Why Are Darwinists So Afraid of Intelligent Design?

Darwinists must be an endangered species. How else to explain their 80-year need for court protection to ensure their survival?

In 1925, an ACLU-driven defense team in the Scopes-Monkey Trial wanted a court to declare that laws forbidding the teaching of evolution were unconstitutional. In recent weeks, in a courtroom in Dover, Pa., the same organization applauded a judge’s ruling that the teaching of ideas contrary to evolution, in this case Intelligent Design, were unconstitutional.

The same ACLU that once advocated for free and open discussion in schools is working to see it stifled today.

Its website boasts, “Intelligent Design is a religious view, not a scientific theory, according to U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III in his historic decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover. The decision is a victory not only for the ACLU, who led the legal challenge, but for all who believe it is inappropriate, and unconstitutional, to advance a particular religious belief at the expense of our children's education.”

Science involves observing nature and producing hypotheses which explain the data -- and of discrediting theories which don’t fit new observations. Having judges decide what constitutes science is as nonsensical as scientists issuing judicial decisions.

And the irreligious left, perpetually misusing the First Amendment, can’t identify which religion is being established. Is it that of the Jehovah’s Witnesses or of Catholicism? Perhaps Mormonism or Orthodox Judaism? Among many others, these disparate faiths all claim as canon the book of Genesis, where the religious version of creation is found.

But ironically, while no particular religion is being promoted by the teaching of Intelligent Design, there’s a belief system, which has established “churches” in several states, that is being favored by ACLU-- and court-imposed censorship: atheism, whose worldview promotes moral relativism and secular humanism.

The left maintains that Intelligent Design is merely creationism -- a literal reading of the Bible’s account of creation -- camouflaged in scientific language. But even a casual perusal of ID demonstrates there is no dependence on Genesis for any of its arguments, nor does it teach any biblical doctrine. It merely demands an examination of the evidence -- or lack thereof -- that uncountable species arose from primordial soup, or that they evolved over time from one to another.

To support Darwin’s theory, the earth should be teeming with myriad transitional specimens, but they are noteworthy, despite incessant extrapolation, only by their absence.

Other modern observations are daunting for Darwinists: digital information -- universally a mark of design -- in the genetic code and irreducibly complex structures such as miniature molecular machines within the cell which Darwin could hardly begin to imagine. Using the eye as an example, he coined the phrase, “organs of extreme perfection and complication” and recognized his theory’s inability to explain them. New discoveries only exacerbate these shortcomings.

And despite frequent references to “organic chemicals” present on the formative earth, neither Darwin nor modern scientists can demonstrate how to get from these compounds to just a single-cell living organism, or even a virus -- let alone the complex life forms. The search for that initial “spark” of life, or an explanation of why it is no longer in evidence, has been forever elusive.

Ironically, the scientific community, which anxiously tries to find evidence of other intelligent life in the universe, blatantly turns its back on the one intelligence we have the most indication of: a creator; a master chemist for whom the DNA code -- a puzzle which even our terrestrial species is just starting to grasp -- is a simple blueprint.

Even though ID relies not at all on the Bible, it does leave open the conclusion that the designer is the biblical God and this implication of God is what the Darwinists seem to fear.

So there may yet be hope for these folks since the Psalmist says, “The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.” Let’s hope they eventually wise up.

I don't think anybody is denying that we can identify human or even another organism's design as long as we are familiar with the designer's capability, opportunity and intent.

My point was that every technique we currently use to identify design is based on the previously mentioned knowledge or the assumption that other 'alien' designers will create artifacts similar to ours. Even SETI uses this assumption. They are not looking for a complex or information filled signal, they are looking for a signal on what we feel is the most likely frequency to reach us. If we determine this frequency to be the most effective then other intelligences will probably utilize that same frequency.

Now this does reinforce the idea that ID can be science if they use the same assumptions of limitation for alien intelligences that SETI uses, but is this what ID is proposing?

ID is proposing that there is a method that will enable us to determine if the genome has evolved or if it has been designed. Before this methodology can be considered useful in any science it has to pass testing. Does it reliably provide true positives while minimizing or eliminating false positives? Can it be used to differentiate between natural and designed objects outside of the genome? Can it be used rigorously?

The ID hypothesis is not simply stating - 'it looks designed so it must be designed' - it is stating that there is a rigorous scientific method that can be used successfully in different circumstances.

For this to be true the method must be able to function equally well in a wide range of conditions. It has to be able to tell if a rock is really a hammer or just a rock. It also has to be able to tell if the 'information' our atmosphere receives from the Sun is designed or natural.

If we apply our current design recognition methodology to 'rocks' in an attempt to determine human design, we must know a number of things, no single one of which is sufficient to make the determination. We need to know that humans have frequented the area and when, whether or not those humans were capable of producing an artifact of this level as well as what tools they had to create the artifact. Of course the reason we singled out this particular rock from a host of others is because something about it looked out of place when compared to our knowledge of naturally occurring rocks.

When we apply this same methodology to the genome or to the 'information' being transmitted from the Sun to Earth it is of no help.

