Intelligent Design

[JimO]

Ahimsa:

Science is not simply about hypotheses and ideas. Science is about observable, intersubjective evidence for such ideas.

Hello Ahimsa,

Science starts with hypotheses and theories and then uses scientific data to prove or disprove them. ID is not so much a hypothesis as a broader way to evaluate scientific and statistical data. ID is more important statistically than it is in approaching empirical observations. For example, there is no way to empirically observe how the human eye or the DNA of a bacterium came to be. It is unlikely that science will ever explain how these types of complex systems came to be because the empirical observations are past events that are unlikely to be repeated. However, one can look at the probability of various scenarios and comment on the likelihood that one or another mechanism caused a system to develop.

Some ID scientists have conducted statistical analyses that even the most simple systems came about randomly. The results are impressive.

ID will never postulate that creation occurred. That would be blending philosophy with science, which, as you pointed out, would take it out of the science classroom. What does belong in the science classroom, IMO, is the statement that scientific data collected to date do not adequately explain complex systems. That is not saying it won’t in the future, but until it does other possibilities must be considered, such as ID.

 

[urban-hermit]

cheddarsox:

… Natural evidence points to evolution, and natural evidence is what science deals with. Science deals with the what, and sometimes the how…

OK, just humor me here if you will … Has anybody ever heard it discussed that before the fall of Man, the world was in a state of Original Justice and maybe even the laws of physics were in some ways different ?

What I mean is, before Original Sin, Adam and Eve were immortal and, as I have heard from theologians on EWTN Radio, had other preternatural gifts.

I also understand that when sin came into the world, it affected the physical world as well as the human race. So that now even the physical world is fallen. I mean I have heard discussions on EWTN regarding earthquakes and tidal waves and such as being an aspect of our “fallen world” (even the physical world).

So, what was the physical world like before the Fall ? In the garden of Eden, were things different … maybe even, to us now, might they have seemed “magical” ?

I realize this is sounding kind of “out there”, but I guess my point is that evolution, if it occurred, happened before Adam and Eve – in the world before the Fall, the world in Original Justice.

But when scientists look at fossils and rocks, they assume these things came from a world that is exactly like the one we live in now. Mightn’t they be wrong about that ? And working with faulty assumptions, aren’t they likely to come up with faulty conclusions ?

I guess this is highly speculative, but explaining how living beings evolved over millions (billions?) of years from the paltry evidence of fossils and rocks seems like a big challenge too, and is also pretty theoretical and speculative, right ? I mean if even one of your assumptions is off – say you are even slightly wrong about how often genetic mutations occur – over the time span we are talking about, doesn’t that really throw things off ?

Obviously I am no scientist, but … does this make sense at some level ?

When I think about things like this, I figure, hey, if the Church says I MAY believe God truly created the world in 6 days … hey, maybe I WILL believe that!

 

[JimO]

urban-hermit:

When I think about things like this, I figure, hey, if the Church says I MAY believe God truly created the world in 6 days … hey, maybe I WILL believe that!

You make a very good point. As a geologist, I am frequently having discussions with other scientists who are largely atheists or agnostics. In order to have a meaningful discussion with someone who rejects the existence of God out of hand, I either have to stick to scientific principles or not have a discussion. Also, as a young man, I struggled with these matters myself and by the Grace of God my faith has remained intact. It would be easier for me not to have these types of discussions, but I hope that maybe at least one seed will take root.

I have no quarrel with anyone who chooses to reject all elements of evolution and is at peace with that. As long as their beliefs line up with the Church (assuming they are Catholic), they are free to hold to any theory they choose. It’s clearly not God’s will for everyone to debate with atheistic scientists. I see part of my mission to enter into this debate and, therefore, in order to participate at all, I stick with scientific approaches. You may very well be correct in what you have said. Unfortunately, theories that make assumptions outside the structured realm of science carry no weight with the folks I am trying to reach. Interestingly, though, some scientists are fine discussing matters of pure faith where science doesn’t even enter into the discussion.

