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.

And it's not quite accurate to say that "Scientist [sic] object to ID because" it's untestable, they object to ID claiming that it's a SCIENCE, because ID has failed to meet the requirements of *being* a science. If someone wants to believe or argue ID, go right ahead, scientists won't object. They don't "object to ID" in general, they object to FALSE CLAIMS about ID, especially those concerning ID trying to pretend to be a science when it isn't.

Thank you this will help me in rewording accurately?

If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that when ID suggest it was done by "something unexplainable", they advocate that as an answer, and do not advocate further research. Scientist do not accept the absence of explanation as proof of a designer. Is this correct?

"Dissenting scientist then claim that due to statistical probabilities it is not."

This had to do with the genetic code, if I remember. It could have been Behe's theory. I've read a lot, oh and thanks for the link. What I read was that the probabilities of the genetic code emerging as it has without aid indicated it could not be. I found differing opinions on both sides.

No, you're jumping the gun and presuming an answer. The question boils down to, "*WAS* there a designer
The question *can* have testable hypotheses, but in order to do so "the question" is going to have to be a *lot* more specific than the IDers are willing to be. Instead, the IDers want to remain wildly vague and not put themselves or their notions on the block for actual testing and examination.

That is one of the most honest answers I've read yet. There are alot of emotions on these threads. It clouds a lot.

Where did it all come from? A question that can be "tested" until it gets to a place where it is "untestable".

Say what?

Here I am referring to something I am testing. There are those who believe in a designer, and evolution and are willing to speculate that the designer is the one who arranged our universe, with all of it's laws and elements, and allowed these things to work in the way the the designer designed. When expressing this as only a "possibility" I have encountered great resistance. At some point we all wonder how did it begin, to which no one has the answer. The reason I have asked this question is because of this, supposedly evolution does not address the origin of life. I put up a post yesterday that stated "If you are of the opinion that evolution does not address the origins of life then this post is not directed at you." I immediately had some who suggested that it did because evolution is linked to abiogenesus. Then it was carried one step further with hypothesis about how favorable conditions emerged on Earth, all the way back to what set it all in motion, which "we don't know". Thus, leaving me to ask, "Could it have been by a designer?" No, there may not be evidence, but I was surprised at the great resistance there was to the smallest, tiny weenie, suggestion that there could be. This was the reason I asked (and I worded this wrong, as science does not object, I meant scientist,) if scientist are reluctant to even hit at the possibility because they feel that it will be used to look at other areas of evolution for reevaluation. That brought up the whole Occam's razor, and how that might apply.

My wit thing started out as a bit of a joke modeled after some basic Darwinian observations

1, domesticate plants and animals show a tremendous variation of species
2, a similar variation can be observed in nature among wild species.
3. All living things are engaged in a struggle for existence.

It seems to be the one constant I finding on these threads.

"WILL scientist continue tests until they have a favorable condition." STRIKE THAT WHOLE QUESTION. That's not what I meant to ask. This is better.

Does science continue to test a theory indefinitely even if it is never disproved. At what point would a theory be considered accepted science if this is the case?

"Even if these conditions can be found in nature, who is to say that scientist are not merely reproducing a smaller version of a previously performed experiment, and verifying it's results?"

This can't be answered. It's just something to ponder. My thought was that the entire science behind evolution has reproduced an experiment(us) set in place by an intelligent design.

Perhaps we lack the means with which to prove( excuse me, disprove) That's better.

"No, anyone's free to "suggest" anything. And that's a bad example, since there *was* positive evidence at that time for such a conclusion, even though its exact mechanism had not yet been discovered." (condescending?)

I was thinking of the genetic code, but did not go into explicit detail on my research about what was known when, when posting this example.

