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.

[Elsie]

Are you trying to emulate Coyoteman and his creation stories?

[Elsie]

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."

How is this UNLIKE the tweaking of the ToE when new data surfaces?

[Elsie]

Be prepared!

;^)

[DoctorMichael]

Kudos to you!.........For your immeasureable patience in dealing with these falsehoods, canards, lies, untruths, fabrications, distortions, prevarications, evasions, and down-right deceptions that are part-and-parcel of the whack-job ID/Creationist line.

[PatrickHenry]

Only among "ID" is [sic] the consequences of a professional lapse mislabeled as "persecution".

But for a minor grammar glitch resulting from hasty posting, your remark is most excellent.

[VadeRetro]

So you're really not that cool with people having enquiring minds unless they're questioning evolution.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

*snicker*

[PMCarey]

String theory is in this position now--it shows the potential to answer questions, and they are working on a new accelerator which may be able to test the theory. In the meantime, it is building up its case, which may eventually be supported (or not).

The comparison with String theory is a good one because for several years String theory had not advanced to the point where it could make verifable predictions. One of the arguments at that time for String theory was the theory's beauty and simplicity. Beauty and simplicity are very nice things to have in a theory, but they do not, by themselves, constitute proof.

ID is not scientific because it cannot be tested or falsified. Nor can it said to be a new theory. It's as old as mankind, dating back to the first human who, upon encountering a phenomenom that he or she could not explain, said that "God did it".

[RogueIsland]

I find it perfectly reasonable that they should be able to follow whatever lines of inquiry shows promise.

Fine with me. I wish they'd just get on with it instead of whining about how badly they've been mistreated by those mean ol' scientists and about how, no, they've not personally done any experiments related to ID due to their pressing book tour and speaking schedules, but somebody who has the time probably should look into the possiblility of maybe considering coming up with some sort of experiment.

[Dimensio]

Thanks for remininding me that I forgot to link to solid evidence of your past dishonesty wherein you 1) lied about Antony Flew in claiming that he rejected evolution and then 2) lied about mentioning Antony Flew in the first place.

Any FR creationists want to come in and try to explain why nmh wasn't lying in my above example? Or condemn him for it? Or are all of you FR creationists just going to jump in and cheerlead for a well-established liar because you don't dare admit that any creationist ever makes a mistake?

[Just mythoughts]

You still have your RIGHTS endowed by the CREATOR that no TOE/scientists can take!!!!

[dsc]

"whack-job ID/Creationist line."

Well, there it is in a nutshell.

I've been watching these threads for quite some time now, but I'm not going to any more.

Underneath all the sturm und drang, the froth and rogue waves, the high-flown rhetoric, accusations and counter-charges, insults and ripostes, it comes down to one thing.

Some people want it to be okay to tell schoolchildren, "Belief in God is a valid viewpoint. Many intelligent, educated, reasonable people believe in God. Others, of course, do not, but belief in God does not brand one as a whacko, or indicate a lack of intelligence or education."

Other people, seemingly, would kill their grandmothers to keep that from happening.

Simple as that.

[Dimensio]

Over time such HYPOTHESES and THEORIES can be shown to be so universally operative, so durable in their application, that their explanatory value has the influence of a LAW (like the laws of gravity, thermodynamics, etc.).

You've got it wrong here. Theories do not become laws. Theories and laws are two different kinds of explanations in science. Theories are general explanations of the cause of observed phenomenon, while laws simply describe observed patterns of phenomenon that are useful for predicting events in the future. For example, the "Law" of gravity is simply a mathematical formula for calculating the resulting force of gravitational attraction between two objects. It's useful for predicting certain orbits, though it should be noted that Newton's Universal Law of Gravity is actually falsified and fails to work on certain scales. The theory of gravity, also known as general relativity theory, is an attempt to explain exactly why two objects produce a resultant gravitational force -- or rather why gravitational force exists in the first place. Theories never become laws, because they don't make the same kinds of statements as laws.

Now, if you have any positive evidence for Intelligent Design it can be evaluated, but thus far the only thing I've ever seen is argument from incredulity, often based upon faulty claims of "irreducable complexity" that have already been debunked.