 

[arieh0310]

JimO:

You make a very good point. As a geologist, I am frequently having discussions with other scientists who are largely atheists or agnostics. In order to have a meaningful discussion with someone who rejects the existence of God out of hand, I either have to stick to scientific principles or not have a discussion.

Exactly, that is why I am excited that an intelligent scientist like Behe is using science to try to prove that random, unguided, naturalistic evolution cannot explain the origin of life. Behe goes to great lengths to admit that at least evolution within species is a provable fact, but that the theory of evolution cannot explain how even the most simple life-forms are irreducibly complex. Behe is not saying “cuz the Bible sez so”.

I think the fossil record has been an embarrasment to both extremes of the evolution debate. It is embarrasing to creation fundamentalists because it seems evident that the earth is clearly older than 6000 years. However, it is also embarrasing to those who say that all geologic formations MUST take millions of years to create when you look at vertical fossils that cross “millions” of years of sediment, or when you look at the emense canyon systems created by Mt St Helens in less than 20 years, or when you look at how the current theory for how the Scab Lands in Eastern Washington were created with one massive flood (a very cool NOVA program a few months back).

The truth has to be somewhere in the middle. I just hope that real scientists will give ID a chance even though it goes against current evolution dogma.

 

[Maranatha]

arieh0310:

Exactly, that is why I am excited that an intelligent scientist like Behe is using science to try to prove that random, unguided, naturalistic evolution cannot explain the origin of life. Behe goes to great lengths to admit that at least evolution within species is a provable fact, but that the theory of evolution cannot explain how even the most simple life-forms are irreducibly complex. Behe is not saying “cuz the Bible sez so”.

I’m not sure what religion Behe is but for a Monotheistic religion, God is outside the universe and is it’s origional cause. If God is outside the universe, then science will never be able to prove or disprove His existence.

 

[Maranatha]

JimO:

ID will never postulate that creation occurred. That would be blending philosophy with science, which, as you pointed out, would take it out of the science classroom.

If Atheism is brought in to the classroom in a way that’s expressed or implied, then ID should also be taught in the science classroom. We should be giving students all the information and teach them to think for themselves. We should not be limiting the knowledge imparted to students.

 

[JimO]

Maranatha:

If Atheism is brought in to the classroom in a way that’s expressed or implied, then ID should also be taught in the science classroom. We should be giving students all the information and teach them to think for themselves. We should not be limiting the knowledge imparted to students.

I agree completely. It is no more appropriate to claim that God does not exist in a science class than it is to say the He does. The hypocrisy of the current thinking is lost on a lot of people. Atheists do not want ID or any other options that suggest God is involved in creation and yet they want to teach that there is no God. Atheism is a philosophy, not science. As you pointed out, science will never prove or disprove God’s existence, thus if atheists want all religion/philosophy out of the science classroom, then that would include their own.

 

[arieh0310]

Maranatha:

I’m not sure what religion Behe is but for a Monotheistic religion, God is outside the universe and is it’s origional cause. If God is outside the universe, then science will never be able to prove or disprove His existence.

Behe is a Catholic. ID isn’t going to prove that God exists, only that naturalistic evolution cannot explain the origin of life. With the arguments given by ID proponents I think it takes more faith to believe in an unguided, naturalistist, materialistic evolution that to believe in a Creator.

 

[Orogeny]

arieh0310:

I think the fossil record has been an embarrasment to both extremes of the evolution debate. It is embarrasing to creation fundamentalists because it seems evident that the earth is clearly older than 6000 years. However, it is also embarrasing to those who say that all geologic formations MUST take millions of years to create when you look at vertical fossils that cross “millions” of years of sediment, or when you look at the emense canyon systems created by Mt St Helens in less than 20 years, or when you look at how the current theory for how the Scab Lands in Eastern Washington were created with one massive flood (a very cool NOVA program a few months back).

