Intelligent Design: Darwin's Worst Nightmare
The debate continues to heat up between Intelligent Design and Darwinism. This morning, a story came out in the L.A. Times in which President Bush is said to be offering "moral support" for the teaching of I.D. in schools. Of particular interest in the debate is the oft-cited accusation that I.D. is not "real" science, but is simply a new way of expressing the old arguments of Creationism. While proponents of each may share a belief in an intelligent Creator (God), the I.D. movement simply seeks to demonstrate (and quite effectively, I might add) that Darwinism cannot offer the explanation for the intricacies of apparent design of the cosmos and the best explanation is that there must be a designer. The ever-increasing, forward momentum of the I.D. movement has Darwinists crying foul at every turn.
To say (as many have) that ID is not real science because there is a prior commitment to a Creator is ludicrous. If this is the standard for determining real science, Darwinism doesn't qualify as real science because of it's prior commitment to atheism. As I stated earlier, those who want us to think that it is possible to do science absent some philosophic starting point are either being less than honest or are not in touch with the reality of their own belief-system. Clearly, those who claim I.D. is "non-scientifically based" have spent no time considering the data advanced by the scientists working within the field of Intelligent Design.
ID looks at the evidence, admits there are instances of micro-evolution within the species, but recognizes there is no possibility of attaining the results of an intricately fine-tuned cosmos by chance (macro-evolution). In the everyday world in which we all live, nothing that we experience suggests a move from chaos to order as is the implication of macro-evolution. It is always the other way around. To suggest that the one big exception, that of the origin of the world in which the most minute changes in the system would lead to cataclysmic results, developed from the chance occurrence of microscopic material of which no one can account for its existence, is, frankly, absurd.
For more on Intelligent Design, check out Intelligent Design The Future and William Dembski's blog, Uncommon Descent. There are also several excellent books on the subject by Dembski, Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe and others. A good introduction into ID is Signs of Intelligence, which can be found in the Book Room.
UPDATE 08-04-05: William Dembski has a good article in response to President Bush's statements on ID.
Related: Thought Quotient has a short article on Chuck Colson's exchange with former atheist Antony Flew, who in the past year has espoused belief in a creator as a result of the strength of Intelligent Design:
Also, Pat Sullivan points out the results of a recent Air America poll concluding that 83% of its listeners do not believe Intelligent Design should be taught at all in public schools, which is placed against the backdrop of a national poll which concluded that 74% of Americans believe in an intelligent Designer. Air America...out of touch? Hm. (HT: Evangelical Outpost)
Good post by Alex Forrest on the subject here.
"Creationism and intelligent design are often confused," said Jay W. Richards, vice president for research at Discovery Institute, a Seattle research and advocacy group for intelligent design. "Both have in common the idea that the universe exists for a purpose." Where intelligent design parts company with creationism, he said, is that it is neutral on Darwin's claim of common ancestry among species while challenging his theory that species change over time because of natural selection.I.D. is not a ploy to sneak in Creationism, nor is it pure philosophy over science (as though there is some way to do pure science absent philosophy!). On the contrary, it is an honest and more authentic form of science than Darwinism because it looks at all of the data and seeks to make the most sense out of the full body of evidence. Darwinism outrightly denies the possibility of a designer (because of its philosophic commitment to Naturalism) and expects the world to buy into the absurdity that every instance of obvious design in the cosmos, from the position, speed, content and make-up of our own planet (including the function and operation of every system on earth), to the intricate design and essential functions of the human body, is mindless happenstance. Most people are not that naive.
But critics say intelligent design is a form of creationism, stripped of references to the Bible to make the contention more palatable to skeptics.
"They are striving to maintain a big tent," said Branch, the evolution advocate. He said intelligent design supporters duck questions  such as the age of the Earth  that could alienate traditional creationists.
To say (as many have) that ID is not real science because there is a prior commitment to a Creator is ludicrous. If this is the standard for determining real science, Darwinism doesn't qualify as real science because of it's prior commitment to atheism. As I stated earlier, those who want us to think that it is possible to do science absent some philosophic starting point are either being less than honest or are not in touch with the reality of their own belief-system. Clearly, those who claim I.D. is "non-scientifically based" have spent no time considering the data advanced by the scientists working within the field of Intelligent Design.
ID looks at the evidence, admits there are instances of micro-evolution within the species, but recognizes there is no possibility of attaining the results of an intricately fine-tuned cosmos by chance (macro-evolution). In the everyday world in which we all live, nothing that we experience suggests a move from chaos to order as is the implication of macro-evolution. It is always the other way around. To suggest that the one big exception, that of the origin of the world in which the most minute changes in the system would lead to cataclysmic results, developed from the chance occurrence of microscopic material of which no one can account for its existence, is, frankly, absurd.