[Dimensio]

Some people want it to be okay to tell schoolchildren, "Belief in God is a valid viewpoint. Many intelligent, educated, reasonable people believe in God. Others, of course, do not, but belief in God does not brand one as a whacko, or indicate a lack of intelligence or education."

To which "God", out of the thousands worshipped and acknowledged throughout human history do you refer and why. Also, why do you think that this statement has any relevance in a science classroom?

[King Prout]

just so long as you don't start into "I am the very model of a modern major general"

I'd have to burn you at the stake for that

[DoctorMichael]

......there it is in a nutshell......

Thanks! I've always believed in succinctness.

[dsc]

"To which "God", out of the thousands worshipped and acknowledged throughout human history do you refer and why."

I shouldn't. I really shouldn't. But I really want to, so I will.

Suppose you were teaching a class of retarded second graders, and one said, "If it's really gravity that makes things fall, how come a feather falls slower than a bowling ball? A-hyuk, A-hyuk, boy, I got him now."

Well, I reacted to your question just about the same way most curmudgeons would react in the circumstance above. Your question would have to be significantly better just to rise to the level of "wrong."

It's as misguided as assuming, because a mountain looks different in various weather conditions and from different angles and distances, that one must be looking at many different mountains.

It shows that you know and understand even less about that subject than your despised "crevos" know about science.

"Also, why do you think that this statement has any relevance in a science classroom?"

Equal time. No, not even equal time; just a moment in a year.

[VadeRetro]

Fine. I'll mull over "If someday it may happen that a victim must be found" (Mikado) or maybe "When I was a lad" (Pinafore) for my next onslaught.

[Dimensio]

Suppose you were teaching a class of retarded second graders, and one said, "If it's really gravity that makes things fall, how come a feather falls slower than a bowling ball? A-hyuk, A-hyuk, boy, I got him now."

I don't quite see how this is even remotely analagous. There are multiple variants of what "God" is, and there are a number of religions that don't refer to their deity as "God" or have multiple deities or none at all.

Equal time. No, not even equal time; just a moment in a year.

Equal time for what? Why does non-science deserve equal time in a science classroom? Does non-math deserve equal time in a math classroom? Should we give a mention of French, Spanish and every other foreign language in an English class? Why not save those subjects for an appropriate classroom?

Moreover, you're misrepresenting the objection. No one has proposed simply mentioning that there are people who believe in a "God" and that such people are sane. There's no reason for that: no one is currently teaching in schools that God-belief is somehow irrational. In fact, there's no point because the majority of the US population -- and this would proportionally include schoolchildren -- are already theists. People are proposing mentioning that there are those who don't believe that evolution is valid science, and unless you believe that accepting evolution is synonymous with atheism (and I've made it clear exactly what I think of people who make that false equivocation) those are two different statements. Do we take time out for every scientific theory to make note of the fact that there are cranks with their own "alternative" explanation that doesn't rise to the level of science? And why did you bring God into it when God was never the subject of the objection?

[dsc]

"I don't quite see how this is even remotely analagous."

I know, and that's sad, but the fact is that it's very closely analogous.

"Moreover, you're misrepresenting the objection."

No, I just cut to the heart of it.

"no one is currently teaching in schools that God-belief is somehow irrational."

If I were gullible enough to believe that, I'd probably be a liberal.

"People are proposing mentioning that there are those who don't believe that evolution is valid science"

However, ID proponents are not among them. The way ID proponents are demonized on these threads is by declaring them nothing more than crevos in disguise.

"and unless you believe that accepting evolution is synonymous with atheism (and I've made it clear exactly what I think of people who make that false equivocation) those are two different statements."

No, that's not right either. I don't reject the fossil record, while I do believe in God. It's entirely plausible to me that He might have used evolution to get where He was going.

The crux of the matter is that many if not most atheists hold up evolution as evidence or proof of the nonexistence of God, and they don't want any interference.

"Do we take time out for every scientific theory to make note of the fact that there are cranks with their own "alternative" explanation that doesn't rise to the level of science?"

So, people who believe in God are cranks, are we? That attitude is exactly the reason that time is needed to advocate the contrary position.

"And why did you bring God into it when God was never the subject of the objection?"

Sure He is. You can throw up all the smokescreens you want, but the fact is that many "scientists" are driven to paroxyms of hysteria by the thought that someone might just poke his head into a classroom and say, "And we think God was behind it all."