
- SETI (Search for Extraterrestial Intelligence): SETI is a program that most likely we’ve all heard of. SETI researchers use a series of radio receiver based all over the world to literally listen to “noise” generated by other stars and extra-terrestial phenomena out in space. What are they listening for? Basically, they are seeking signs of other intelligences sending radio signals into the galaxy to communicate with other species. How could we know if one noise is caused by an intelligence vs. another noise? Listen for patterns, of course, and computers are employed to do exactly that and to alert researchers if a pattern is ever detected. First we identify all the random noise which exists in a certain part of our galaxy, or another, then we wait and seek noise which may have a pattern or a rhythm that would be statistically unlikely to have occurred except through an intelligent cause
- Archeology - Archeologists work day in and day out to discern between the natural and the unnatural. They seek artifacts that could not possibly have been generated naturally in an environment and study them closely to determine their creation date, purpose, and perhaps even some characterstics of their makers. Truly, if it impossible to scientifically detect intelligence, archeologists would not be able to tell a boulder from a building… Right?
- Forensics - Not only is “CSI” a hugely popular show on television, it has spawned two other spin off shows as well, as well as numerous similarly patterned competitors on other networks. What is the central purpose of forensic analysis? To apply the scientific method to the detection of intelligence. Let’s say a husband dies suddenly in his home. Did his wife poison him? Did he die of a heart attack? Did he simply die of old age? All of these questions can be reliably, even routinely answered using the forensic sciences. We can test for chemicals not normally found in the human body. We can look for signs of a struggle, we can even examine the person’s innards to seek some natural system failure. Again, if science were unable to distinguish intelligent causes from natural ones, there would be no science of forensics.
Basically, the above sciences look for complexity. The more complex something is, the less likely it could have occurred randomly or accidentally. This, after all, is a known law in the universe. We’re talking the Laws of Thermodynamics here? First of all, as far as we’ve ever been able to tell, there is no new energy being created in the universe. Secondly, we know that energy, in all its forms, moves from higher levels of complexity to lower levels of complexity.
Thermodynamics alone poses an intractible problem for evolutionists. How can organisms of such complexity occur randomly when everything we know tells us that energy breaks down naturally, it does not build up?
Now let’s discuss a scientific theory posited by Michael Behe, a molecular biologist, which employs the ID model, called “Irreducible Complexity.” Here is Dr. Behe’s defintionof Irreducible Complexity:
In The Origin of Species Darwin stated:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
A system which meets Darwin’s criterion is one which exhibits irreducible complexity. By irreducible complexity I mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional.
What are some irreducible systems?
- The human eye
- Proteins
- Cilium
In each of these systems, the complex biochemical interactions which must occur in a precise way, in alignment with other similary precise yet complex systems, could never have occurred randomly, at least not in the time currently allowed by scientists who have been researching the age of the earth. I’ve read many scientists who have attempted to pooh pooh Irreducible Complexity and ID in general, but none of them have ever successfully, to my knowledge, demonstrated how irreducibly complex systems could ever have occurred natural in random steps… Not one!
This post is getting long, so let me wrap it up by saying that I’m not one of those who wants evolution taken out of schools. I believe firmly that it should be taught, along with the debate which centers around evolution, as well as some of the challenges which still remain for this theory. I also think that other theories should be discussed. ID is one of those.
ID employs everyday sciences that we all know of, and you don’t have to talk of a designer in the science classroom, just stick to the science behind the theory. Ultimately, this theory IS gaining traction; something which has hard core evolutionists (whose religion is metaphysical naturalism), in somewhat of a tiff. How dare ANYONE challenge their beloved theory, much less the serious scientists who are now beginning to step forward and offer their challenges?
All I can is, this should be fun to watch. 
David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com
3 Comments
[…] Alright, here is my second post in a row on the issue of “Intelligent Design.” If you want to know more of what ID is all about, then please read my previous post on the subject, “Intelligent Design is Everyday Science.” […]
Pingback by Viewpoint Journal » ‘Consensus Science’? Please!! — 8/30/2005 @ 9:12 pm
You should have included “How dare anyone challenge the existence of God!” This is what it all boils down to. Christians can’t accept the flaws and obvious gaps in their religion, so they attack real science. Wouldn’t it be funny if their intelligent designers are actually aliens from another planet?
Comment by Rick Webb — 9/27/2005 @ 7:09 am
Rick,
Thanks for your comments. There is no doubt in my mind that you are correct in that some Christians would say, “how dare anyone challenge the existence of God.”
At the same time, I don’t think you’ll find many Christians who say that. In this country, the vast majority of Christians, even evangelicals like myself, understand that being challenged is a core part of our faith.
The Apostle Peter said this to his fellow believers: “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect…”
So, if there are Christians who are acting hurt and offended at the thought that someone might challenge their faith, then those Christians obviously need to study their Bibles a bit more closely.
As for the “flaws and obvious gaps” in my faith; please feel free to offer some of them up and I’ll be happy to provide answers for you. Always, of course, with gentleness and respect.
Thanks again for your comments.
David
Comment by David — 9/27/2005 @ 7:54 am