Replies

The Science of Chicken Little

“The sky is falling! The sky is falling!”
-Chicken Little

Ah, the story of Chicken Little we heard as children is funny to us now that we know from science it is not possible, and this poor chicken was merely a victim of an acorn falling due to the law of gravity. But what would happen if science yelled, “The sky is falling because of a new hypothesis that claims life and the universe are not the result of mere natural happenstance?” Well, apparently this ‘old acorn’ known as the Design Theory has hit current science square on its head and this acorn has a new name – Intelligent Design.

Now, I am sure many people have heard the ‘acorn equals sky’ hypothesis put forth by current science. It goes somewhat like this; Intelligent Design (ID) is Creationism , ID is not testable , ID hurts the conservative position because it is based on Christian morality, , no reputable scientist would allow ID , (see Henry Francis "Fritz" Schaefer), etc…

Note to reader – read on before posting a knee-jerk response.

1. Intelligent Design (ID) is Creationism
Creationism is a literal belief in the Christian Biblical account of Genesis, but ID does not subscribe to the Bible, Buddha, Muhammad, or any creation account. (The sky is falling) ID merely puts forth that life and the universe does not merely come from mindless mechanisms as put forth by ‘current natural science’. I welcome anyone to ask a darwinian scientist where human consciousness came from – where intelligence came from – where morality came from… Social Darwinism is the answer which implies mindless mechanisms that allow imaginary happenstance morality. Is this scientific creationism?

Let us say that an alien planet attacked the earth that had no regard for life. In the Social Darwinist philosophy we have no argument against their actions. How could anyone say who is right and who is wrong? What would be right and wrong?

"With respect to the theological view of the question. This is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae [wasps] with the express intention of their [larva] feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other, I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all [original italics] satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can. Certainly I agree with you that my views are not at all necessarily atheistical. The lightning kills a man, whether a good one or bad one, owing to the excessively complex action of natural laws. A child (who may turn out an idiot) is born by the action of even more complex laws, and I can see no reason why a man, or other animals, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws, and that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event and consequence. But the more I think the more bewildered I become; as indeed I probably have shown by this letter. Most deeply do I feel your generous kindness and interest.
Yours sincerely and cordially,
-Charles Darwin

I am not a creationist but I see ID as new hypothesis that deserve some merit

Note to reader - dogma is dogma regardless of the source .
2. ID is not testable

Consider the current phylogenic software, you could throw random data into it and it would still form a tree. Why? Obviously because it is designed to create a tree and it will always create a tree because that is the preprogrammed goal but the trees will appear different. Now the initial assumption in the software is common descent and via random data a whale could be descended from a bat - And why not? This could solve the whole; sonar, tail, nose, and fin issues. (And yes, I am familiar with the current whale evolution paradigm so there is no need for anyone to post it) The point is that if this information was published in favor of Darwin’s common descent people would defend it because of a preprogrammed adherence to common descent – if a different story came out next year with “bear to whale” data that supported common descent, it would be defended as well as long as it was based on common descent… (Do we see an obvious preprogrammed pattern? – LOL)

Now one could ask, “Can another theory exist based on ‘current’ science that is not based on common descent or natural mindless mechanisms?” I say no. It seems at the root of the issue though, if mindless (purely natural) mechanisms were found to be insufficient, than other theories would obviously be developed. This cannot happen within the current constrict of science. I’m willing to let science to go forward without preconceived (or preprogrammed) notions that we wish it to follow. Regardless, dogmatism is dogmatism and science has resisted paradigm changes throughout history. Design theorists could theoretically try to establish that the earth is round, and in the current climate, scientists would mock and laugh at all of their endeavors. ‘Science’ does not welcome change to an established ‘belief’ as some might suppose.

Anyway, I think Dembski makes a good point in this regard:

…Suppose I were a super-genius molecular biologist, and I invented some hitherto unknown molecular machine, far more complicated and marvelous than the bacterial flagellum. Suppose further I inserted this machine into a bacterium, set this genetically modified organism free, allowed it to reproduce in the wild, and destroyed all evidence of my having created the molecular machine. Suppose, for instance, the machine is a stinger that injects other bacteria and explodes them by rapidly pumping them up with some gas (I'm not familiar with any such molecular machine in the wild), thereby allowing the bacteria endowed with my invention to consume their unfortunate prey.
Now let's ask the question, If a Darwinist came upon this bacterium with the novel molecular machine in the wild, would that machine be attributed to design or to natural selection? When I presented this example to David Sloan Wilson at a conference at MIT two years ago, he shrugged it off and remarked that natural selection created us and so by extension also created my novel molecular machine. But of course this argument won't wash since the issue is whether natural selection could indeed create us. What's more, if Darwinists came upon my invention of a novel molecular machine inserted into a bacterium that allows it to feed on other bacteria, they wouldn't look to design but would reflexively turn to natural selection. But, if we go with the story, I designed the bacterial stinger and natural selection had nothing to do with it. Moreover, intelligent design would confirm the stinger's design whereas Darwinism never could. It follows that a design-theoretic framework could account for biological facts that would forever remain invisible within a Darwinian framework. It seems to me that this possibility constitutes a joint test of Darwinism and intelligent design that strongly supports intelligent design -- if not as the truth then certainly as a live possible theoretical option that must not be precluded for a priori philosophical reasons like naturalism.

3. ID hurts the conservative position because it is based on Christian morality and principles within science.

How does naturalism help the conservative cause? Currently science lacks a solid explanation for the origin of life. In fact, there are some who say chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life and people should consider the implications. If life does not arise from purely (mindless) natural means than are we to assume everything else did due to common descent? What if the selfish-gene hypothesis was question by ‘new’ scientists? What if the social implications of Darwinism were found lacking?

Bottom line: ‘Current science’ states the universe and human consciousness comes from mindless mechanisms. ID states consciousness does not come from mindlessness – this means mindlessness is not the originating source of consciousness and our consciousness is not a byproduct of mindless mechanisms. Our Morality is not a relative happenstance that changes with the wind.