Posted on 08/09/2005 4:42:44 AM PDT by Nicholas Conradin
Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as "fact," I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism.
In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college.
You might wonder how scientists who are taught to apply disciplined observation and experimentation and to search for natural explanations for what is observed in nature can come to such a conclusion? For those of you who consider themselves open-minded, I will try to explain.
True evolution, in the macro-sense, has never been observed, only inferred. A population of moths that changes from light to dark based upon environmental pressures is not evolution -- they are still moths. A population of bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics does not illustrate evolution -- they are still bacteria. In the biological realm, natural selection (which is operating in these examples) is supposedly the mechanism by which evolution advances, and intelligent design theory certainly does not deny its existence. While natural selection can indeed preserve the stronger and more resilient members of a gene pool, intelligent design maintains that it cannot explain entirely new kinds of life -- and that is what evolution is.
Possibly the most critical distinction between the two theories (or better, "models") of origins is this: While similarities between different but "related" species have been attributed by evolutionism to common ancestry, intelligent design explains the similarities based upon common design. An Audi and a Ford each have four wheels, a transmission, an engine, a gas tank, fuel injection systems … but no one would claim that they both naturally evolved from a common ancestor.
Common ancestry requires transitional forms of life to have existed through the millions of years of supposed biological evolution. Yet the fossil record, our only source of the history of life on Earth, is almost (if not totally) devoid of transitional forms of life that would connect the supposed evolution of amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds, etc. This is why Stephen Jay Gould, possibly the leading evolutionist of our time, advanced his "punctuated equilibria" theory. In this theory, evolution leading to new kinds of organisms occurs over such brief periods of time that it was not captured in the fossil record. Upon reflection, one cannot help but notice that this is not arguing based upon the evidence -- but instead from the lack of evidence.
One finally comes to the conclusion that, despite vigorous protests, belief in evolution and intelligent design are matters of faith. Even some evolutionists have admitted as much in their writings. Modern biology does not "fall apart" without evolution, as some will claim. Maybe the theories of the origins of forms of life fall apart, or theories of the origin of capabilities that those life forms exhibit, or the supposed ancestral relationships between them fall apart. But these are merely intellectual curiosities, serving only to stimulate discussion and teach the next generation of students the same beliefs. From a practical point of view, the intelligent design paradigm is just as useful to biology, and I believe, more satisfying from an intellectual point of view.
Intelligent design can be studied and taught without resorting to human creation traditions and beliefs, which in the West are usually traceable to the first book of the Bible, Genesis. Just as someone can recognize and study some machine of unknown purpose built by another company, country (or alien intelligence?), one can also examine the natural world and ask the question: did this machine arise by semi-random natural physical processes, or could it have been designed by a higher power? Indeed, I was convinced of the intelligent design arguments based upon the science alone.
Of course, ultimately, one must confront the origin of that higher power, which will logically lead to the possibility of an original, uncaused, First Cause. But then we would be firmly in the religious realm. All naturalistic cosmological theories of origins must invent physics that have never been observed by science -- because the "Big Bang" can't be explained based upon current physics. A naturalistic origin of the universe violates either the First or Second Laws of thermodynamics -- or both. So, is this science? Or faith?
It is already legal to teach intelligent design in public schools. What is not currently legal is to mandate its teaching. The Supreme Court has ruled that this would violate the First Amendment's establishment of religion clause.
But I have some questions relating to this: Does not classical evolutionism, based almost entirely upon faith, violate the same clause? More importantly, what about the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion?
If the public school system insists on teaching evolution as a theory of origins, in the view of many a religious activity, why is it discriminating against the only other theory of origins, intelligent design? (There is, by the way, no third theory of origins that anyone has ever been able to determine.) At the very least, school textbooks should acknowledge that evolution is a theory of origins, it has not been proved, and that many scientists do not accept it.
There are a variety of ideas that try to blend evolution and intelligent design, the most unified one being "pantheism" that sees God and nature as One. This view, which has been held by many peoples throughout recorded history, has also been advanced here at TCS. But more commonly, people subscribe to the notion that a Creator "got things started," and then evolution "took over."
The problem I have with this is that it grants far too much significance to macroevolution, since it has virtually no observational evidence to support it. One wonders: Why do so many people defend it so fervently?
Whether intelligent design is ever taught in school is probably not as important as the freedom that we have in a free society to discuss, and study, such issues. And for that, I am thankful.
All this shows is how many people have been duped into believing what is taught is biology and passed off as science. They will believe no facts.
".......but he is a scientist........"
As a Biochemist and Molecular Biologist I'd like to now expound on my theories of Climatological change and Global Warming..............
You statement here displays considerable ingnorance of the scientific thinking process. It actually doesn't matter which discipline you spend most of your working life in, the technique and principles of searching for verifiable evidence are the same, the ability to spot contradictions and lack of evidence arguements are all the same.
This is typical of the modern "expert" attitude. Only so called "experts" can pass an opinion and the rest of us should be told and shut up.
