Intelligent Design, God's Existence, and Darwinian Evolution

Web published by private author ^ | 23 Mar 2006 | Rick Harrison

[Zeroisanumber]

Curious; what do you suppose to be the source of moral law?

Curious; are you calling me immoral? And if so, why?

[Daffy]

Aha! You did ignore the question. Good for you.

[Zeroisanumber]

You may be an atheist of high morality, or at least a decent fellow. I have no problem with your atheism. There are decent atheists. But why this vehement crusade to save humanity from belief in things spiritual?

Why the vehement crusade to insert spirituality into science? Evolution takes no stance on the existence or non-existence of God.

For that matter, why try to prove the rationality of faith? Faith, by it's very nature, defies rational measurement and would become hollow and worthless if it were somehow measured. Why are you looking for God under a rock?

[Daffy]

"Evolution takes no stance on the existence or non-existence of God."

Thanks for the chuckle. Yes, but what does science say? Is evolution and science the same thing, or two separate things (seems unlikey)?

Are you prepared to state that science lacks competancy to answer the question of God's existance?

[Zeroisanumber]

Thanks for the chuckle. Yes, but what does science say? Is evolution and science the same thing, or two separate things (seems unlikey)?

Evolution is a scientific theory.

Are you prepared to state that science lacks competancy to answer the question of God's existance?

Supernatural entities are outside of the scope of what science investigates. By their very nature, they violate scientific laws and can't be scientifically measured.

[Daffy]

compare: "Evolution is a scientific theory"
with: "Evolution is a theory"

What makes a theory scientific? There is no test that can be produced and then independently verified. That is the requirement of scientific method. It is only a theory to be argued, never tested, so the ToE should drop its claim to being scientific.

Or perhaps I'm taking this too far. The theory of evolution as I understand is from start to finish; inanimate molecules combining randomly with one another to produce life then evolving to manufacture traffic lights at every intersection. Is this how it started, or did some Cosmic Force give things a nudge way back in the beginning?

[Zeroisanumber]

What makes a theory scientific? There is no test that can be produced and then independently verified. That is the requirement of scientific method. It is only a theory to be argued, never tested, so the ToE should drop its claim to being scientific.

I hate to refer people to links. I know that it's popular, but to me it's the Internet equivalent of "talk to the hand".

Nonetheless, I think that this might answer that statement pretty well. I promise that it's short, but it provides an example of a testable prediction that the ToE has made.

Or perhaps I'm taking this too far. The theory of evolution as I understand is from start to finish; inanimate molecules combining randomly with one another to produce life then evolving to manufacture traffic lights at every intersection. Is this how it started, or did some Cosmic Force give things a nudge way back in the beginning?

Can't speak for any cosmic force having a hand in Evolution (except for maybe the Sun), but your understanding is a bit flawed.

Firstly, the ToE doesn't explain the origin of life, just the process of speciation. And secondly, it's not random. Mistakes are edited out quickly (because the organism dies) and advantageous changes quickly grow to overwhelm a non-advantaged population. Take for example, the Neanderthal: Puttered along in an evolutionary dead end for thousands of years, but was quickly wiped out when our ancestors with their bigger brains and sharper tools came into contact with them. The strong survived, the weak died, and it all happened within the space of 1000 years or so.

[Daffy]

Thanks for the link. But notice this from the first paragraph:

"If you think about it, the fact that organisms have evolved successively from relatively simple ancestors implies ..."

Something is presented as fact, without factual basis (it's theoretical), and upon this fact is built implication. No doubt the author believes it to be true, but that is an expression of faith, not science.
Then it says something very sensible; the greater difference in critter, the greater difference in DNA. It's only logical to think a giraffe is genetically closer to a zebra than a crocodile.
Then here's the last sentence: "For example, chimps and humans, which are thought to have descended from a common ancestor that lived approximately 6 million years ago, exhibit few differences in their DNA." The author's conviction again intrudes, "thought to have descended" infers the common ancestor. Few differences in the DNA perhaps; great difference in the finished product. I don't see how that advances your Theory. Duckweed evolves into ducks, yet we still have duckweed.
People ask, Where did we come from, How did we get here? Does life have purpose or meaning? Are we part of a great nothingness, floating on a speck in the universe? To ask those questions is human, something only humans can do, and only humans can answer. That's the great problem with the ToE. Among all the insects and plants, the reptiles and chimpanzees, there is this one most incredible creature that doesn't fit in, the human being.

