Intelligent Design Grounded in Science

CBN.com – SEATTLE, Washington - The Dover, Pennsylvania school board is on trial in the state capitol. Their crime? They wanted to tell high school students once a year that evolution is only a theory. They also wanted to mention an alternate theory: Intelligent Design, or ID.

That was too much for some parents. They sued, claiming ID is religious and therefore illegal in school. The judge will decide the case in the next few weeks.

So is ID really just religion in disguise? Do both biology and astronomy support ID? And who are these people promoting ID?

To answer those questions, we went to the Discovery Institute in Seattle, the major proponents of ID.

Dr. Stephen Meyer is the head of Discovery's Center for Science and Culture. He says to ban design theory as mere religion is wrong.

"And in fact,” Meyer said, “it's a science-based argument that may have implications that are favorable to a theistic worldview, but the argument is based on scientific evidence."

Mayer stated, "These are people with serious academic training. They are Ph.D.s from very, not just reputable -- but elite -- institutions. And they are people doing research on the key pressure points in biology and physics, and so their arguments are based on cutting-edge knowledge of developments in science."

So what is the evidence from researchers like biochemist Dr. Michael Behe, a Ph.D. graduate of the University of Pennsylvania and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute?

He is an expert on a special kind of bacteria called flagella. Inside the bacteria are exquisitely engineered ‘inboard motors’ that spin at an amazing 100,000 revolutions per minute.

Darwin said that such complexity must have developed piece by piece. Behe said that is bunk. All the pieces must be in place at the same time or the motorized tails would never work.

Behe makes the case for ID in a video called "Unlocking the Mystery of Life." The video’s narrator declares, “A thimbleful of liquid can contain four million single-celled bacteria, each packed with circuits, assembly instructions, and molecular machines..."

"There are little molecular trucks that carry supplies from one end of the cell to the other,” Behe explained. “There are machines that capture the energy from sunlight, and turn it into usable energy."

ID experts say the more you know about biology -- and some of the weird creatures like this island lizard -- the worse it gets for Darwinism.

Consider the workings of the genetic code. That code produces all kinds of molecular machines, plus all the other components of life. ID advocates say that to believe those components are just Darwinian accidents takes a blind faith in the creativity of dumb molecules.

So with growing evidence of ID, isn't Lehigh University proud of this cutting-edge scientist who teaches there—and wrote the 1996 bestseller "Darwin's Black Box?" Hardly.

In August, all the other (22) biology faculty members came out with a political statement on the department's Web site. They stated that "Intelligent design has no basis in science."

Dr. John West, a political scientist at Seattle Pacific University, is senior fellow at Discovery Institute. He says these political responses to scientific issues are getting nasty.

West remarked that "hate speech, speech codes, outright persecution, and discrimination is taking place on our college campuses, in our school districts, against both students and teachers and faculty members."

In fact, universities are evolving into centers for censorship. Five years ago, Baylor University dismissed mathematician Dr. William Dembski from his position, primarily because he headed a center for ID there.

This September, the University of Idaho banned any dissent against evolution from science classes -- a slam on university biologist Dr. Scott Minnich, a noted supporter of ID.

"The school seems to be confusing where it's at,” West said. “Is it in Moscow, Idaho, or the old Moscow, Russia? ...in issuing this edict that…no view differing form evolution can be taught in any science class."

And at Iowa State University, more than 100 faculty members have signed a petition against ID -- an apparent political attempt to intimidate ISU astronomer Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez because he writes about ID.

Gonalez is, in fact, co-author with philosopher Dr. Jay Richards of "The Privileged Planet." Both scholars are also connected with the Discovery Institute.

The book and related video argue that astronomy also shows evidence of design. For instance, the earth has numerous aspects just right for our existence.

Gonzalez explained, "...We find that we need to be at the right location in the galaxy...that we're in the circumstellar habitable zone of our star (correct distance from the sun)...that we're in a planetary system with giant planets that can shield the inner planets from too many comet impacts...that we're orbiting the right kind of star -- it's not too cool and not too hot.”

These are just four of 20 some characteristics of earth that make our planet unique -- right for life, right for discovery by human science.

Richards said, "So you have life and the conditions for discovery happening at the same places. That, to us, suggests that there is something more than a cosmic lottery going on. That sounds like a conspiracy rather than a mere coincidence. So that to me is a tie-breaker in the question."