Actually, the fossil record is not embarassing to geologists at all. The examples you use (polystrate fossils) actually have very easy explanations. Don’t rely on Answers in Genesis or the Discovery Institute as your only sources of information. Regarding Mt. St. Helens, what does that have to do with the fossil record?

The truth has to be somewhere in the middle. I just hope that real scientists will give ID a chance even though it goes against current evolution dogma.

ID isn’t science, so it shouldn’t be included in the scientific discussion. It is fine as a philosophy (I believe that God created everything), but not as a science.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Maranatha:

If Atheism is brought in to the classroom in a way that’s expressed or implied, then ID should also be taught in the science classroom. We should be giving students all the information and teach them to think for themselves. We should not be limiting the knowledge imparted to students.

If athiesm is being taught in science class (which I doubt), it should be stopped. The answer is not introducing God into science. Rather we should remove religion of any sort (including athiesm) from the science classroom.

Peace

Tim

 

[JimO]

Orogeny:

If athiesm is being taught in science class (which I doubt), it should be stopped. The answer is not introducing God into science. Rather we should remove religion of any sort (including athiesm) from the science classroom.

Peace

Tim

This would work if it were adhered to; however, the problem is that many science teachers teach atheistic evolution, in which God’s absence is implied if not declared.

 

[cheddarsox]

urban-hermit:

But when scientists look at fossils and rocks, they assume these things came from a world that is exactly like the one we live in now. Mightn’t they be wrong about that ? And working with faulty assumptions, aren’t they likely to come up with faulty conclusions ?

Scientists do not make that assumption (perhaps they once did, but no longer) We know that the earth has gone through many different climactic, geologic phases etc.

The atmosphere, the salinity of the oceans, the placement of the continents are all understood to have been very different in times past.

These physical changes were the cause of, and sometimes the result of changes in living things. It is a very complex system, and one cannot ever look at merely one piece of it, but must look at the interactions.

Science does not claim to know and understand everything. There are constantly new discoveries that cause theories to be updated and incorrect ideas and understandings to be tossed out. Science is dynamic, the theories change as our information becomes more complete. Scientific discoveries are not intended to be taken as “gospel” or as truths that will never change. They are simply our best understanding based on the information we have at any given time.

cheddar

 

[Orogeny]

JimO:

This would work if it were adhered to; however, the problem is that many science teachers teach atheistic evolution, in which God’s absence is implied if not declared.

I guess my question would be should God be included in any science class? Even implied?

Peace

Tim

 

[JimO]

Orogeny:

I guess my question would be should God be included in any science class? Even implied?

Peace

Tim

Well, we homeschool specifically so that we have the right to teach our children the Church’s position on creation, so I have a difficult time being objective in this matter. I will say this, I would rather God not be discussed at all in the science classroom than to limit inferences to God from the atheistic point of view. That is simply not happening in the public school systems today.

On the other hand, it is nearly impossible to look strictly at the natural world and not infer something as to its origin. I would prefer that if evolution is taught, the concept of ID is at least included as one of the philosophies held by modern scientists.

 

[Strider]

I am a Catholic biologist and used to teach high school. ID is not science because science requires the possibility of disproof. If someone could disprove the theory of evolution, or even the randomness of it, that would be science. Of course, then he would have to propose a logical, disprovable alternative.
Behe has not done that. He has proposed a Designer, which must be God, who is not disprovable.
Those defending Darwin against Behe simply say that the molecular systems he proposes as too complex and all the pieces are required so they couldn’t have evolved, are soft tissue and do not fossilize, so we do not have the transitional forms.
Darn! Got a doctor’s appointment - gotta go. I’ll be back.

 

[Ahimsa]

The problem with ID is that it goes from “there’s a problem with neo-Darwinian explanations of complex systems” right to “an intelligent designer must have done it, indepedently of evolution”.

This is similar in some ways to the creationist saying “It’s either God or evolution!”

