Posted on 04/11/2005 10:25:55 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
"Intelligent design." It's been in the news a lot lately. Lawsuits over textbook stickers, the presentation of evolution and the legality of presenting alternatives, have thrust the term into public awareness.
But just what is intelligent design? To hear some folks talk, you'd think it's a scam to sneak Genesis into science classrooms. Yet intelligent design has nothing to do with the six days of creation and everything to do with hard evidence and logic.
Intelligent design (ID) is grounded on the ancient observation that the world looks very much as if it had an intelligent source. Indeed, as early as the fifth century BC, the Greek philosopher and astronomer Anaxagoras concluded, "Mind set in order … all that ever was … and all that is now or ever will be."
After 2400 years, the appearance of design is as powerful as ever. That is especially true of the living world. Advances in biology have revealed that world to be one staggering complexity.
For example, consider the cell. Even the simplest cells bristle with high-tech machinery. On the outside, their surfaces are studded with sensors, gates, pumps and identification markers. Some bacteria even sport rotary outboard motors that they use to navigate their environment.
Inside, cells are jam-packed with power plants, assembly lines, recycling units and more. Miniature monorails whisk materials from one part of the cell to another.
Such sophistication has led even the most hard-bitten atheists to remark on the apparent design in living organisms. The late Nobel laureate Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA's structure and an outspoken critic of religion, has nonetheless remarked, "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed but rather evolved."
Clearly, Crick (and others like him) considers the appearance of design to be strictly an illusion, created by naturalistic evolution. Yet it's also clear that this impression is so compelling that an atheistic biologist must warn his colleagues against it.
In contrast, ID theorists contend that living organisms appear designed because they are designed. And unlike the design thinkers whom Darwin deposed, they've developed rigorous new concepts to test their idea.
In the past, detecting design was hampered by vague and subjective criteria, such as discerning an object's purpose. Moreover, design was entangled with natural theology--which seeks, in part, to infer God's character by studying nature rather than revelation. Natural theologians often painted such a rosy view of nature that they became an easy mark for Darwin when he proposed his theory of evolution. Where they saw a finely-balanced world attesting to a kind and just God, Darwin pointed to nature’s imperfections and brutishness.
Since the 1980s, however, developments in several fields have made it possible to rigorously distinguish between things that "just happen" and those that happen "on purpose." This has helped design theory emerge as a distinct enterprise, aimed at detecting intelligence rather than speculating about God's character.
Dubbed "intelligent design" to distinguish it from old-school thinking, this new view is detailed in The Design Inference (Cambridge University Press, 1998), a peer-reviewed work by mathematician and philosopher William Dembski.
In contrast to what is called creation science, which parallels Biblical theology, ID rests on two basic assumptions: namely, that intelligent agents exist and that their effects are empirically detectable.
Its chief tool is specified complexity. That's a mouthful, and the math behind it is forbidding, but the basic idea is simple: An object displays specified complexity when it has lots of parts (is complex) arranged in a recognizable, delimited pattern (is specified).
For example, the article you're now reading has thousands of characters, which could have been arranged in zillions of ways. Yet it fits a recognizable pattern: It's not just a jumble of letters (which is also complex), but a magazine article written in English. Any rational person would conclude that it was designed.
The effectiveness of such thinking is confirmed by massive experience. As Dembski points out, "In every instance where we find specified complexity, and where [its] history is known, it turns out that design actually is present."
Thus, if we could trace the creation of a book, our investigation would lead us to the author. You could say, then, that specified complexity is a signature of design.
To see how this applies to biology, consider the little consider the outboard motor that bacteria such as E. coli use to navigate their environment. This water-cooled contraption, called a flagellum, comes equipped with a reversible engine, drive shaft, U-joint and a long whip-like propeller. It hums along at a cool 17,000 rpm.
Decades of research indicate that its complexity is enormous. It takes about 50 genes to create a working flagellum. Each of those genes is as complex as a sentence with hundreds of letters.
Moreover, the pattern--a working flagellum--is highly specified. Deviate from that pattern, knock out a single gene, and our bug is dead in the water (or whatever).
Such highly specified complexity, which demands the presence of every part, indicates an intelligent origin. It's also defies any explanation, such as contemporary Darwinism, that relies on the stepwise accumulation of random genetic change.
In fact, if you want to run the numbers, as Dembski does in his book No Free Lunch, it boils down to the following: If every elementary particle in the observed universe (about 1080) were cranking out mutation events at the cosmic speed limit (about 1045 times per second) for a billion times the estimated age of the universe, they still could not produce the genes for a working flagellum.
And that's just one system within multiple layers of systems. Thus the flagellum is integrated into a sensory/guidance system that maneuvers the bacterium toward nutrients and away from noxious chemicals--a system so complex that computer simulation is required to understand it in its entirety. That system is meshed with other systems. And so on.
Of course, what's important here is not what we conclude about the flagellum or the cell, but how we study it. Design theorists don't derive their conclusions from revelation, but by looking for reliable, rigorously defined indicators of design and by ruling out alternative explanations, such as Darwinism.
Calling their work religious is just a cheap way to dodge the issues. The public--and our students--deserve better than that.
Mark Hartwig has a Ph.D. in educational psychology from the University of California, Santa Barbara, specializing in statistics and research design.
If we had the power to eliminate the evil that guns are supposed to countervail, then yes - so long as we did not also eliminate the evil that guns may enact, in which case it wouldn't matter if gun ownership persisted so long as the evil that they countervail were first eliminated.
God has created beings with the ability to make choices.
Then God's choice has consequences, and the consequences include the choices that would then be made by the created beings.