For more on Intelligent Design, check out Intelligent Design The Future and William Dembski's blog, Uncommon Descent. There are also several excellent books on the subject by Dembski, Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe and others. A good introduction into ID is Signs of Intelligence, which can be found in the Book Room.
UPDATE 08-04-05: William Dembski has a good article in response to President Bush's statements on ID.
Related: Thought Quotient has a short article on Chuck Colson's exchange with former atheist Antony Flew, who in the past year has espoused belief in a creator as a result of the strength of Intelligent Design:
UPDATE 08-05-05: There is an excellent post at Short Attention Span where major differences between ID and Creationism are detailed as well as between ID and Darwinism. (HT: Peter Glover)I was in Oxford last week, speaking at the C. S. Lewis Summer Institute, and had a chance to visit with Flew. He told a crowd that, as a professional philosopher, he had used all the tools of his trade to arrive at what he believed were intellectually defensible suppositions supporting atheism. But the intelligent design movement shook those presuppositions. He said, however, on philosophical grounds that he could not prove the existence of the God of the Bible.
In the question period, I walked to the microphone and told him as nicely as I could that he had put himself in an impossible box. He could prove theism was the only philosophically sustainable position, but he could not prove who God was. I said, “If you could prove who God was, you could not love God — which is the principle object of life.” Continue reading this article here.
Also, Pat Sullivan points out the results of a recent Air America poll concluding that 83% of its listeners do not believe Intelligent Design should be taught at all in public schools, which is placed against the backdrop of a national poll which concluded that 74% of Americans believe in an intelligent Designer. Air America...out of touch? Hm. (HT: Evangelical Outpost)
Good post by Alex Forrest on the subject here.
Labels: David C. Price
posted by DAVID C. PRICE at 8/03/2005 05:30:00 PM
|
9 Comments:
hi david,
i check your blog every now and again, and have many times been tempted to comment but have instead refrained. however, in this case, being a scientist, a believer in evolution, as well as a believer in God, i found it hard to resist.
i think ID is bad science. check this entry on my blog if you want to know why. at the core of the issues i have with ID is the fact that proving ID is next to impossible.
so, for a person like you who seems to be so convinced of the "fallacies" of neo-darwinism, i guess i just want to ask you how you think they could ever prove ID. i won't argue that a lot of evidence could be mounted to show a hole in the darwinism theory, but that alone is not sufficient enough to prove the ID theory. in my opinion, the only way i see ID to be supported is in its hammering away at evolution. all ID seems to do is show that evolution doesn't explain life fully enough, and therefore ID must be the answer. this, of course, is no proof at all of a hypothesis, which ID needs if it is to be considered real science.
second, i'd like you to tell me what "data" ID scientists have "advanced" that so strongly supports their hypotheses. so far, i've only seen review articles and commentary letters from the ID guys in support of their view. i've yet to see any real scientific publications that report a finding in direct favor of ID over evolution.
last, i think that this idea that evolution is based on an atheist worldview is not only ludicrous, but also irresponsible. while it is true that there are many atheist scientists out there, to draw the direct connection between support of darwinian evolution and atheism is a connection born more out of fear-mongering than out of evidence. furthermore, the reason it is irresponsible is because it serves to paint the scientific method employed by evolutionists as tainted somehow. it serves to make evolutionists look evil, which works really well if your intent is to convince people to reject a theory without thinking, but is really really bad if you are at all concerned with wanting to know the truth.
the fact is that the process of science, meaning the scientific method used to obtain data, and the (extremely critical) peer-review process involved in the publication of scientific data, is nothing to be made a mockery of. when you try to paint evolution as a theory based on flimsy evidence, you are in essence saying that the scientific process doesn't work in this instance. meanwhile, you continue to use multitudes of technology (be it this computer you're on, or the aspirin you took for your headache last week) that have been developed as a direct result of the same scientific process. i don't understand: how is it that when the scientific process is applied to the problem of evolution, it all of a sudden becomes an evil manifestation of atheistic desires, while when it is applied to a problem that doesn't threaten your theological view, it's just fine? to be a proponent of such a dichotomy is irresonsible in my opinion.
anyway, sorry to go so long here. i get heated a bit heated about this topic, but please know that i say it all with respect for your views.
something you might consider thinking about (and something that i see as the root of this whole problem): how would your view of God change if macro-evolution were proved tomorrow to be absolutely true? could your concept of God exist if you knew that humans really evolved from apes, or would it fall apart? i think much of this whole debate boils down to the fact that the modern church's view of God pretty much falls apart if they are to accept evolution. the issue then really becomes the fact that we've boxed God into a narrow definition. if our concept of God falls apart in the face of evolution, then i have to wonder how big of a God we really believe in.
