Posted on 01/30/2006 9:40:22 AM PST by SirLinksalot
Intelligent design is not creationism
By Stephen C Meyer (Filed: 28/01/2006)
In 2004, the distinguished philosopher Antony Flew of the University of Reading made worldwide news when he repudiated a lifelong commitment to atheism and affirmed the reality of some kind of a creator. Flew cited evidence of intelligent design in DNA and the arguments of "American [intelligent] design theorists" as important reasons for this shift.
Since then, British readers have learnt about the theory of intelligent design (ID) mainly from media reports about United States court battles over the legality of teaching students about it. According to most reports, ID is a "faith-based" alternative to evolution based solely on religion.
But is this accurate? As one of the architects of the theory, I know it isn't.
Contrary to media reports, ID is not a religious-based idea, but an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins. According to Darwinian biologists such as Oxford University's Richard Dawkins, living systems "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose".
But, for modern Darwinists, that appearance of design is illusory, because the purely undirected process of natural selection acting on random mutations is entirely sufficient to produce the intricate designed-like structures found in living organisms.
By contrast, ID holds that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by a designing intelligence. The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it disputes Darwin's idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected.
What signs of intelligence do design advocates see?
In recent years, biologists have discovered an exquisite world of nanotechnology within living cells - complex circuits, sliding clamps, energy-generating turbines and miniature machines. For example, bacterial cells are propelled by rotary engines called flagellar motors that rotate at 100,000rpm. These engines look like they were designed by engineers, with many distinct mechanical parts (made of proteins), including rotors, stators, O-rings, bushings, U-joints and drive shafts.
The biochemist Michael Behe points out that the flagellar motor depends on the co-ordinated function of 30 protein parts. Remove one of these proteins and the rotary motor doesn't work. The motor is, in Behe's words, "irreducibly complex".
This creates a problem for the Darwinian mechanism. Natural selection preserves or "selects" functional advantages as they arise by random mutation. Yet the flagellar motor does not function unless all its 30 parts are present. Thus, natural selection can "select" the motor once it has arisen as a functioning whole, but it cannot produce the motor in a step-by-step Darwinian fashion.
Natural selection purportedly builds complex systems from simpler structures by preserving a series of intermediates, each of which must perform some function. With the flagellar motor, most of the critical intermediate structures perform no function for selection to preserve. This leaves the origin of the flagellar motor unexplained by the mechanism - natural selection - that Darwin specifically proposed to replace the design hypothesis.
Is there a better explanation? Based on our uniform experience, we know of only one type of cause that produces irreducibly complex systems: intelligence. Whenever we encounter complex systems - whether integrated circuits or internal combustion engines - and we know how they arose, invariably a designing intelligence played a role.
Consider an even more fundamental argument for design. In 1953, when Watson and Crick elucidated the structure of the DNA molecule, they made a startling discovery. Strings of precisely sequenced chemicals called nucleotides in DNA store and transmit the assembly instructions - the information - in a four-character digital code for building the protein molecules the cell needs to survive. Crick then developed his "sequence hypothesis", in which the chemical bases in DNA function like letters in a written language or symbols in a computer code. As Dawkins has noted, "the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like".
The informational features of the cell at least appear designed. Yet, to date, no theory of undirected chemical evolution has explained the origin of the digital information needed to build the first living cell. Why? There is simply too much information in the cell to be explained by chance alone.
The information in DNA (and RNA) has also been shown to defy explanation by forces of chemical necessity. Saying otherwise would be like saying a headline arose as the result of chemical attraction between ink and paper. Clearly, something else is at work.
DNA functions like a software program. We know from experience that software comes from programmers. We know that information - whether, say, in hieroglyphics or radio signals - always arises from an intelligent source. As the pioneering information theorist Henry Quastler observed: "Information habitually arises from conscious activity." So the discovery of digital information in DNA provides strong grounds for inferring that intelligence played a causal role in its origin.
Thus, ID is not based on religion, but on scientific discoveries and our experience of cause and effect, the basis of all scientific reasoning about the past. Unlike creationism, ID is an inference from biological data.
Even so, ID may provide support for theistic belief. But that is not grounds for dismissing it. Those who do confuse the evidence for the theory with its possible implications. Many astrophysicists initially rejected the Big Bang theory because it seemed to point to the need for a transcendent cause of matter, space and time. But science eventually accepted it because the evidence strongly supported it.
