Intelligent Design The Scientific Alternative to Evolution

Sooner or later everyone asks the question, “Where do we come from?” The answer carries profound, life-molding implications. Until this question is answered we cannot solve another fundamental question that is key to ethics, religion, and the meaning of life (if any): “Are we here for a purpose?” There are two possible answers: the universe and life and its diversity—natural phenomena—are the product of 1) a combination of only natural laws and chance (the “naturalistic hypothesis)”; or 2) a combination of law, chance, and design—the activity of a mind or some form of intelligence that has the power to manipulate matter and energy (the “design hypothesis”). The latter produces purpose, the former does not.

The naturalistic hypothesis is supported by theories of chemical evolution (with respect to the origin of the universe and of life) and by Darwinian evolution (with respect to the origin of the diversity of life). The design hypothesis is supported by the purposeful characteristics of exceedingly complex natural systems that are frequently described as “fine tuned.” Each hypothesis is densely laden with philosophical and religious baggage, and clear thinking is required in order to separate the

science from the philosophy, the evidence from the implications, and reality from imagination.

"Each hypothesis is densely laden with philosophical and religious baggage, and clear thinking is required in order to separate the science from the philosophy, the evidence from the implications, and reality from imagination."

And here is the problem. "Intelligent Design" simply meets none of the criteria for a scientific hypothesis. It is not capable of predicting or explaining new biological facts, which evolution does quite nicely.

Intelligent design is philosophy---NOT science, despite the fact that it uses "scientific-sounding" language.

I don't understand the need to push Intelligent Design.

Belief in God requires only faith.

Some of its proponents push the theory for reasons that have nothing to do with a belief in God. For them, it is the intellectual dissatisfaction with a purely naturalistic theory of the origins of the universe and the coming about of life as we know it. I do not understand why the "bogeyman" of religion always has to be invoked whenever one postulates that there is more at work here than
chance and physical laws. The "Teleological" argument is not based on a religious assumption, but a philosophical one. Religion relies on direct, experiencial revelation and does not need to speculate from an observed effect to an unseen cause.

Regardless of the truth or falsity of the hypothesis of intelligent design, your statement is demonstrably false.

For example, if your statement were correct, then it would have been impossible for humans to breed plants or animals. But of course humans have been able to breed plants and animals to meet specific "design criteria." In that realm we have literally thousands of examples where a) the explanation is intelligent design, and b) the predictive requirement is met by the fact that the breeders achieved their goals.

Another example is the production of human insulin by recombinant DNA techniques. The end result is bacteria or yeast that produce human insulin -- the predicted result, and again explained by intelligent design.

Thus we see that in specific cases that ID does in fact explain new biological facts. Further, the existence of design criteria (which were met in practice) satisfies the criterion of predictability.

Based on your criteria and actual examples, we must conclude that Intelligent Design is a valid theory. (The relevant sense of "valid" is 2 a : well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful [a valid theory] b : logically correct [a valid argument] [valid inference]).

Of course, to propose a valid hypothesis is not the same thing as verifying (i.e., to establish the truth, accuracy, or reality of) that hypothesis. A person who puts forth an ID hypothesis is required to provide tests and data to support the claim.

At this point, however, we're faced not with a scientific problem, but rather a philosophical one.

If we apply your criteria more broadly, it seems to be the case that engineering in general does not meet your criteria for a scientific hypothesis. And perhaps that's accurate: engineering makes extensive use of scientific principles, but it is not possible to explain or predict the results of an engineering effort in the manner you're demanding for the development of life -- that is, using testable hypothesis about naturalistic processes. "Predictability" resides in the minds of the engineers, not in any fundamental natural processes. Moreover, the characteristics of an engineered object are often chosen for aesthetic as well as practical reasons.

The philosophical questions center around this disconnect between science and engineering.

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.