[stands2reason]

Is there any way ID can be falsified?

Can anyone give me an answer?

If it can't, it's not science.

[stands2reason]

I find moral law is inherent to long term success or survival of a social community.
Like humans, other pack animals have their own group morals. Where do you think they come from?

[stands2reason]

Are you prepared to state that science lacks competancy to answer the question of God's existance?

I will. Science isn't as big as you seem to think. God is bigger.

[Virginia-American]

Then it says something very sensible; the greater difference in critter, the greater difference in DNA

Did you know that genetically crocodiles are closer to birds than they are to lizards, snakes, and turtles? As was predicted by evolution.

[RDHarrison75]

My apologies for the long reply, and any typos.

Your question is a good one, but we need to scrutinize both sides when we scrutinize one in this debate to be fair, thus the length of the response.

I think the best answer to your question is maybe, because I don't know all the possibilities. William Dembski would be a good person to pose that question to at the Design Inference Web site: http://www.designinference.com.

In the current draft of my book I have said that there is a sense in which intelligent design cannot be refuted. This is a philosophical sense, very general, allowing that the patterns of design might be beyond man's ability to percieve. Much as a squirrel cannot understand the science a veterinarian does because of cognitive limitations in relation to the size of the perception, to assume man must be able to percieve all patterns is to commit the fallacy of species level egotism.

That's the philosophical sense. Science, of course, is limited to being performed by us "squirrels". We are quite stuck with our own limitations and must proceed to do the best science we can regardless of them. Therefore in a more practical sense, working within man's cognitive limitations, there may be scientists, William Dembski for example, who will say that, yes, intelligent design can be refuted once the mathematical parameters for the design threshold have been firmly established. I wouldn't pretend to be able to follow such math, but as the whole field of design inference as a strict mathematical study is new, it would be premature to assume one way or the other.

Darwinian evolution, that is, evolution from accidental processes, is ONLY refutable, not confirmable, in the same general philosophical sense. I take that not to bode well for the truth of Darwinian theory.

To give a balanced view of the topic you have raised (and far from all of it) I include what I have said so far in my book:

---

Neo-Darwinian evolution has not proceeded past the hypothetical theory phase because the only two tenants of the theory that make it unique and revolutionary, accidental processes as the source of life, and macroevolution between radically different species, have never been tested.

Macroevolution has never been demonstrated in empiric tests, neither has the origin of life from accidental processes. Therefore neo-Darwinian theory has not been tested. On the other hand, if macroevolution were to be demonstrated in a laboratory it would be a satisfactory test, therefore macroevolution, in the generic sense, is testable in theory. However, the claim that macroevolution can and did arise from purely accidental processes is not testable.

One can, as we have roughly done here, show clear evidence for the presence of intelligent design, but one can never show conclusive evidence for the absence of intelligent design because the design patterns imposed by a superior being may be too large or subtle for human perception to detect, even with the tools of science. For example, extra-terrestrials might have a tool that allows them by way of some precisely controllable force field to move specific atoms and molecules around and assemble them into a life form. In theory, neo-Darwinian evolution is not confirmable because accident in lieu of supernatural design can never be demonstrated. The NAS has essentially agreed to that principle by making the following claim:

Opinion polls show that many people believe that divine intervention actively guided the evolution of human beings. Science cannot comment on the role that supernatural forces might play in human affairs. But scientific investigations have concluded that the same forces responsible for the evolution of all other life forms on Earth can account for the evolution of human beings.[101] [My emphasis]

Scientists may conclude that accidental forces can be responsible for the origin of life by producing life in the lab from random processes, but they can never conclude that accidental forces are responsible for the origin of life because they cannot rule out patterns of intelligent design that are imperceptible to the smaller human perception and cognitive faculty. If it could be demonstrated that an accident of wind could assemble your daughter’s swing set in the back yard, that doesn’t mean that it did assemble it.