-kp
Hi KP,
Thanks for writing. It's been a long time since I've heard from you. Hope all is going well.
Regarding your comments:
One of the problems I have is that, pure and simple, Darwinism begins and ends with Naturalism which is a weak, insufficient and atheistic worldview. That isn’t an attempt to demonize anything…it’s just a fact. Trying to marry Darwinism and some aberration of Christianity doesn’t work. Besides the obvious problems theologically with Darwinism, scientifically there is no evidence of macro-evolution in that nothing in the fossil record clearly demonstrates one species becoming another species. If I am wrong on that and you’ve come up with something, tell me. I know that there are plenty of instances of micro-evolution as species have adapted to their environmental changes. I have no problem with that.
I wonder…and perhaps this is a question for you…where your basis of authority is since you have claimed to be a Christian (don’t read that as though I am arguing that you are not…that’s not the point). That is to say, since you are a proclaimed believer in God (now that I think about it, I can’t specifically remember if you have claimed Christianity, just theism), what is the source of your knowledge of God? Orthodox Christianity views the source of authority (as God’s self-revelation) as being Scripture. What is yours? Feeling? Opinion? “Natural selection” of truth in Scripture (meaning you pick and choose what is fact and what is fantasy from the Bible—i.e. opinion)? That is not to reduce the discussion to Scripture only, but only as a point of clarification. The reason I say that is because I am a Christian who holds the view of Scripture authoritatively and, having understood what Scripture says, I can then look at the world around me and get a picture of God’s world, not blindly, but through the lenses of a worldview that works; that is comprehensive to all of life. Scripture is foundational to my worldview which allows me to see plenty of room for micro-evolution as God created each kind. Within each kind, all sorts of things can happen. I think the science, as best I’ve been able to tell, supports that (the real world in which we live gives evidence every day). I don’t see that the science supports anything more than that. Again, show me where I’m wrong.
I’ve sat in a room with William Dembski as he talked about a whole lot of scientific minutia that is way over my head. As a theologian who studies the field of science as best my little, rather unscientific mind can grasp it, I know that Darwinism is weak, not because I think it is from the devil or that it is “evil-ution” as some fundamentalists liked to claim, but because it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that Darwinism provides a weak answer to the obvious design elements of the cosmos. Science is supposed to look at the evidence and develop the simplest hypotheses regarding either the existence of something or the function of certain operations. Darwinism, being committed to atheism (whether you are, personally, or not), insists on coming up with an impersonal means to explain its existence. God is considered unnecessary in Darwinism (though they need something to get them kick-started—what that is, we don’t know and they can’t explain). This is like taking the aspirin or the computer, to use your analogies, deny the possibility of a creator for them, and insist that they were developed by unintelligent, natural means. Why go to so much trouble? Why not look at the evidence and admit that the strongest, simplest and most straight-forward hypothesis is that of a designer? Common sense rightly informs us of this kind of thing every day as we just saw with our analogies. The simple answer to the reason Darwinists don’t do this is a prior, philosophical commitment to Naturalism which is, by definition, Atheism (like it or not). There is no way around that. The claim you made saying that marrying Atheism to Darwinism is irresponsible because it is "fear-mongering" is simply not true. You cannot re-define the meaning of Naturalism upon which Darwinism is based. One must either have the integrity to embrace the worldview as it is, or find another one that works better for them. Naturalism is what it is. Further, the whole section of your argument about equating an attack on Darwinism with the scientific method is a straw man. Making the claim about Darwinism as being founded upon atheistic principles says absolutely nothing about the scientific method employed by Darwinism (or any other “ism”), only the manner in which it is utilized.
What would happen to my theology if macro-evolution were proven tomorrow? That is a hypothetical I don’t think will ever occur based on the foundation of my worldview which is that God created each kind the way He wanted them and then allowed natural selection to make changes within each kind and also that there have been no significant findings that advance the theory. I’m pretty confident that, in spite of all the attempts to come up with just one, legitimate shred of evidence that macro-evolution has occurred and that the basis of my worldview is wrong, there has been nothing. I see nothing to make me believe there is proof that my family tree started in a tree. I don’t think there ever will be.
