Why intelligent design will change everything

Last year, the intelligent design movement burst onto the national scene, causing all manner of outrage from the guardians of science and right thinking. All the major media covered this upstart idea challenging Darwinian evolution's theory of the origin of life. Everybody has been piling on, even conservative pundits like George Will and Charles Krauthammer. The cultural elites were appalled when the yahoos on the Kansas Board of Education voted to "teach the controversy" to high-school students. In Dover, Pa., a judge outlawed the mere mention of I.D. theory in school science classes. Like a fierce game of whack-a-mole, wherever I.D.'s politically incorrect head pops up, its opponents rush to smack it back down.

I am enjoying all this tremendously. What makes it so much fun to watch is that so far not one of the critics understands it. Without exception, they simply dismiss I.D. theory as nothing more than stealth religion – creationism by another name. They say that all I.D. does is insert God to explain what science has not yet figured out. While they all lose their collective minds about it, warning darkly that the fundamentalists are coming, support for I.D. theory will continue to grow because it is good science. I want to explain why, so that when you hear the intelligentsia loudly denouncing it, you, too, can have a good laugh. Even better, you will understand why intelligent design theory is going to become a major force for good in the battle to rescue our collapsing culture – because the way we think about origins affects the way we think about nearly everything. (More on that later.)

Meanwhile, the debate rages on, all the while opponents keep insisting there is no debate.

Despite its pretensions to objectivity, science has always been political. That's why scientific revolutions have often met initially with resistance and ridicule, because the old order stands to lose if the new becomes accepted. But the great thing about science is that eventually the weight of evidence breaks through. Think Galileo (opposed not only by the church but by fellow academics), or Lister (ridiculed for disinfecting surgical rooms to prevent infection), or the Wright Brothers (man will never fly). So all this hand wringing about intelligent design is a good sign that the revolution is under way. The old order is being challenged, and they are freaking out.

First, what I.D. theory is not: It is not creationism. Full disclosure here: I am a creationist. As a Christian, I believe God is the author of life. But I.D. theory is a science-driven enterprise. It is not a deduction from Scripture but an inference from observation. It says that the intricate design found in living things and in the universe itself is best explained by an intelligent cause. Darwinism, on the other hand, says that undirected natural processes led life to arise spontaneously; then evolution by natural selection (survival of the fittest) resulted in living things that appear to be designed, but really aren't. The question boils down to this: When considered objectively, where does the evidence actually lead?

Drawing heavily on Nancy Pearcey's great apologetic book "Total Truth," I'm going to focus on two of the most powerful arguments for intelligent design. Her book contains many more. I wish every Christian (and every thinking person) would read her masterful defense of Christianity as total truth about all of reality. But just reading this column will make you far more knowledgeable about I.D. than nearly all of its opponents.

It's true that by far the dominant theory of origins is the evolutionary one. It goes something like this: It all began billions of years ago in some sort of chemical soup (a "warm little pond," as Darwin put it) which, when zapped with an energy source, led to the chance formation of amino acids. These acids somehow self-organized into proteins and then morphed into the first living cell. All living things descended from that first cell, evolving from simple into increasingly complex organisms, all the way up to man.

In Darwin's time this was easier to imagine, because it was thought that cells were mere blobs of protoplasm. It fit in nicely with his idea that life could have first appeared as a simple cell. There's just one problem. We now know that there is no such thing as a "simple" cell. Recent advances in microbiology have demonstrated that the cell is literally a miniature factory town, with its own chemical library containing blueprints that are copied and transported to molecular assembly lines that manufacture everything the cell needs. Nancy Pearcey compares it to "… a large and complex model train layout, with tracks crisscrossing everywhere, its switches and signals perfectly timed so that no trains collide and the cargo reaches its destination precisely when needed."

Just one cell is vastly more complex than anything ever created by human engineering. And your body contains 300 trillion of them, each one "knowing" exactly what it is supposed to do within itself and in relation to all the other cells.

Microbiologist Michael Behe has coined the term "irreducible complexity" to describe this. That is, the cell consists of coordinated, interlocking parts that must all be in place simultaneously, or it won't function at all. You can't improve the cell through one random mutation at a time because if you change any one aspect, the whole thing will crash. For evolutionary change to occur, every single piece of its Rube Goldberg-like factory would have to mutate at exactly the same time, and each single mutation would have to be beneficial, or the cell would just die.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

"An aggregate structure, like a pile of sand, can be built up gradually by simply adding a piece at a time. ... By contrast, an organized structure, like the inside of a computer, is built up according to a pre-existing blueprint."