"But even if you had chosen a better example, the point is that no, people are not ridiculed for "suggesting" various things (unless those suggestions are clearly already contradicted by the available evidence -- try "suggesting" that the Earth is flat and see how much respect you get). They do, however, get ridiculed for making *false* claims about things that are already known (e.g. IDers making false accusations about evolutionary biology), or for *falsely* claiming that their "suggestions" are on par with established science or that their "suggestions" *are* themselves a science. This too the IDers frequently do, and frequently (and rightfully) get snickered at for it

I disagree here. People are ridiculed all the time for suggesting beliefs, disproved or not, that are different than what is accepted by their peers. That is part of this study.

You would call it science if it were discovered that we were the product of Intelligence from elsewhere, but would you say we were the product of intelligent design?

I suspect that Lewis was being facetious in this analogy. It seems his point was to demonstrate that if we all are the result of a bunch of twists and turns by nature then are we special and unique, or do we just think we are.

One more question, as you have been more civil than most, (although I do sense a bit of irritation, I'm not certain that sensing would qualify as a means of research. I am not certain I can disprove your jolliness)
Okay the question. What do scientist think of other fields of study, such as philosophy, art, history and religion and how they relate to our observation of things. I had one say that science was the only meaningful method in which to observe, and religion provided nothing useful to the universe. Is this your opinion as well?

T hanks so much for answering all this!!!!!!! I really do appreciate it!!!!!!!

[I believe in both intelligent design and evolution. God created the earth in 7 days, he did not say 7 days in mans time. God is infinite so I doubt he measures a day by the earths orbit around the sun. Perhaps 7 days to god is several billion years. And when god said let there be light I would imagine the big bang was quite a brilliant light.]

Stand back away from your computer, you are about to be flamed.

No, he's not. You're clearly a newbie on these threads, and haven't a clue what sort of response his type of comment receives, but you're willing to post your false and insulting presumptions anyway...

Clue for the clueless (that would be you): I have never, once, seen anyone get flamed for that kind of post, on any of the many hundreds of FreeRepublic threads I've been on where people have expressed such sentiments. Well not by the *pro-evolution* folks, anyway, a great many of whom hold a similar positions themselves.

You are, in short, either spewing your ignorant bigotry, or are purposely telling falsehoods in order to try to stir up a flamewar where none was forthcoming.

Believers are not to be tolerated on this thread.

Now that's just an outright lie. Many of the people giving you a hard time are, themselves, Believers.

I also believe in both.

...and you are not being given a hard time for that. You are, however, being given a hard time for consistently behaving like an ass. Your current post is yet one more example. You are yet again attempting to stir up trouble and cast unwarranted slurs on your fellow Freepers.

Send me an email if you want when you get done playing with this circus.

spikeytx86, SimpleMan is a known trouble-maker, who attempts to provoke emotional responses by posting falsehoods and slurs, then tries to "play innocent" when people, predictably, respond in the expected manner. See post #329 for a concurring opinion that matter.

There are many good and honest Freepers you would do well to converse with, but this fellow is not one of them.

It took science six years to come up with what some say is disprove, and others say isn't.

ROFL!! Please tell us what creationist pamphlet you read that in, so we can all get a good laugh from it. I'm serious -- where did you get that nonsense?

The fatal flaws in Behe's "theory" were pointed out *immediately* as soon as he published his book describing it.

Please take this up with Right Wing Professor. since he was my source.

You were much nicer earlier. I actually have not read much of Behe's work, as this is a fairly new study for me. I had not read any before two weeks ago. I am not a YEC. I do believe in God. I don't know how he did it. I will not argue religion on this forum. My belief in God is based on faith, which can't be observed, and if it could would defeat the purpose of having faith. Do you completely disrespect me now because I have professed that. From your wording, I'm beginning to think so. You have probably made many assumptions about me since I have revealed that I am a Christian. What I am observing is a the attitude that is taken toward someone when they suggest the tiniest weenie inkling of the "possibility" of ID, in any form, forget Behe. Many of you will not even allow yourselves to speculate beyond what science can observe. As to date, I have encountered 2 of you on these threads that will allow your selves to say, "ID is one possibility" all the way back at the big bang.

Now, do I have any other flaws that you so anxiously wish to point out?

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.