You have a very simplistic approach to theology
The approach is called "rational" - as opposed to these mental acrobatics trying to make the irrational appear to be rational.
Ah, I see, yea, but I quoted Anti-Guv though. Sorry for the messup. I just hit 'post-reply' to the latest post.
=)
After all, one could say that God created me, but did he also create the sandwich I had for lunch? No, I assembled that (though God created the basic ingredients.) Perhaps evil needs to be thought of in the same way. It was not created; it was assembled by us and thus is our responsibiliy alone.
"Yes, but an evil god can lie, and there is no rational way to determine whether or not he is lying." - Antiguv
Doesn't matter. If He is evil, then you are screwed anyway. But if He is good, and if you have free will, then your choices determine whether or not you are screwed.
"Can you find fault with His commandment to you to "depart from evil and do good"?"- DannyTN
"Yes, it's meaningless without a definition of good & evil. "- Antiguv
Is there no definition? Did God not give us internal guides, called conscience? Did not God give us the 10 commandments to help us understand. Did not God give us all of the scripture to help us understand. Did not God give send His Son to show us how to live? I suspect that the weakest definition that you could come up with would be enough to condemn you and me.
"That God was evil increating you with the potential to do evil?"- DannyTN
"An evil god would be rational, we just couldn't make a rational determination of the practical implications...."
I believe I made a "rational determination of the practical implications" if God is evil, earlier in this same post...you're screwed anyway.
Even if you win the argument, God will simply rectify His mistake.
Sure, but an omniscient god would know if I had any faith or if I was just carrying on a charade out of "just-in-case" fear.
So what. God says that the beginning of wisdom is the Fear of God. He also says He reveals Himself to those who keep His commandments. If you carry out a charade of "just-in-case fear", you will learn first hand from your obedience about His commandments and you will develop faith in Him.
"If a god created me, then he quite obviously created me such that I would not believe in him, and who am I to challenge that?"-AntiGuv
Is it that obvious? Is there no small voice that quietly says "BULLSHIT" when you make that assertion?
The following verses: 1) v5-7 asserts that God has indeed created you and evil, 2) v9-10 warn those who would challenge their Maker as you have, 3) v11-13 directly references the Lord as both the Holy One of Israel and His Maker... a direct reference to Jesus in scripture that predates Jesus, a time dateable prophecy that was fulfilled demonstrating God's power. But I'm sure you will find a way to dismiss this to maintain your facade of "no evidence and you don't believe".
Isa 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: 6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. 7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. 8 Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the LORD have created it. 9 Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands? 10 Woe unto him that saith unto his father, What begettest thou? or to the woman, What hast thou brought forth? 11 Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me. 12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded. 13 I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the LORD of hosts.
Evil acts obviously exist, but that doesn't mean that god considers them evil, only that we judge them to be evil.
If an infinite god exists, those things that we consider evil cannot be evil in his view. That is my conclusion. Nothing can be other than that which an infinite god wants it to be.
This thread is evil....I've gotta' get back to work and actually earn the money they're giving me.
It was fun though. :-)
" Nothing can be other than that which an infinite god wants it to be."
And if God wants us to have the freedom to choose our god?
> Do you believe opponents to the teaching of ID are on side of objective thinking and rational argument?
On the whole, yes. We also tend to have a sense of humor lacking in the ID movement. This is understandable, of course... we recognize that scientific understanding is occasionally incomplete or flawed, and when new data comes in, we adjust. No sweat. But on the other side... The Word is inviolable. And those who have hitched their faith in God to the flawed notion of ID are risking their faith, and they know it; in such circumstances, humor is hard to find.
Then God must limit himself so that our decision will be apart from him. If anything is apart from a god, then the god is not infinite.
If both are true - that god is infinite but nonetheless grants us the freedom to choose our god - then god is beyond our ability to reason, which is the point I made to begin with.
Most liberals can't do math -- probably why they don't "get it".
I've enjoyed it! Though I definitely need to get back to work myself. Gonna wrap up my part here!
> White smoke already?
Yes. I'm the new Rocket Pope. The white smoke is fine particulate aluminum oxide suspended in the air following combustion of composite propellant. Woo!
There's a big difference between following clues when you're on to something (like discovering gunpowder), and say, asking why God made the "space-time fabric". For practical matters, it's best to separate science and theology that way- which is also why ID is so "messy", because it attempts to blend the two.
Why bother? Communion, by all measures, is plain old bread. Faith says that it's Christ's body. The two descriptions conflict, and unless you have some amazing proof that they really don't (by some deeply physical reasoning), then don't bother asking "why" about it. Not unless you're willing to lose faith, that is.
"then god is beyond our ability to reason"
God wants only to be loved as those He created deem Him worthy. He does not want us to mindlessly love Him, btu for it to be our choice. He is choosing a more powerful love. The love of a heart given freely.
Not beyond my ability to reason.
> Most liberals can't do math
And that's why they listen to the likes of Dembski.
Perhaps freewill and evil are similarly linked. God can create beings with freewill but inherent in the very nature of freewill is the possibility of evil. The freewill is our gift from God but the evil is our "creation".
Yes, but that would be an article of faith. One cannot arrive at that conclusion via reason. That is my point.
From a rational standpoint, if an infinite god exists then everything that now exists, everything that has ever existed, and everything that will ever exists all exists at once from the perspective of god - and precisely as god would have it.
"For practical matters, it's best to separate science and theology that way- which is also why ID is so "messy", because it attempts to blend the two."
I'll allow that it's difficult, but wouldn't making a cosmic, unifying sense of "scientific" and "theological" schools of thought just lead us closer to what "Truth" is?
So the set of odd numbers is not infinite?
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.