The basis of your argument, as you have stated, is that Intelligent Design can never be proven, therefore it is bad science (the implication being that Darwinian Evolution is the best alternative). Do you realize how bold that statement is? Exactly how do you have this kind of omniscience to know that it can never be proven? You see, my belief that there will never be proof of macro-evolution is based upon the years of scientists trying and failing to produce real evidence of a species mutation, coupled with my source of authority and the foundational principles of my worldview as found in Scripture. You may say that I am wrong to believe that, but I am not basing my disbelief in Darwinism on that as you are your disbelief in ID. Darwinism stands or falls on providing unimpeachable evidence which it has yet to do. So, if the basis of your belief that ID is bad science is that you say believe it can never be proven, Darwinism cannot be held very strongly with you, either, since the possibility of its proof is hypothetical at best. I think the premise of your argument, as you have presented it, is incredibly weak. You either have to come up with a new basis for dismissing ID or find a third theory for your cosmology.
You say that the problem of the church is that we've put God in a box. That’s not really the problem. It appears to be that you have based your view of God on an unproven, scientific, theory and are content to do so. My view of God is not based on the ID theory, but on Scripture which is supported by what I see in nature and science (and that shouldn’t necessarily be judged by the most narrow interpretations you may have heard regarding the young earth, old earth debate, etc. as well as other debates regarding hermeneutics). To say that my view of God falls apart in the face of evolution is like saying my view of God falls apart when faced with the reality of square triangles. You are starting your view of God from an unfounded hypothesis rather than a worldview structure that takes God’s true nature into consideration as He revealed it and then deals with it responsibly. To do otherwise is to create God in our own image, giving Him the nature and attributes that we want Him to have (which, in this case, is an adoption of the Darwinian process for His creation) and then claim that identifying the specific aspects of who He is, based on His self-revelation, is to put Him in a box. That is simply fallacious. You are who you are with certain attributes. Regardless of any other attributes I project onto you, it doesn’t make them so. It would, therefore, be wrong of me to make claims of who you are or how you function based on those projections. It is the same with God. The starting point is what He has said about Himself.
Finally, I don’t know that ID will ever be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. It may always be a strong theory that is going to be based on faith…just like Darwinism. But then again, I don’t think anyone is saying that ID should, at present (nor has there been any claim for the future), be taught exclusively as fact. As a matter of fact, the Discovery Institute released this statement recently in response to the President’s comments:
'President Bush is to be commended for defending free speech on evolution, and supporting the right of students to hear about different scientific views about evolution,' said Dr. John West, Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute, the nation’s leading think tank supporting research on the theory of intelligent design. Intelligent design proposes that some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.
Discovery Institute opposes mandating the teaching of intelligent design, but it supports requiring students to know about scientific criticisms of Darwin’s theory, which is the approach adopted by the science standards in Ohio, Minnesota, New Mexico, and currently under discussion in Kansas. Discovery Institute also supports the right of teachers to voluntarily discuss the scientific debate over intelligent design free from persecution or intimidation.
If you notice, the only claim being made is that “some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent cause.” Clearly, there is room for some natural selection (within the species). Further, no claim is made that ID should be taught exclusively, but neither should Darwinism be taught as fact, which is exactly what many are trying to accomplish. Darwinism is no more fact than little green men on Mars, yet many within the scientific community want to snow society into thinking they’ve got it all figured out. I say, let ‘em both be put out there with their best arguments and evidence and see which one is standing at the end of the day. Intelligent Design is Darwin’s worst nightmare because it undermines the atheistic underpinnings of the movement…and, like I said, most of us aren’t buying it. Thanks for your comments, KP.
Blessings!
dp
david,
now i know why i shouldn't comment on your blog. sorry.
i'm not going to continue this conversation, because pretty much everything you say makes me throw my hands up in the air and wonder aloud how people can think the way you do. i don't mean that as a slant in any way, but that's just about the nicest thing i can get off my chest right now. i tend to get too passionate about things, and right now i don't think letting myself get involved in this conversation in beneficial or healthy for me.
i think there are fundamental things in the world that are very hard to overcome in how you see life. unfortunately, i think you and i stand on the opposite sides of this divide, making conversations via the completely-impersonable blog nearly impossible, as least for me. maybe that's just my own weakness.
regardless, if you want to know, i consider myself a Christian, although i imagine you probably wouldn't. i believe that the life and teachings of Jesus provide a way to live for humanity that is incredible. i only wish i was better at being his disciple.
so, sorry to cut this short, but i just don't see this conversation as leading anywhere that would be beneficial for me. i should have known from the beginning that you don't ever change your views.
see you around...