Since living systems are organized wholes, they had to have been put together in the first place by a pre-existing design.

Darwinists cannot explain irreducible complexity. They keep saying that it poses no problem for evolution, as if repetition would make it so. They insist that just because we don't yet understand how evolution can work in light of this doesn't mean that we won't figure it out eventually. But they will never figure it out, because irreducible complexity makes evolutionary change at the cellular level logically impossible.

(Note: Natural selection clearly occurs within species as an adaptive mechanism. I.D. theory does not deny or even address this, nor does it address the question of whether natural selection could lead to the development of entirely new species. I.D. theory is concerned with the origin of life only.)

Even more powerful evidence comes from the genetic code. DNA is a kind of language consisting of four chemical "letters" that combine into an astonishing variety of sequences to spell out a message. It contains a mind-boggling amount of information. Where did it come from?

Darwinists say that DNA resulted from chance mutations operated on by natural selection. Really? As theologian Norm Geisler quipped:

"If you came into the kitchen and saw the alphabet cereal spilled out on the table, and it spelled out your name and address, would you think the cat knocked the cereal box over?"

In fact, chance events tend to scramble information, like typos in a page of text. Even if some kind of more complex molecule somehow did appear in the supposed chemical soup, the same random processes that produced it would continue to insert "typos," soon scrambling any coherent message that might have occurred. Again, it's not that we don't yet understand how chance could create complex information; it's that in principle this cannot happen.

If chance cannot do it, perhaps some yet-undiscovered physical law can. That's what scientists excited about complexity theory are hoping. They are studying self-organizing structures like snowflakes and crystals, searching for clues to how similar natural processes might also give rise to the complex information found in DNA. But they won't find any.

That prediction stems not from ignorance or hubris, but from the nature of physical laws, which by definition are regular and repeatable. Those properties enable the brilliant engineering students at MIT to enjoy shoving a piano off seven story high Baker House roof every year. They know that gravity makes things fall, every time.

But the information found in DNA is quite different. When you decode one section it tells you nothing about what comes next. The letters are free to combine into an unimaginably vast quantity of information. By contrast, the physical laws being explored in complexity theory are simple instructions, able to create complex patterns but not much information – certainly not enough to account for the fact that each cell in your body contains more information than the entire Encyclopedia Britannica.

This is not at all like saying man will never fly because God didn't give him wings. It's not that I.D. theorists can't imagine how a physical law could create information. It's because in principle, law-like processes cannot generate complex information. Some things really are impossible.

It turns out that life is not primarily about matter, but information. Commenting on the failed attempts to create life in the lab, astrophysicist Paul Davies writes:

"Trying to make life by mixing chemicals in a test tube is like soldering switches and wires in an attempt to produce Windows 98. It won't work because it addresses the problem at the wrong conceptual level."

Common sense tells us that information does not occur without an intelligence to organize it, any more than the hardware of a computer can create its own software. Even scientists know this. Otherwise, how could SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) researchers ever hope to distinguish between radio signals generated by some natural process and those sent from the hoped-for aliens? Again, we see that the most plausible explanation for the information in DNA is an Intelligent Designer put it there.

But for Christians, we knew that, didn't we? "In the beginning was the Word (Logos)." Behind everything is the Logic, the Wisdom, the Intelligence of God.

Currently, only a minority of scientists holds to intelligent design theory, but the number is growing. To date, over 400 scientists have signed a document entitled "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism." Many of these scientists are not Christian, and some are outright hostile to it, which is further evidence that I.D. is not religion. A scientific revolution is just beginning, but almost nobody recognizes it, least of all its opponents.

And not a moment too soon, since evolutionary theory did not stay in the scientific realm but oozed into all the sciences, the liberal arts and out into culture, with horribly destructive results. The biblical view of man as a spiritual being created in God's image has been replaced by the view that man is nothing more than a highly evolved animal struggling to survive in a meaningless universe. Scratch any social ill and you will find Darwinism underneath.

One of the worst consequences has been the devaluation of human life. It is no exaggeration to say that Darwinism has led to the killing of untold millions of human beings. To highlight just a few examples: eugenics (philosophical Darwinism) inspired Margaret Sanger to found Planned Parenthood and the pro-abortion movement. Eugenics helped Hitler convince an entire country to follow him in his attempt to wipe out the "inferior" Jews, not to mention the toll in blood it took to stop him. These days Peter Singer, a Princeton professor of bioethics, advocates that parents be allowed to dispatch their imperfect infants up to 30 days after birth. The misguided "right to die" movement is rapidly becoming the "right to kill" movement, as last year we watched severely disabled (but not dying) Terri Schiavo starve to death by court order, while a large portion of the country approved of it. Meanwhile, more than a million babies continue to be aborted every year. None of these horrors could have occurred in a culture that understood each human life to be a unique creation of God, stamped with his image.

