Intelligent Design Grounded in Science

CBN ^ | November 2005 | By Gailon Totheroh

[NYer]

CBN.com – SEATTLE, Washington - The Dover, Pennsylvania school board is on trial in the state capitol. Their crime? They wanted to tell high school students once a year that evolution is only a theory. They also wanted to mention an alternate theory: Intelligent Design, or ID.

That was too much for some parents. They sued, claiming ID is religious and therefore illegal in school. The judge will decide the case in the next few weeks.

So is ID really just religion in disguise? Do both biology and astronomy support ID? And who are these people promoting ID?

To answer those questions, we went to the Discovery Institute in Seattle, the major proponents of ID.

Dr. Stephen Meyer is the head of Discovery's Center for Science and Culture. He says to ban design theory as mere religion is wrong.

"And in fact,” Meyer said, “it's a science-based argument that may have implications that are favorable to a theistic worldview, but the argument is based on scientific evidence."

But perhaps these ID experts are not really reputable?

Mayer stated, "These are people with serious academic training. They are Ph.D.s from very, not just reputable -- but elite -- institutions. And they are people doing research on the key pressure points in biology and physics, and so their arguments are based on cutting-edge knowledge of developments in science."

So what is the evidence from researchers like biochemist Dr. Michael Behe, a Ph.D. graduate of the University of Pennsylvania and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute?

He is an expert on a special kind of bacteria called flagella. Inside the bacteria are exquisitely engineered ‘inboard motors’ that spin at an amazing 100,000 revolutions per minute.

Darwin said that such complexity must have developed piece by piece. Behe said that is bunk. All the pieces must be in place at the same time or the motorized tails would never work.

Darwin's gradual theory has no good explanation for that -- ID does.

Behe makes the case for ID in a video called "Unlocking the Mystery of Life." The video’s narrator declares, “A thimbleful of liquid can contain four million single-celled bacteria, each packed with circuits, assembly instructions, and molecular machines..."

"There are little molecular trucks that carry supplies from one end of the cell to the other,” Behe explained. “There are machines that capture the energy from sunlight, and turn it into usable energy."

ID experts say the more you know about biology -- and some of the weird creatures like this island lizard -- the worse it gets for Darwinism.

Consider the workings of the genetic code. That code produces all kinds of molecular machines, plus all the other components of life. ID advocates say that to believe those components are just Darwinian accidents takes a blind faith in the creativity of dumb molecules.

So with growing evidence of ID, isn't Lehigh University proud of this cutting-edge scientist who teaches there—and wrote the 1996 bestseller "Darwin's Black Box?" Hardly.

In August, all the other (22) biology faculty members came out with a political statement on the department's Web site. They stated that "Intelligent design has no basis in science."

But they cited no evidence, and made no references to any scientific research.

Dr. John West, a political scientist at Seattle Pacific University, is senior fellow at Discovery Institute. He says these political responses to scientific issues are getting nasty.

West remarked that "hate speech, speech codes, outright persecution, and discrimination is taking place on our college campuses, in our school districts, against both students and teachers and faculty members."

In fact, universities are evolving into centers for censorship. Five years ago, Baylor University dismissed mathematician Dr. William Dembski from his position, primarily because he headed a center for ID there.

This September, the University of Idaho banned any dissent against evolution from science classes -- a slam on university biologist Dr. Scott Minnich, a noted supporter of ID.

"The school seems to be confusing where it's at,” West said. “Is it in Moscow, Idaho, or the old Moscow, Russia? ...in issuing this edict that…no view differing form evolution can be taught in any science class."

And at Iowa State University, more than 100 faculty members have signed a petition against ID -- an apparent political attempt to intimidate ISU astronomer Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez because he writes about ID.

Gonalez is, in fact, co-author with philosopher Dr. Jay Richards of "The Privileged Planet." Both scholars are also connected with the Discovery Institute.

The book and related video argue that astronomy also shows evidence of design. For instance, the earth has numerous aspects just right for our existence.

Gonzalez explained, "...We find that we need to be at the right location in the galaxy...that we're in the circumstellar habitable zone of our star (correct distance from the sun)...that we're in a planetary system with giant planets that can shield the inner planets from too many comet impacts...that we're orbiting the right kind of star -- it's not too cool and not too hot.”

These are just four of 20 some characteristics of earth that make our planet unique -- right for life, right for discovery by human science.