Anyone can use the brains and mind God gave them for any useful purpose
You teach what ID is, an explanation of observed phenomena that cannot be explained by classical neo-Darwinistic evolutionary theories.
ID occurred as a RESPONSE to OBSERVATIONS that COULD NOT be explained Darwinistically.
You teach what these observations are. You teach why Darwinistic models cannot explain them. You teach why, therefore, the idea of ID came about.
In other words, you teach it like you do the various theoretical modifications you find occuring in physics all the time.
Newton's "God of the gaps." Science later filled in the gaps.
Like facts of predicted transitional fossils and ID's lack of prediction?
Your transitional forms can just as easily be interpreted as different species sharing common characteristics.
Given the notoriously imprecise and circular nature of geologic and fossil dating, the organization of fossils into ancestral and descendent can be shown to be the construct of human pre-disposition rather than objective observation. It's a classic case of the assumption forcing the conclusion.
However, that is a matter open to honest debate. What is more interesting to me is the apparent lack of living common ancestors. For example, sharks have existed for 600 million years. They should be the common ancestor of many currently living and extinct species. I am not aware of any study attempting to determine the descendancy of sharks or any other living species. The only work I've seen is an attempt to find common ancestry, and even then, I'm not aware of anyone actually pointing to a fossil and saying: This is the common ancestor of X and Y. It's always X and Y share a common ancestor, Z.
It stands to reason that sharks and other organisms that have existed for hundreds of millions of years should have literally thousands if not millions of species that have them as a common ancestor. Where are they?
So what? ID isn't about the Judeo-Christian God, despite desperate Christian Creationist attempts to make it so.
Because, of course, cross-scientific speculations NEVER led to any sort of scientific advancement at all. Nope, physicists should stay out of biology, and chemists out of geology. Astronomers should shut up about sociology (after all, their mathematical training has NO application to population studies).
The only scientists who can make any meaningful contribution to a field of study are those steeped in the preconceptions of that field of study.
As I'm a scientist and your probably not I think I can safely say what I would like about meteorologists. In fact I have a very good friend that is one and he tells me that most of the time they look out the window and make the weather up. Thats not science its prediction.
Thank you for demonstrating that you don't understand ID in the least.
You should. You might have some insight into biological processes that could affect weather systems that a meterologist would never consider.
Nope, my main point is that creationists are mostly full of it and they grasp onto any straw that lends credence to their lackluster arguments. If they can find one silly scientist in a million to support them, that man in their feeble minds must be a genius above all others.
Well, thanks for clarifying your position. You despise the messengers so reject the message.
Wonder how he feels about global warming? :-)
Bump
Over the past century and a half pure science has sold its birthright for a philosophy known as evolutionism. Today it would apparently extend its line of credit toward the additional purchase of creationism. Frankly, I am beginning to wonder if pure science is capable of keeping its house clean.
As for evolutionism, one does not cast forth reasonable conjecture upon a mountain of circumstantial evidence and call it "science." One does not create a multiplicity of historic concatenations based upon a static record as if it had the same level of certitude as the Law of Gravity. Call it a philosophy, a history, or modern storytelling, but do not call it science in the strict sense.
As for creationism, one does not insert God into science any more than one inserts the director of a play into the play just to make a point that the play has a director. God does not need the help of science. The reverse is true, simply because science could not take place in the first place without an intelligently designed Being placing intelligent creatures in the midst of an intelligently designed creation. It is a comfortable given, not an end for science to pursue.
On the one hand, the philosophy of evolutionism dresses in scientific garb and introduces itself by stealth, not willing to recognize, let alone acknowledge that it begins with a fundamental set of givens that will never fail in finding a piece of circumstantial evidence to fit it. On the other hand, the theology of creationism dresses in a populist hankering for God to be given equal time at the microphone, failing to realize that pure science carries on well without the additional noise.
If the house of science is going to be kept clean, at least one of three things ought to happen. 1.) the adherents of the philosophy of evolution begin to extricate their dubious ramblings from under the label of science while the proponents of creationism take note and refrain from inserting them, 2.) the plenary body of public school customers receives what their tax dollars are paying for: Consideration for all reasonable points of view, or 3.) we honestly acknowledge the presence and implications of commingled thought. The debate has its place in schoolrooms, to be sure, but neither philosophy nor theology constitute pure science.
Based on the past century and a half, it would be no surprise if pure science decides to take on various philosophies inimical to its own good, while parading itself about as a caricature of what it is supposed to be, namely, the engagement of hypotheses that are testable within the realms current history and direct observation.
Since the message is wrong and the messengers are deluded, yes your right, I give them about as much credence as I give the bozos over at the democratic party who are trying to sell their own snake oil or the nuts at peta that want to make gods out of cats.
This is just pure nonsense. If you wanted to design a perfect missing link between reptiles and birds, Archaeopteryx would be it. It has feathers and wings like a bird, combined with a reptilian tail and teeth. The skeleton is intermediate. We have also a number of other transitional forms that are either more reptilian or more avian than Archie.
If the author is going to step outside his field so far, he should know enough to learn something about the area about which he's propounding.
Gobal warming just got a lot more probable for me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.