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.

[Liberty Wins]

Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Ramapithecus, and Australopithecus are names affectionately given to some of the jawbones, teeth and other fragmentary pieces of bones claimed to be the ancestor of Homo Sapiens and later recognized as hoaxes or mistakes.

The accepted body of knowledge about evolution may be vast, but what do we really know about the ancestor of man? So far, just a lot of dead-end branches of the chimp family.

The paleontologists squabble among themselves even more than Freepers. Mary Leaky said about Donald Johanson, the discoverer of "Lucy," that his work was "not very scientific," and Johanson responded that Mary Leaky "really shows a poor appreciation of what evolution is all about."

[moog]

Why are everyone's sentences going on and on without the wordwrap--I know there has been some changes, but even with wordwrap on, the posts come out longer than my screen.

[RadioAstronomer]

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

Funny you mention that. I rate ID on the same level (pun intended) as the proposal of a flat earth.

[moog]

Of course, I was putting out another dumb one-liner as I am wont to do many times.

[moog]

The paleontologists squabble among themselves even more than Freepers. I think there's a lot of people in a lot of areas just looking for an argument. Sometimes I fall into that category, though usually, I am one that does not solicit such. I don't think there's anything wrong with having good discussions, it's when it gets down into name-calling and such that I don't like it.

I should know, it's happened to me quite a bit with all of the dumb remarks that I make:).

[Coyoteman]

Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Ramapithecus, and Australopithecus are names affectionately given to some of the jawbones, teeth and other fragmentary pieces of bones claimed to be the ancestor of Homo Sapiens and later recognized as hoaxes or mistakes.

Here are some additional "jawbones, teeth and other fragmentary pieces of bones" for your amusement and edification.

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

[moog]

same level (pun intended) as the proposal of a flat earth. That "levels" the playing field I suppose.

[nanomid]

It doesn't affect reality, or if it does, it does so in no predictable or useful ways.

And here, exactly, is where the argument begins and ends.

A theory T and some amount of works associates a probability P with using T in some translation of the experimental settings with which P was associated with T.
(using the Universe U as a random variable, which it is not, of course.)

The is the only way to state reliability in any quasi-formal or better manner.

What is EVO other than proving that the Universe is stingy? duh. How many more settings (future/past) can it be reliable in? How can we reliably test EVO this instant?

What if the Universe has a heavy-tail distribution with regards to many of the large scale complex systems within which most of the metrics of Life live?

[moog]

I wondered what happened to my great, great, great, great grandpa Bill.:)

[Central Scrutiniser]

What a steaming pile...

[nanomid]

dunno

[moog]

A theory T and some amount of works associates a probability P with using T in some translation of the experimental settings with which P was associated with T.
(using the Universe U as a random variable, which it is not, of course.)

Those PTU's can get pretty hot.

[moog]

It's driving me nuts:).

[moog]

What a steaming pile...

You must like "hot dogs."

[VadeRetro]

"Sniffing crazy glue" is one I don't see on there.

[moog]

Oh goody another ID / EVO thread

I come here for the entertainment too. I can't resist it sometimes. This time I got a little too involved in the "discussion" (if you can call my comments being a discussion:).

[moog]

Sniffing crazy glue" is one I don't see on there.

I prefer the cheap Elmer's kind.

[Liberty Wins]

Thanks for the darling pics of all the skulls. However, that doesn't make me feel any better. Will the paleos never stop trying to make apes into men?

[JNL]

Same with me I read every thread, its somewhat like a trainwreck. (you just can't help but look)

[PatrickHenry]

"Sniffing crazy glue" is one I don't see on there.

I'm watching the thread to add at least another row. I had forgotten to include Marx, for example.