Richards said, "So you have life and the conditions for discovery happening at the same places. That, to us, suggests that there is something more than a cosmic lottery going on. That sounds like a conspiracy rather than a mere coincidence. So that to me is a tie-breaker in the question."

And there is more -- the finely-tuned underlying rules of the universe-- or physical constants. One of them is gravity. But what if gravity were not constant?

A film clip from Privileged Planet says: "Imagine a machine able to control the strength of each of the physical constants. If you changed even slightly from its current setting, the strength of any of these fundamental forces -- such as gravity -- the impact on life would be catastrophic."

In plain terms, a bit more gravity would mean any creature larger than the size of a pea would be crushed into nothing. And a little less gravity would mean that the Earth would come unglued and fly off into space.

But Darwinism has been maintaining that advanced life is easy to produce all over the universe.

"Almost everything we've learned in the area of astrobiology suggests that, 'Look, this is just not going to happen very often' -- now that might be sort of depressing for script writers for sci-fi movies, but that's where the evidence is taking us," Richards said.

Despite the attacks on ID, Meyer said the design interpretation of the evidence is exposing Darwinism as a theory in crisis:

"I think we're reaching the critical point where Darwinism is going be seen as simply inadequate,” Meyer asserted, “ -- and therefore the question of (intelligent) design is back on the table."

Just as this city of Seattle has all the earmarks of ID, so does nature, except that nature is infinitely more intricate.

[moog]

Evolution is an impressive creation. Too bad you can't appreciate it's glory. Umm....You've got me wrong there and obviously haven't read my other posts. Geezzz.. why are there so many people looking for some kind of argument from me???? I DO appreciate evolution and science as I've said many times here. I regard science as our way of explaining God's processes. Those who like to ridicule science forget that because of it, we have the things that we do.

I think that you made a good point too. There are THOUSANDS of creation theories out there. To present all of them would be "interesting" to say the least. I said earlier, that even in my Sunday school class there were 10 different versions of the creation by 10 different people. Which one should we teach?

Man, I never knew that in trying not to get into arguments that people would want to argue with me so much.

[moog]

I am wondering why evolution has not received more acceptance, since it has been taught in public schools for more than half a century.

Religious concepts go deep with a lot of people. However, that does not mean that a lot of people have completely rejected science either. I've been able to find a balance as have many others.

[moog]

I hate to inform you like this, but the Easter Bunny is dead. Yes, dead! It was beheaded by a group of Christian Fundamentalists who accused the rabbit as being a form of idolatry and paganism. The video of the tortuous decapitation of the Easter Bunny was shown on the 700 Club.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

I can't even imagine what happened to the tooth fairy!!! Maybe he got destroyed in the Dover hurricane.

Nice to see someone else with a sense of humor:O)

[Liberty Wins]

Evolution serves well as a temporary framework to categorize plants and animals in nature. However, the speculation and guesswork used in figuring out what went on eons ago should not be accepted as final proof, in my opinion. The work of some paleontologists has holes you could drive a truck through.

[moog]

Ooops, forgot the wordwrap.

[edsheppa]

OTOH Evolutonary Theory is based on interpetion of the fossil record and cannot be used to predict future evolution.

That is wrong in two ways. First, the theory is based on much more than fossil record interpretation. Second, evolutionary does make predictions.

I think it would be fair to say that we do not yet have the means to make detailed predictions in even moderately complex ecologies.

[TAdams8591]

"And in fact,” Meyer said, “it's a science-based argument that may have implications that are favorable to a theistic worldview, but the argument is based on scientific evidence."

Exactly! Both theories are based in science. Students have a right to learn both theories and decide for themselves.

People are overreacting to ID as if it is proposing a return to the belief the world is flat.

[King Prout]

don't mistake me - on grounds other than science I believe that the Universe (multiverse?) has a master and designer.

in terms of the Grand Scheme Of Things I would be considered some form of creationist/IDer.

on the smaller scale, however, the naturalistic mechanisms are undeniable, and introducing mysicism into the natural sciences is folly.

[edsheppa]

...intelligent design is ... only a hypothesis.

I don't think it even rises to the level of a scientific hypothesis. For it to be such, there would need to be a pretty clear path for developing it into a theory. I have yet to hear any such thing from the ID crowd.

