Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Flawed by design
By: Edward DiNola

As stated quite succinctly by physicist Steven Hawking, "A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." As many opponents of intelligent design have stated, ID fails not only to provide any future predictions, but also to provide proper explanation of many observations of the world today. By narrowing time scales down to that which is observable over the course of a human lifetime, ID creates a myopic view of our world, and creates the need for an intelligent designer to explain the myriad variations of the world around us.

As William Mulgrew has shown in his article ("Judge Jones' god of the gaps fallacy," March 2), it is very simple to destroy a scientific theory by finding a single incident that completely violates it. If I were to, for example, drop a pen from my hand, one would expect it to fall toward the most massive nearby body, which is, in our primary experiences, Earth. However, even though this has held true for trillions upon trillions of events, if the pen happens to fall upwards, just one time, then the entire theory is moot.

Darwin's theory of evolution has been refined over the years quite heavily, and has not yet been met with a significant force of opposition. ID cannot stand as its equal because it fails to accomplish the same descriptive power as evolutionary theory. If ID is, in fact, a realistic description of the world around us, then we must reconsider not only evolutionary theory, but many of the other sciences as well. If, as tectonics posits, the continents themselves have been moving for millions of years, and the global climate changing over this time span, how is it that we have variation around the world? How do we explain a creature like a penguin, highly adapted for the cold conditions, when Antarctica itself was once warm?

If an intelligent designer did sculpt Earth's life forms, what else did this designer create? Was this designer responsible for the underlying physical laws of the universe and for the chemical laws that rise from these? Was it the designer who thought out the plans for fusion to unleash energy to allow its creations to be motile? And, of course, the now-cliché question: Who designed the designer? At what point can we allow natural processes to explain creation?

I am particularly disturbed that Mulgrew would state Darwinism's predictions are not observable. If Darwinism in its current form were correct by any means, then large-scale observable results satisfying these predictions would take incredulously long periods of time. These times would be mere instants, however, compared to the changes of another science - astrophysics. If Mulgrew claims that the theories of Darwinism, with hundreds of millions of years as its time steps, are questionable solely because of its snapshot nature, then he also suggests that theories on stellar evolution and galactic formation, with time steps of billions of years, are inaccurate. If these systems are inaccurate, then we must question many other scientific theories that also rely on mathematical predictions to make up for the constraints of the human lifespan.

Mulgrew's statements concerning the Big Bang were also misguided. Scientists do not begin to equate the actual Big Bang event, i.e., "time zero," to the beginning of our universe. Rather, before that point, the current physical models are useless and break down. Rather than create a false proof, they simply stated it could not yet be described. Mathematicians have tried to explain the event through other theories, but they know that these will not be able to be tested for quite some time, likely long beyond their life spans, and so the ideas posited by m-theory and quantum gravity are not disseminated as common knowledge.

Finally, I would like to comment upon Mulgrew's reaffirmation of the truth of irreducible complexity. There is absolutely no system that cannot be sufficiently explained through chaos theory; i.e., that even from very simple starting conditions, an incredibly complex system may result n time steps later. While it is possible to trace a process back to one approximation of its starting process, one time step at a time, it is not possible to predict the end result from the beginning, only the next step in the procedure. While I do accept that scientific discussion is necessary for the progress of understanding, it is important to realize that most scientific discoveries are not "Eureka!" but "Hmm, that's interesting." Entire new theories do not rise up out of nowhere; even Einstein's groundbreaking theory of relativity is heavily rooted in Newton and Maxwell.

Distressful truths
By: William Mulgrew

Origin of life is a science with profound religious implications. Was life designed or did it occur by chance? Many scientists are convinced it's the latter, but when evidence points to the former, they become uncomfortable to the point that they'll suppress it. A common tactic is insisting intelligent design isn't "science."

Specifically, they point to Stephan Hawking's definition that a theory must contain "few arbitrary elements" and "make definite predictions" about future observations. But this is an ideological slight of hand. By "science" they mean empirical science, when the Big Bang and intelligent design are forensic.

Observations with "few arbitrary elements" are regularities, how we make sense of things commonly seen. Definite predictions about future observations mean they can be recreated and repeated. Hawking's definition of a theory falls under empirical science, not forensic.