Darwinism is also behind the sexual revolution (just doing what comes naturally), radical feminism, family breakdown and normalization of homosexuality (gender roles are social constructs we can discard as we "evolve" as a society). Darwinism removed the foundation for a transcendent moral Truth that stands outside of our personal preference. Now we make it up as we go, "re-imagining" everything. Even many Christians consider their faith to be purely personal. It's "true for me, but maybe not for you." No wonder assertions that Jesus is the only way to God meet with such outrage. And why so-called progressives are deeply offended when Christians try to bring into the public square what they view as nothing more than our particular rabbit's foot. Rejection of God is the root cause of our cultural degradation, but Darwinism has been its indispensable support, giving intellectual cover for all the evil we want to do.

But intelligent design is on the move, and this is a great gift to everyone, especially Christians. It's only a matter of time before it becomes accepted as a legitimate competing theory of origins, and as it does it will unleash enormous changes for good, not only in science but all of culture – because if people understand that there is (or at least could be) a Designer, then we can once more ask, what is the purpose of that design? What are things for?

For example, conservatives and Christians are having a difficult time making the case against homosexual marriage. Thousands of years of exclusively heterosexual marriage mean nothing to those with a Darwinist worldview. Why, they are far more evolved than those benighted cultures in the misty past. To them, tradition is oppressive; destroying it is progress. Why shouldn't people be able to "love" whomever they want? How will it hurt your marriage?

The truth is that homosexual marriage is wrong because it violates God's design and purpose for us, with inevitably negative consequences. But for an exercise in frustration, just try to discuss design with someone steeped in the evolutionary mindset. Point out the functional biological differences between male and female, and they will dodge, deny or change the subject. Press the issue, and they will become angry at your attempt to "impose" your personal values. What they will never do is engage the substance of your argument. They can't. Their worldview will not allow them to admit the obvious.

Multiple research studies documenting the need that children have for a mom and a dad are probably the best defense we've got, but in a nation full of divorced or never married single parents, and with a media quick to promote "gay" families, it's a tough slog. So far, a majority of the public opposes homosexual marriage, but it's mostly instinctive and traditional. People say things like, "I wasn't raised that way." But younger generations, raised on books like "Heather Has Two Mommies" and subjected to Darwinist dogma throughout their schooling, have no tradition left to hold them. And any common-sense instinct they might have to resist faces an incessant cultural onslaught that brands such thoughts as hateful prejudice.

For the older generations, watching defenders of marriage viciously attacked in the press is very confusing. Having never reasoned out something so basic as marriage, they, too, will begin to doubt themselves. Unless something dramatic changes, public opposition will eventually crumble, and we will see the destruction of marriage as one more nail in the cultural coffin we are building for ourselves.

I'm not sure, but I think he is saying he's a creationist, but not necessarily an IDer

I believe in God, and that infinite time and space and creation of matter from nothing is the real mind twister. Haven't formed a final opinion on ID. I do believe in evolution as a mechanism, because I don't think God would create an evolving fossil record just to screw with us.

I get attacked mainly because I think there are some logical problems with survival of the fittest explaining everything that evolves. I think there is much more to mutation to learn, and that will answer many of these questions. Occasionally I get attacked by ID'ers, but generally because they've misread my post.

You're obviously going to be posting the creation-ID side of the debate in the weeks and months to come, if you're not a bannee sneakback soon to be rebanned. Why not start out admitting the obvious about who you are and what you intend?

Do me a favor. Search my screen name and read my posts.

The origin of this thread is not surprisingly an earlier thread.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1605656/posts

The constant attacks that I'm a troll, a closet ID'er, or both are getting really old. Can't you make fun of my mother or something, just for originality?

As I keep saying, I just posted the "MAD DOG" sign, I didn't force anyone to take up residence under it.

Sorry, but you just proved EVOLUTION is a religion, and not science.

No I didn't. Nice straw man though.

You didn't address any of the scientific inferences once. You only got offended when your religion got attacked.

There were no "scientific inferences" to address. I, and many, many others, have addressed any and all of the non-scientific objections to evolution that IDers have posted on these pages and elsewhere. There was no need for me to re-post all of the evolutionary proofs that exist out there.

It's high time that the ID community backs away from the canards and straw men and actually tries to say something other than that they don't believe evolution.

I think evolution is a science. I also think that a few of its adherents have begun to worship it.