And there is more -- the finely-tuned underlying rules of the universe-- or physical constants. One of them is gravity. But what if gravity were not constant?

A film clip from Privileged Planet says: "Imagine a machine able to control the strength of each of the physical constants. If you changed even slightly from its current setting, the strength of any of these fundamental forces -- such as gravity -- the impact on life would be catastrophic."

In plain terms, a bit more gravity would mean any creature larger than the size of a pea would be crushed into nothing. And a little less gravity would mean that the Earth would come unglued and fly off into space.

But Darwinism has been maintaining that advanced life is easy to produce all over the universe.

"Almost everything we've learned in the area of astrobiology suggests that, 'Look, this is just not going to happen very often' -- now that might be sort of depressing for script writers for sci-fi movies, but that's where the evidence is taking us," Richards said.

Despite the attacks on ID, Meyer said the design interpretation of the evidence is exposing Darwinism as a theory in crisis:

"I think we're reaching the critical point where Darwinism is going be seen as simply inadequate,” Meyer asserted, “ -- and therefore the question of (intelligent) design is back on the table."

Just as this city of Seattle has all the earmarks of ID, so does nature, except that nature is infinitely more intricate.

So, serious scientific journals carefully peer review articles to keep out the quacks . .

Claire Rind and Peter Simmons, "Orthopteran DCMD Neuron: A Reevaluation of Responses to Moving Objects, PUBLISHED IN Journal of Neurophysiology (electrically monitoring the activity of a brain cell in a locust while that locust was watching selected highlights from the movie "Star Wars.")

Edward Cussler and Brian Gettelfinger of the University of Minnesota, "Will Humans Swim Faster or Slower in Syrup?" PUBLISHED INAmerican Institute of Chemical Engineers Journal, ((conducting a careful experiment to settle the longstanding scientific question: can people swim faster in syrup or in water?)

Victor Benno Meyer-Rochow of International University Bremen, Germany and the University of Oulu, Finland; and Jozsef Gal of Loránd Eötvös University, Hungary, "Pressures Produced When Penguins Pooh -- Calculations on Avian Defaecation." PUBLISHED IN: Polar Biology ((using basic principles of physics to calculate the pressure that builds up inside a penguin).

Ramesh Balasubramaniam of the University of Ottawa, and Michael Turvey of the University of Connecticut and Haskins Laboratory, "Coordination Modes in the Multisegmental Dynamics of Hula Hooping," PUBLISHED IN Biological Cybernetics ((exploring and explaining the dynamics of hula-hooping).

Ben Wilson of the University of British Columbia, Lawrence Dill of Simon Fraser University [Canada], Robert Batty of the Scottish Association for Marine Science, Magnus Whalberg of the University of Aarhus [Denmark], and Hakan Westerberg of Sweden's National Board of Fisheries, REFERENCE: "Sounds Produced by Herring (Clupea harengus) Bubble Release," PUBLISHED IN Aquatic Living Resources, vol. 16, 2003, pp. 271-5. REFERENCE: "Pacific and Atlantic Herring Produce Burst Pulse Sounds ((showing that herrings apparently communicate by f*rting.)

And finally:

Stefano Ghirlanda, Liselotte Jansson, and Magnus Enquist of Stockholm University, for their report "Chickens Prefer Beautiful Humans." PUBLISHED IN: Human Nature (no explanation necessary or possible).

And then there are these credible, well-respected scientists:

Arnd Leike of the University of Munich, "Demonstration of the Exponential Decay Law Using Beer Froth," PUBLISHED IN, European Journal of Physics, (for demonstrating that beer froth obeys the mathematical Law of Exponential Decay).

Chris McManus of University College London, for his excruciatingly balanced report, "Scrotal Asymmetry in Man and in Ancient Sculpture." PUBLISHED IN: Nature

Chittaranjan Andrade and B.S. Srihari of the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bangalore, India,: "A Preliminary Survey of Rhinotillexomania in an Adolescent Sample," PUBLISHED IN Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (a probing medical discovery that nose picking is a common activity among adolescents.)