Today, a similar prejudice confronts ID. Nevertheless, this new theory must also be evaluated on the basis of the evidence, not philosophical preferences. As Professor Flew advises: "We must follow the evidence, wherever it leads."
Stephen C Meyer edited 'Darwinism, Design and Public Education' (Michigan State University Press). He has a PhD in philosophy of science from Cambridge University and is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle
Intelligent Design is not Intelligent..
If the courts have their way this will never be discussed in a science classroom
Well, I got as far as this dishonest assertion, which is the sun total of ID.
What do you mean? Why not?
> If the courts have their way this will never be discussed in a science classroom
Let's re-write that so it's accurate:
"If the parents who care about their childrens educations have their way this will never be discussed in a science classroom"
There. That's better.
Definitely does not.
It is a chemical and acts like a chemical.
But the "Antony Flew ID" (for lack of a better term) is not about evolution, it is about cosmology, physics and chemistry. It is not something that you would ever teach in place of or alongside with evolution. You might teach it in a "Philosophy of Science" class though.
TRANSLATION: "We will continue to beat this dead horse, come hell or high water."
We should be convinced by this succinct and eloquent exposition that Intelligent Design should be taught in every high school and your summation is the best I have yet encountered. Many thanks from a Christian Conservative whose Faith is even yet capable of an upgrade when reviewing your post!
<<<<
If the parents who care about their childrens educations have their way this will never be discussed in a science classroom"
There. That's better.
<<<<<
SIMPLE SOLUTION. LETS HAVE A SCHOOL VOTE INSTEAD OF A COURT CASE. NOT ONLY IN DOVER, BUT KANSAS AND ELSEWHERE.
IF THE CASE EVER GETS PRESENTED TO THE COURTS, A GOOD JUDGE WOULD SAY --- GO BACK TO THE BALLOT BOX WHERE IT BELONGS. THIS COURT DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH SCHOOL CURRICULUMS.
No, but it threatens the intellectual underpinnings of atheism. Therefore, the ideologues must equate it with Creationism and lead their devoted but duped followers in furiously chanting that mantra.
There is nothing scientific about ID so any attempt to paint it that way is a failure from the start.
The assertion that various cited examples are "irreducibly complex" also represents a failure, but in this case a failure to understand.
ID is nothing more than an opinion put forth by those who don't/can't understand evolution or those who refuse to for personal reasons.
I don't mind this being taught in schools, however. There are ample "comparative theology" classes in which it belongs.
There is simply too much information in the cell to be explained by chance alone.
Counter argumments are reduced to an irrational non-sequitar: "The coded information is there, so that proves it arose by chance, regardless how infinitely remote."
But it's so much easier to say "evolution did it!"
Note that there's nothing wrong with the definition of "irreducible complexity" per se. The assertion of biologists today is that the collection of irreducibly complex features is empty, and so far they're winning the debate. The example of the bacterial flagellum, for example, has already been answered.
So it is entirely possible for a scientist to look high and low for "irreducible complexity", and yet be perfectly scientific in his endeavor. What makes folks like Behe unscientific is that they ignore evidence when it runs counter to their views.
Sons high school debate topic bump
At least they should be teaching the controversies related to TOE. That would be a good start.
Calling all Communist Evolutionaries and Saganists to the barricades! The Christian Crusaders and other believers in archaic ideas are on the march again! Evolution will not be televised! Defend the Dogma!
I've come to the conclusion that the main problem of attempts to formulate intelligent design as a scientific theory stems from the lack of a scientific theory of intelligence. Of course there are such things--they are important for work on AI--they just haven't been applied.
The amusing thing is, once one starts to think of it in that way, one is struck by the possibility that rather than being contradictory, the neo-Darwinian synthesis may actually imply intelligent design (much to the distress of both atheists and six-day literalists who want ID to be the camel's nose under the tent): do a Google search for "Genetic algorithms" (the much vaunted proof that complexity of function can arise by a Darwinian mechanism), and the first hit is an archive run by The Naval Center for Applied Research in Artificial Intelligence.
It really is a pity for science that the issue has become dogmatized--interplay between work on scientific theories of intelligence and the Darwinian paradigm might lead to something interesting (like a better TOE, less prone to spinning 'just so' stories, with a good 'theory of fitness', and maybe even the discovery of actual mechanisms behind variation.)
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.