Neo-Darwinian theory says life has no purpose, but the lack of a purpose cannot be demonstrated or confirmed by science. Therefore, neo-Darwinian evolution as such is nontestable regarding this claim. By making a statement about purpose at all Darwinists crossed the same boundary marking the edge of empiric science that they claim intelligent design has crossed: the boundary of the observable, the repeatable and the testable.

Contrary to the loud claims of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Science, intelligent design can be demonstrated and tested in the sense that it can be confirmed (though it cannot be refuted). Intelligent design cannot be refuted because the absence of intelligent design cannot be confirmed. Neo-Darwinian evolution, by asserting accidental processes as the basis for life, and that life is purposeless, is asserting the logical equivalent of the absence of intelligent design. Neo-Darwinian theory is therefore not testable in the sense of not being confirmable. However, neo-Darwinian theory can be refuted by showing clear evidence for the absence of accidental processes and the presence of design, and by demonstrating obstacles to accidentally generating the complete inventory of life forms in the time available in the history of the earth. Neo-Darwinian theory is refutable, but not confirmable. Intelligent design is confirmable but not refutable. This is true because, regarding the claim that accidental processes originated life, they are true logical opposites (contrary to what some Darwinists would have us believe).

Technically, then, neither theory qualifies as a scientific theory under the classical scientific method. It is therefore grossly improper for the scientific establishment to ask us to call neo-Darwinian evolution an undisputed fact when it is impossible to confirm, and therefore technically not a scientific theory at all. If we insist on loosening the classical standards on scientific theory construction and acceptance so far as to include theories that cannot be confirmed, we should at least be fair enough to include theories that can be only confirmed but not refuted. In the final analysis, a theory that is an “undisputed fact,” but which technically can never be confirmed, is, as my grandfather liked to say, an “odd bird.”

Neo-Darwinists may say that they can’t help it if the subject is so big that their theory becomes unconfirmable, and that is true, they can’t help it. The problem lies in the nature of the vastness of the subject of life’s origin compared to the smallness of those trying to explain it (ourselves). But Darwinists are unwilling to be so generous when intelligent design theory is (falsely) put on the chopping block for the very same reason.

Intelligent design and neo-Darwinian evolution are logical opposites of each other as regards the claim for or against accidental processes originating life. What confirms one refutes the other, and vice versa. What makes one nonconfirmable makes the other nonrefutable, and vice versa. Given this immutable logical relationship between the two theories, as long as science requires a theory to be both confirmable and refutable, if one of these theories is nonscientific by definition because it is either nonrefutable or nonconfirmable, so is the other.

I agree that for cosmological sized questions we have to permit a loosening of the classical standards and acknowledge that theories with these limitations are still scientific because the limitation derives not from a flaw in the theory, but from the nature of the subject matter, that is, its cosmological size. On a common sense basis, however, one must acknowledge that a theory that cannot be confirmed, but only refuted, though we may yet agree to call it scientific, is of very little value to the advancement of science.

[RDHarrison75]

I recommend anyone who is interested in the evolution of Darwin's personal theological views read the book THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF CHARLES DARWIN. He described himself as a theist at points, and agnostic at other times and later in life seem to be saying he had "lost his faith" but it wasn't exactly the case.

Darwin was very careful with words, very precise. At one and the same point in his life, that is, any given point, he interpreted various evidentiary points in nature or cosmological perceptions to indicate the presence, absence, or unknown status of God. When he wrote ORIGIN OF SPECIES he was in the theistic mindset. However he did not see direct evidence of Christianity per se, was concerned about apparent contradictions in world religions, and did not believe a definitive revelation of God to man had occurred--thus the denial of Christ. He also apparently seemed concerned with the logical implications of the problem of evil, that is, a good god would not do this.

He was a complex man with an extreme sense of intellectual honesty. His varied thoughts indicate the variablity of the evidence. However he explicitly disavowed having given enough careful thought to the matter of religion to recommend his views by way of publication. Therefore it is inappropriate to represent so careful a professional thinker with respected published works on a topic he himself disavowed being ready for publication.

Had he given more thought to Christianity, for example, the Catholic view that one can be saved through having Christ in their heart through good conscience, he might have thought Christianity less damnable. The point is his views or religion were never confirmed, by his own admission.