Forensics observes singularities in the past that more often than not cannot be repeated or recreated. The Big Bang is a singularity, not a regularity, and is not repeatable. Forensic science investigates origin. Empirical science, or natural processes, investigates operation. The two shouldn't be confused and empirical processes cannot be imposed on forensics. It's hypocritical to keep the Big Bang, but deny ID on this charge.

Demanding an explanation for the myriad variations in the world around us is meta-physical, not scientific. It requires speculation on the identity of the intelligent designer and the design objectives. Science cannot produce an answer for that, nor should it have to. Perhaps there's similarity in design because the designer intended life around us to exist in the same biosphere and establish a food chain. If you ask a religious question, expect a religious answer.

When scientists attempt to sidestep the theological implications of the Big Bang and claim that it wasn't the beginning of the universe, they walk on very shaky grounds. When Stephen Hawking formulated his imaginary time theory, we might as well call it imaginary theory.

Any theory that speculates on what happened when there was nothing makes it no longer "nothing," but "something." Hawking has retreated from this position and conceded, "In real time, the universe has a beginning," in his own book, A Brief History of Time, and "Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang." Aristotle once said nothing is what rocks dream about. You cannot posit theories on nothing; they're unproved materialistic conjectures.

Furthermore, DNA does not indicate causative agency. Whether naturalistically or intelligently assembled, DNA is still DNA and doesn't prove it one way or the other. That humans share 90 percent of our DNA with apes can imply the intent of the designer just as much as a common ancestor.

Citing penguins or Darwin's finches betrays evolutionary fallacy. Darwin's definition of "descent with modification through variation and natural selection" excludes the site and agency of modifications - the where and how. It conveniently excludes the evolution of the first cell (which has not been proved), and doesn't account for what caused the modifications.

That finches with larger beaks survived during droughts than finches with smaller beaks only shows the alteration of existing DNA - the surviving large-beak finches mated and increased the population, but during rainy seasons, small-beaked finches saw a return and effectively competed with large-beak finches for food. At the end of the day, they are still finches, not new or different types.

Alteration of existing DNA, which happens in reproduction, should not be confused as proof of evolution between types. It disturbs me that some make this claim, when the evolution between types has never been observed. The short lifespan of fruit flies would enable scientists to study millions of generations over a period of decades. They have still not provided any evidence of the evolution between types, even when allowance is made for long periods of time.

If one's pen fell upwards only once, we would call that a singularity, not a regularity. If it was repeatable, but not observable in any other object near you without any other forces present, we would rightly call that a miracle. Just because a space shuttle overpowers the Earth's gravity doesn't refute the theory of gravity - it's merely a singularity involving intelligent agency. Empirical naturalism describes how life functions usually, not exclusively, and excludes intelligent agency.

How can Darwinists dismiss irreducible complexity while providing no explanation on the possibility of naturalistically assembling protein? You need protein (ribosomes) to do it! You cannot form protein when you need it in the process. Not a single scientific article or journal on molecular evolution exists, and DNA is where evolution takes place. If chaos theory cannot create the first cell, then it cannot create transitional life.

If it takes time for new theories to rise up, then why exclude ID on the basis that it has not been accepted by a majority of the scientific community? Why not allow scientists to investigate both in the field of forensics and let the evidence lead them where it may?

It is more than likely I should think that it is another of the many, maybe infinite, irreducibly complex processes of nature.

The second student seems to suggest that protein is irreducibly complex. Is there any truth to that?

Drexel is an elite engineering school. Or is it?

In the above Drexel University debate, the student supporting ID claims:
"Not a single scientific article or journal on molecular evolution exists, and DNA is where evolution takes place."

I can not figure why he would claim that. There have been many scientific essays and even books written on molecular evolution.

The second student seems to suggest that protein is irreducibly complex. Is there any truth to that?

rosborne and farmerman,

Thanks for clearing up the confusion on what the second student was saying. I was fooled by the "red herring" (as timber would say).

What use would it be to science if it isn't. As things seem to stand, assuming the irreducible complexity, they are in business for ever and ever or at least until their self regard, so blatantly displayed in fm's last but one post, causes them to disappear up their own nipsies.

BLUSTER and BOMBAST!!!!

ASSSERTION!!!