[moog]

Evolution serves well as a temporary framework to categorize plants and animals in nature. However, the speculation and guesswork used in figuring out what went on eons ago should not be accepted as final proof, in my opinion. The work of some paleontologists has holes you could drive a truck through.

Would our SUV fit through them? :) I've always maintained that NOBODY knows everything that happened for sure. We can attempt to explain some of it, but we can't say everything. That includes us creationists too. Evolution works well to explain a lot of things--especially from a scientific point of view. Creationism works to explain things from a personal faith-based view.

[moog]

don't mistake me - on grounds other than science I believe that the Universe (multiverse?) has a master and designer. in terms of the Grand Scheme Of Things I would be considered some form of creationist/IDer. on the smaller scale, however, the naturalistic mechanisms are undeniable, and introducing mysicism into the natural sciences is folly.

I think you make some good points. And my flagellate says that too:).

[moog]

For it to be such, there would need to be a pretty clear path for developing it into a theory.

True, because it is faith-based, it is hard to develop it into such a path.

[elbucko]

Nice to see someone else with a sense of humor:O)

Same here..................;^)

[Liberty Wins]

" . . . a lot of people have completely rejected science"

Not wholeheartedly embracing evolutionary theories isn't the same thing as "rejecting science."

Some of us might be lukewarm about a very small part of the scientific community, but we'd be fools to throw out our computers, wouldn't we?.

[moog]

Same here..................;^)

I actually used to go out and see the red airplane lights and think that it was Rudolph. One time I threw a Christmas party into an uproar when I burst inside and screamed that I had seen Rudolph. But I "evolved" later and forgot my "creation.":)

[King Prout]

by the same token, physicists do not yet have the means to make "detailed" predictions concerning so simple a physical event as the detonation of a simple single-stage fission bomb.

just as biologists cannot predict where and when specific genes will change, but can statistically predict quantity of change in a given timeframe under known conditions... so are physicists incapable of predicting which atoms will split into what decay product, in what sequence, which neutrons will be shed, etc - but CAN predict total fissile yield quite accurately.

[Zechariah11]

Video’s are

Say what?

[Ichneumon]

Then what are you going to permit to be taught in biology class, that the stork brings babies?

Ovulation versus cretinism

Two different theories exist concerning the origin of children: the theory of sexual reproduction, and the theory of the stork. Many people believe in the theory of sexual reproduction because they have been taught this theory at school.

In reality, however, many of the world's leading scientists are in favour of the theory of the stork. If the theory of sexual reproduction is taught in schools, it must only be taught as a theory and not as the truth. Alternative theories, such as the theory of the stork, must also be taught.

Evidence supporting the theory of the stork includes the following:

1. It is a scientifically established fact that the stork does exist. This can be confirmed by every ornithologist.

2. The alleged human foetal development contains several features that the theory of sexual reproduction is unable to explain.

3. The theory of sexual reproduction implies that a child is approximately nine months old at birth. This is an absurd claim. Everyone knows that a newborn child is newborn.

4. According to the theory of sexual reproduction, children are a result of sexual intercourse. There are, however, several well documented cases where sexual intercourse has not led to the birth of a child.

5. Statistical studies in the Netherlands have indicated a positive correlation between the birth rate and the number of storks. Both are decreasing.

6. The theory of the stork can be investigated by rigorous scientific methods. The only assumption involved is that children are delivered by the stork.

(Original version by Erkki Aalto, Dept. of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Stork Science, University of Helsinki --- English version by Jopi Louko, Institute of Stork Research, University of Alberta)

[moog]

Some of us might be lukewarm about a very small part of the scientific community, but we'd be fools to throw out our computers, wouldn't we?. Yep. Actually, I should modify it a bit. While I don't see some completely rejecting all science much, I do see some rejecting science generally (so to speak) because of issues like ID/evolution. We should be grateful to those dedicated scientists out there who have made it possible for our lives to be easier. We should be thankful for those who have fought/fight for our freedoms too. We should also be thankful for the things that God has given us.

It's my personal belief that God inspires certain scientists in making new discoveries. I'm not going to say which--because that is another thing entirely.

[Liberty Wins]

Behe, Demski, Meyer and others have all stated unequivocably that their work is not faith-based. They have never made claims that God was the "designer."

Please do not represent ID as being "faith-based," and we can all get along in a calmer atmosphere.