While that may well be true I'm certainly not one of those "worshipers." I'm perfectly willing to adjust my beliefs about just about anything, especially evolution, if and when a viable, rational and reasoned alternative comes along.

ID meets absolutely none of those criteria.

Do me a favor. Search my screen name and read my posts.

I have been reading your posts on the crevo threads. Just another concerned skeptic who needs to condemn the nasty old evos. How long before you're making threads from Creation-Evolution Headlines with the rest of the YEC crew? And how many of them--at least one--entered these discussions wearing exactly your current costume?

It's also an opinion that ID lacks facts.

No, that's quite provable. You can't name a single thing that ID has promoted as a "fact" - something that could be proved. ID simply exists as an opinion that Evolution couldn't possibly be right because the adherents either don't understand it or feel that it infringes on their god. ID exists only to promote creationism and to tear down Darwinism. That's not a valid source for science.

Order and complexity exist.

That doesn't imply or require a creator. It also refutes absolutely none of what Evolution promotes. What's your point?

I don't understand why scientists deny that it's evidence of intelligence or design . . .

Because it's not. It's evidence of order and complexity only. If you want to prove it's designed you have a lot more to do. You can believe it, but to prove it you'll actually have to do some work.

For example, ID researchers made the prediction that all genetic material in a chromosome set (the genome)is designed for a purpose. This inclused the so-called "junk-DNA". This appears to have been demonstrated within the last two to three years.

The same prediction may have been made by scientists. The difference is that they would have proved it. This doesn't, in any way, support the concept of a creator. All it means, maybe, is that the system that created the genome is quite efficient. I do believe (note, I'm not stating a fact here) that the assumption is wrong anyway. There is far more in the genome than is needed to build the life it inhabits. I could be wrong on this but the only way I'll find out is from scientists exploring. IDers don't do that.

To reject it simply on principle is a philosophical point, but it is not justified by scientific method.

It absolutely is something you can reject based on the scientific method. If the hypothesis isn't provable by experiment and if it doesn't suggest experiments to advance that proof than it's junk and can be safely ignored. Your statement is just that.

Design is assumed by biochemists who "reverse-engineer" biochemical machines, that is, take apart such systems in search of the "design decisions" that are built into their architecture.

No it's not. . .

It should not be gerrymandered out of science, just because the methodological naturalists get uncomfortable with the concept of a "designer".

I'm not uncomfortable with a designer, just with one for which there is absolutely no proof.

I'm concerned that these Evolution/ID slap fests are damaging our economy by pulling the best and brightest (affirmation hug to everyone here) away from their work.

Being heavily invested, and having a business to run myself, this greatly concerns me. So I'm going to promise not to post anything even slightly having to do with genetics for at least a month. But if someone else does, I might just have to post my "#@*%!" theory on mutation again.

It's a crappy article, even by the standards of pro-ID articles. It's long on bravado and assertion, and short on facts. Much of the 'science' it cites is wrong or 50 years out of date. For example, no one seriously considers life arose from amino acids. Contrary to what it says, the information content of the human genome isn't that high. It claims that scientists can't explain irreducible complexity, and ignores the fact that every single instance of IC Behe cited has been shown not to be IC by Behe's own definition.

This Darwinists say that DNA resulted from chance mutations operated on by natural selection.

...is simply false. Scientists think DNA resulted from RNA by chemical reduction of precursors.

The letters are free to combine into an unimaginably vast quantity of information.

In fact, by the standards we work with in everyday statistical mechanics, the number of possible combinations in the human genome is very small. The number of thermally accessible translational quantum states in a thimbleful of air - now that's large!

I could go on and on.

So what do you want here? It's an awful article, full of false statements and spurious arguments. Is that objective, collegial or polite enough?

It's an awful article, full of false statements and spurious arguments. Is that objective, collegial or polite enough?

Actually, I thought your post was all of the above. Perhaps "awful" is subjective, but what's life without a little color.

Thanks for one of the first posts to discuss the article. You actually added something to the discussion for people who don't spend all day reading chemistry books. And bless you for not calling me a "closet ID'er" or a "troll". I don't so much care about being wrong, but I get peaved at having people challenge my honesty.

I'd share my mutation assertion/question with you, but I don't want to press my luck.

And bless you for not calling me a "closet ID'er" or a "troll". I don't so much care about being wrong, but I get peaved at having people challenge my honesty.

When you've been on crevo threads for a few years, you get pretty tired of seeing stuff presented, rebutted, then recycled as if nothing had ever happened. The unfavorable opinions of IDers you see expressed have are largely a product of that. I find it a challenge to maintain my patience, and I often fail the challenge.

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.