Peter Fong of Gettysburg College, "Induction and Potentiation of Parturition in Fingernail Clams (Sphaerium striatinum) by Selective Serotonin Re-Uptake Inhibitors (SSRIs)," PUBLISHED IN: Journal of Experimental Zoology (he contributed to the happiness of clams by giving them Prozac)

Robert Matthews of Aston University, England"Tumbling toast, Murphy's Law and the fundamental constants," PUBLISHED IN: European Journal of Physics , (demonstrating that toast often falls on the buttered side and is subject to Murphy’s Law.)

Be grateful. I spared you the publications from France, as well as the Annals of Sex Research.

You wrote, "It's supposition. "Pre-theory" if you like. Not the stuff of science class. There is a cutoff."

I want to respond to the "pre-theory" moniker and its value, but first some science 101 hated, as always, by the armchair philosophers of evolution.

Scientific investigation begins by considering a problem, an observable phenomenon, or the like, a prodding occurrence that compels the investigator to wonder:
(a) "IS this so"
and (b) "WHY is this so."
Observation, accompaning by contemplation, leads the investigator to construct an investigative approach to understand the two questions, and to seek an answer to them. As a work in progress, the investigator develops a proposed explanation, a HYPOTHESIS.

Repeated and varied testing is conducted to test the metal of the HYPOTHESIS as a working explanation and answer to the two questions. Over the course of investigation, the investigator reaches conclusions as to the two questions and the HYPOTHESIS, sometimes scrapping the HYPOTHESIS, sometimes fine-tuning the HYPOTHESIS, sometimes concluding in his/her own mind that the HYPOTHESIS is such an unvaryingly correct explanation, even against negativizing testing that he must share his research with the larger scientific community.

The larger scientific community depends on the proponent for important preconditions to further testing and development. Take, for example, the cold fusion proponents that held a press conference out west a decade or so ago. In their case, what was wanted, what was needed, and what was, apparently, missing, was a carefully recorded course of investigation that could be examined by others and could be tested by others to fault and failure. The essence of error there was to propound a technological development without basic supporting scientific groundwork.

But, when the groundwork is presented along with the HYPOTHESIS, the scientific community can join the researcher in the search for the value of the explanatory HYPOTHESIS. Some join this search animated by professional jealousy: "my hypothesis, which stands in stark contrast to his, is the eminently more reasoned and sufficient explanation" or "that explanation discounts the value of scientific discoveries I, or my mentors, or my school of thought can be credited with propounding.." Others come from the basis of open curious investigatory interest. All come to challenge by testing and analysis.

When the HYPOTHESIS withstands the community's testing and analysis, in scientific didactic, it is called a THEORY. This connotes a reliability and consistency of the HYPOTHESIS as an answer to and explanation of the the answer to the two questions. THEORIES in science are not the end of the road for explanatory HYPOTHESES.

Over time such HYPOTHESES and THEORIES can be shown to be so universally operative, so durable in their application, that their explanatory value has the influence of a LAW (like the laws of gravity, thermodynamics, etc.).

Variations in the investigory model described above, seeking the early coronation of an idea that has not even been tested to hypothesis as a LAW of the universe reflect a short-cutting that is difficult to explain as an effort to improve the science. It has happened, as the cultural war developed over Darwin, over the questions related to geological timescales, and over astrophysical time spans, that some have sought to discount the critiquing of their ideas and hypotheses by premature elevation of those ideas and hypotheses to the level of highly reliable THEORY or generally governing LAW.

Now, to get to your specfic comment, which was "It's supposition. "Pre-theory" if you like. Not the stuff of science class. There is a cutoff."

One question would be "who says there's a cut-off?" Another would be, "why does that person get to decide that a cut-off must exist?"

Consider the following scenarios: a body riddled with bullets, found in a warehouse on the waterfront; tree rings indicative of stunted growth during a two or three year period of the life span of the tree; a turtle sitting on a wooded fence post. To dispose of questions that want to be asked in each of these instances as pre-theory is worse than bad science, it leads to scientific moronims ("Fred died of a sudden infusion of lead" or "Fred sprang some leaks"; "the turtle was hatched on the fencepost" or "the turtle climbed onto the fencepost").

Pre-theory, as you call it, is so much more than that. The calculation of trajectory, for example, in the forensic investigation of Fred's untimely demise is just so much make work as a pre-theory. It really doesn't help answer the question what Fred had done to upset the mob boss.

In the same way, as you have already surmised, pre-theoretical modeling that follows a trajectory back from an irreducibily complex system to the existence of designer offers a value that would only be rejected because of an unscientific bias.

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.