ID proponents generally ignore the possibility that a designer may have created the cosmos with an inherent potential to form complex systems.

And even if a supernatural designer did create the first flagellum motor, perhaps she did it via mechanisms indistinguishable from “random” mutation. In other words, ID ignores the possibility that mutations might not be absolutely random; if mutations are not random, then an intelligent designer could use the process of mutation to introduce the steps needed to produce complex systems.

And from perspective of scientists looking at either the fossil record or contemporary genomes, what the designer did, would not appear much different than what would occur under “random” mutation.

 

[arieh0310]

Orogeny:

Don’t rely on Answers in Genesis or the Discovery Institute as your only sources of information. Regarding Mt. St. Helens, what does that have to do with the fossil record?

I guess it is more accurate to say “geologic features” not “fossil record”. When you look at the canyon system that was created within the first few years after the 1980 explosion you will see what is typically labeled “millions of years of sedimentary deposits”. There are cliff walls that are nearly 300 feet high and contain dozens layers of sediment. The sediment layers go in different directions, contain different types of sediment, etc.

The same can be said for the Scab Lands (and I got this information for a NOVA program on PBS, not Answer in Genesis). In the early 1900’s a scientist was laughed out of a meeting with the National Geologic Society because he proposed that a massive flood created all the geologic features there. Nearly a century later scientists are finding his theories correct.

Whether you like it or not, when a science class teaches that life sprang into existence through a mindless, random process they are advocating an atheistic worldview and there is no counterbalance to that worldview (even when the ID folks use science to prove their point).

 

[JimO]

Ahimsa:

And even if a supernatural designer did create the first flagellum motor, perhaps she did it via mechanisms indistinguishable from “random” mutation. In other words, ID ignores the possibility that mutations might not be absolutely random; if mutations are not random, then an intelligent designer could use the process of mutation to introduce the steps needed to produce complex systems.

What you do not address is the bigger issue of how omnipotent is the designer. If the designer is truly the creator of the universe, as Christians believe, then during design of the universe, the “random” process of mutation would be part of that design. Thus, whether the complexities were directly designed or the apparent random processes from which the complex systems arose caused those systems to come into being, the designer, in fact, is equally responsible. ID doesn’t ignore the possibility that mutations are “absolutely random” so much as it provides an alternative explanation to “absolute random mutation”, which is the foundational concept of evolution.

 

[cheddarsox]

JimO:

I agree completely. It is no more appropriate to claim that God does not exist in a science class than it is to say the He does. The hypocrisy of the current thinking is lost on a lot of people. Atheists do not want ID or any other options that suggest God is involved in creation and yet they want to teach that there is no God. Atheism is a philosophy, not science. As you pointed out, science will never prove or disprove God’s existence, thus if atheists want all religion/philosophy out of the science classroom, then that would include their own.

I’m a science educator, my husband is a professor of biology, and no textbook or curriculum or teacher’s organization that we know of advocates the mention of either God or lack of one in the science classroom.

Nor have I ever heard of any atheist group trying to get atheism into a science book.

cheddar

 

[Ahimsa]

JimO:

What you do not address is the bigger issue of how omnipotent is the designer. If the designer is truly the creator of the universe, as Christians believe, then during design of the universe, the “random” process of mutation would be part of that design. Thus, whether the complexities were directly designed or the apparent random processes from which the complex systems arose caused those systems to come into being, the designer, in fact, is equally responsible. ID doesn’t ignore the possibility that mutations are “absolutely random” so much as it provides an alternative explanation to “absolute random mutation”, which is the foundational concept of evolution.

OK, but if ID offers an alternative explanation for mutation (an explanation that invokes a supernatural, omnipotent designer), then that implies (1) such an explanation does not belong in a science class, since such a designer is non-empirically verifiable or falsifiable; and (2) this kind of ID is not distinguishable (to me, at least) from theistic evolution.

On the other hand, if you want to invoke a non-supernatural designer, then that might be more empirically justifiable.