-kp
Hi KP,
No problem. I can respect you not wanting to go there. I'm sorry if I've offended you because I'm not changing my views (not sorry that I didn't change my view, though). I don't consider standing firm on convictions a weakness. However, I've certainly not intended to cause you mental harm...not even angst! :-)
I have no intention of judging whether or not you are a Christian and just because we share differing views doesn't mean we can't respectfully (and perhaps passionately) disagree.
I'm sure you're not the only one who has thrown up his hands in the air and wondered how I can think the way I do. I must say, though, the feeling is mutual. Communication is always difficult regardless and often tricky in this impersonal medium. We do the best we can, though, don't we?
I do hope you won't stop visiting blogs that challenge your views. That's not a bad thing. I find it beneficial. Nevertheless, I wish you all the blessings in your continued journey for truth. Peace, friend.
dp
David, I think your arguments and positions in your post and in the comments are totally logical. Perhaps that is because they fit my "worldview" as well.
These two statements stood out the most...both wonderfully worded.
"To suggest that the one big exception, that of the origin of the world in which the most minute changes in the system would lead to cataclysmic results, developed from the chance occurrence of microscopic material of which no one can account for its existence, is, frankly, absurd."
"Why not look at the evidence and admit that the strongest, simplest and most straight-forward hypothesis is that of a designer?"
God bless and thanks for the link.
- Pat
Thanks, Pat. Like I said, it's not rocket science.
...though it is a lot more important.
By the way, Pat, thanks for your post on intelligent design and the Air America poll. That was very helpful and informative. Blessings.
First of all May I state that I agree with the Intelligent Design position of David and Pat without reservation. Anyone who believes in either evolution or a hybrid position between the two MUST, by definition, be against the biblical position, which is stated plainly enough - unless we cannot accept God's truth (and the actual scientific evidence which supports it!).
Where I am less inhibited than David perhaps is in questioning the whole area of those who claim the title 'Christian'. The fact is that we 'judge' these situations all the time whether we are prepared to admit it or not. How else would we know whether someone needed evangelizing or not? Isn't this using our 'judgment' as biblically required? And in the cases of liberal Christians (which Gresham Machen desribed as 'not Christianity at all' by the way - was HE judgmental? - would we simply not bother to evangelize them as well - given indication that their definition of 'being a Christian' did not match the bible's, and not just our own?
Let me be a little clearer. I think the questioning whether someone is a Christian or not is ruled at all ruled out biblically - indeed, quite the opposite. But the language when talking about it needs clarification. It would be better to talk about whether the evidence 'points to' or 'away from' whether someone has faith or not. We cannot say conclusively (nor try) whetehr someone IS saved or not. BUT it is open, indeed sometimes our duty, to articulate whether the understanding orf another is biblical or not, without gnecessarily going the final distance and passing our own judgement.
I worry greatly that many decent Christians are far too easy-going here and that their understahnding is actualy not biblically informed. Neither Jesus nor Paul had any compunction in rebuking both those with unbelief and those with false belief who taught wrong doctrine (the Pharisees and the super apostles at Corinth, for instance) in the very strongest terms. These Old and New 'church leaders' were roundly condmend for their pseudo-teachings.
We might not be able to say categorically that someone is or is not a Christian - but we might at least confomr to a more biblcial approach and question someone's criteria for what makes a Christian where it does not conform to orthodox biblical teaching.
KP possibly (I only says possible without questioning him further) that he may lack faith altogether in his apaprent asdsertion of what makes a Christian. He says this:
" I believe that the life and teachings of Jesus provide a way to live for humanity that is incredible. i only wish i was better at being his disciple." He may of course believe 'morethan this. But, at face value at least this is insufficient evidence for faith - lots of people wqho are not Christains believe the same thing. eple think this much. Faith is much however than following a philosophy of life. Christ is God not a mere philosopher. Anthing less than THIS key admission is actually evidence for unbelief on THE key salvation issue.
But I rather fear we have become unlike our Christain forebears who did not fear to address these issues - not for them to settle for nice chatty debate as itf it was not an issue that mattered. We appear to have forgotten that the gospel by definition is offensive - I found it so when someone told it me. But then those words later came home to me. Oftentimes, confrontation proves more effective than 'nice inoffensive chats' as the examples in the nT make abundantly clear.
Thsi is not solely meant in reference to the above debate. But it does relate to the issue of whether we are actually being biblical Christains' of just 'nice Christians'. These IS a major difference.
Denying ID just may mean that we need to go deeper and check out the worldview of where someone is 'coming from'. Only then will the pointers to true faith and unbelief become much clearer. To be afraid to so merely weakens our own understanding of what the Bible is teaching at these points.
Good points, Peter. Thanks for the post.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home