The only intelligent role model we have is ourselves. Currently, we can not create life from chemicals (if we could there would be no doubt that abiogenesis is possible). All we can do is substitute one gene for another, making us mechanics not true designers. This does not help us determine if the genome is designed or natural, as we have no knowledge of a designer on which to base our decision. Even if we extrapolate our own abilities into the future where we can produce a genome from scratch, the genome we create would only look out of place if we intentionally make it look so, or put our stamp on it. We do not see this in the genome, there are nothing but similarities; all genomes look to be 'in place'. Additionally, there are no tool marks that we recognize, we have no idea if a designer was available at the start, we have no idea of a putative designer's capabilities or his intent. Perhaps the designer intended on growing a loaf of bread and things got out of hand. Would that make the genome designed or a product of natural evolution? This may sound like a silly question, by my intent is to show the difficulty in design determination using our current methodology given that the capability and intent of the designer is unknown .

Your argument that the methodology used by archaeologists proves that ID can be scientific fails when considering the genome. ID needs to use some other methodology to determine design in something like the genome; it requires a methodology that can verify or falsify the ID hypothesis.

So far all ID has come up with is an argument from incredulity - the genome is too complex to be anything but designed -, Dembski's CSI and an inference engine that has been show to produce many false positives, and Behe's IC which has been shown to be an unfounded assumption and a simple restatement of the argument from incredulity.

ID as it stands right now is based on a false assumption - that nature cannot produce complexity that 'appears' to have intent. Much has to be fixed before ID can be considered a science.

[In all likelihood, biologists would realize rather quickly that the sequence was out of place, simply by comparing it to other pig genomes.]

Testable, falsifiable. So ID is, in this case, scientific.

You're missing the point. For the most part, the "ID movement" very carefully *avoids* making any testable hypotheses. And the few times it has, they have *already* been falsified.

This is *why* the ID folks are so reluctant to stake out any actual position, construct any actual theory. Until they do, ID isn't science, it's a mere belief.

In order to be taken seriously, and deserve a spot in classrooms, etc., the ID folks will have to BOTH come up with an actual scientific "theory of ID" (i.e., a system of explanations which both make testable predictions and which can potentially be falsified), *AND* have that theory be actually validated by having been tested against the evidence and found to be consistent with the evidence AS A WHOLE.

Until then, they can hold their breath until they turn blue, but that still won't make their unsupported (and for the most part religiously-based) beliefs into *science*. The IDers want to pretend that their notions are science, in order to dishonestly gain the respect that scientifically validated theories rightly have earned.

[You're missing the point. You're missing the point. For the most part, the "ID movement" very carefully *avoids* making any testable hypotheses. And the few times it has, they have *already* been falsified.]

1. I have the advantage of dealing with specifics, whereas you persist in generalities.

I have dealt with the specifics of "ID" many, many times. Don't pretend I haven't. I have earned the right to generalize about my findings.

2. If you're correct that certain ID hypotheses have been falsified, then the standard "it's not science because it can't be falsified" argument is self-evidently wrong.

Incorrect. What the IDers are left with after their few falsifiable claims have been thrown out (because they *have* been falsified) is indeed unfalsifiable.

There's no contradiction here. "ID" is a mish-mash of claims that have been proven false, *and* claims which are unfalsifiable. When we speak of ID being unfalsifiable, we're speaking of the latter, because that's what the ID folks are almost exclusively pushing these days.

My point was that every technique we currently use to identify design is based on the previously mentioned knowledge or the assumption that other 'alien' designers will create artifacts similar to ours.

And what's wrong with designing tests for an ID hypothesis based on similar assumptions? At worst, the test would have no power when applied to conditions that violate the assumption. Given that the putative designer would be working with the same laws we are, it's a reasonable starting spot.

ID is proposing that there is a method that will enable us to determine if the genome has evolved or if it has been designed. Before this methodology can be considered useful in any science it has to pass testing. Does it reliably provide true positives while minimizing or eliminating false positives? Can it be used to differentiate between natural and designed objects outside of the genome? Can it be used rigorously?

All good questions. A reasonable start on that front has been made for our example of the glow-in-the-dark pigs.

The ID hypothesis is not simply stating - 'it looks designed so it must be designed' - it is stating that there is a rigorous scientific method that can be used successfully in different circumstances.

True enough.

Don't pretend I haven't. I have earned the right to generalize about my findings

You don't have the right to do that when the topic of discussion is precisely opposed to your generality.

Incorrect. What the IDers are left with after their few falsifiable claims have been thrown out (because they *have* been falsified) is indeed unfalsifiable. Pshaw. You cannot have missed the logical contradiction in your claim. It's either possible to formulate falsifiable hypotheses for ID, or it's not. You say it's possible. The rest of your statement is, therefore, bluster. And then you go on and say it a different way:

There's no contradiction here. "ID" is a mish-mash of claims that have been proven false, *and* claims which are unfalsifiable.

Hmmm. Since falsifiability is allegedly the standard by which "science" is found, I fail to see how you can persist in your comments.

So, are you saying that since there are a lot of false one's; then NONE can be real??

No not at all. You have inferred what you would wish to be my thoughts. It can be simply stated. All religions have different beliefs otherwise they would be the same. Having these differences if one religion and its faith and belief is proved true then all others except the proved one would be proved false because of the difference. You would do well to study the religious philosophy that forms the logical foundation for religion and in particular the Christian religion and you might discover this is not a mispost but a thought and question that has been proposed by philosophers for hundreds or years. Religions survive or fail based on the philosophical proofs for and against their existence. What is amazing is that most remain unaware of the proofs presented for and against their religion and simply present opinion rather than studied religious philosophical thought that is either refuted or proved.

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.