Intelligent Design Grounded in Science

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."

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.

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."

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.

Evolution is not mathematically possible, too complex to have evolved by chance

How have you determined that it is not "mathematically possible"? Do you have a reference to the equations with justification for starting premises?

and where did the FIRST living cell come from?

Evolution does not care where the first living cell originated. All that matters is that a cell exists. Evolution does not depend on any specific method for a cell coming into existence, it only matters that the cell exists. Evolution starts after that cell (or those cells), thus the process by which that cell came to exist isn't relevant to the validity of the theory.

A theory is NOT a fact - no matter how many scientists study it - it is STILL not a fact.

The problem here is an apparent confusion on your part over the meaning of "theory" and "fact". A "fact" is simply a single statement of an observation. "It is raining" is a fact. "The ball fell when dropped" is a fact. Theories are far more complex than "facts". A "theory" is a general explanation for observed phenomenon. It is a complex series of statements that have been evaluated and used to make predictions that have borne out in testing in an attempt to explain an observed event -- essentially, a theory is an attempt to explain facts. Theories will never become facts. Comparing theories to facts is comparing apples and oranges. They are two different kinds of statements (well, one is a statement and another is a group of statements).

I do not understand the purpose for you to pound your head against the wall. I have never claimed that the theory of evolution is a fact. I understand that theories will never become "facts" because theories are far too complex to ever become something as simple as "fact".

It does seem that so many of the evos are atheists or agnostics. Not all, though.

I have no desire or compulsion to evangelize, agnosticise or atheize others.

However, I have respect for sincere folks who believe in God, as well as evolution, but they are wrong.

Well then, by your reckoning, I am wrong.

There is a difference between scientific proof and scientific theory.

This is true, but none of them demand to get into a church or the Bible.

"dsc failed to substantiate his assertion that "many if not most atheists hold up evolution as evidence or proof of the nonexistence of God"."

Depends on what you call substantiation.

I consider myself a responsible, objective observer of human behavior, and that is my observation.

Or, one might say, "All experience hath shewn" that many if not most atheists do that.

Since you don't seem to have been watching over the past twenty years, why don't you start now? The data will soon pile up.

If you were to ask me whether I prefer to trust my lying eyes or some study by birkenstock-wearing, tofu-chomping, limp-wristed, one-worlder gun-fearing pansy-assed chicken chocking globalist metrosexual twinkie-addled Subaru driving Starbucks-sipping Dixie Chicks-admiring godless unpatriotic pierced-nose France-loving left-wing Communist latte-sucking holistic-wacko neurotic vegan weenie pervert college professors, well, that's an easy one to answer.

"I do when I read the threats that exist between the lines of openly expressed hatred."

Oh, get over yourself. The only hatred here has been coming from your direction.

"One of hose who want to use the police power of the state to force the teaching of religious dogma as scientific possibility in a class that is, essentially, scientific speculation."

The use of the fossil record to support the proposition that life happened accidentally or through random events is religious dogma, and that is being taught every day.

Your problem is not with religious dogma per se, but with competing religious dogma. Otherwise, you wouldn't froth at the mouth at the mere thought of somebody poking his head into a classroom and saying, "By the way, a lot of us think God is behind it all."

"Evolutionary theory is perfectly willing to stay away from the church and out of the Bible"

Road apples. Evolutionary theory in support of atheism is one of the major weapons in the arsenal of those waging all-out war on Christianity.

"You ID's are on a "Jihad".

No, we're on a crusade in reaction to your jihad on Christianity.

"N'est-ce pas?"

Not even close. It's interesting how often those who hate Christianity are totally ignorant of even its most basic tenets.

"It's not too much of a leap to consider that you ID'ers would willingly use violence, if you could, to please your Deity"

It is as despicable, as scurrilous, as groundless, and as malicious as anything one might find on DU. It is grounded in a total misunderstanding of Christianty, combined with the unjustified and mindless attribution of negative attributes to Christians. In short, it is bigoted hatred arising from ignorance.

"Christianity is not a threat to Islam"

Christianity is most definitely a threat to Islam's design to subjugate the entire globe.

"Likewise Evolution is not Christianity's enemy, but Christians that promote Intelligent Design consider Evolution to be Christianity's enemy."

How in the world did you ever get so confused? Without evolution, there is no ID. The only difference between an atheist evolution proponent and an ID proponent is that the ID proponent says, "I believe that, to some unknown extent and at an unknown time or times, God influenced evolution."

To which the atheist evolution proponent replies, "Heresy! Heresy! Burn them at the stake! Silence them, at all costs."

"William Dembski may have more in common with Osama Bin Laden than he does with Jesus Christ."

Only in the moldy fever swamps inhabited by atheists who cannot tolerate dissent from their orthodoxy.

The Sun has a solid iron layer a few thousand km below a neon photosphere? Lessee, iron and iron alloys melt at less than 2K C but the Sun's surface is over 6K C. We can directly observe the outer parts of the Sun spectroscopically and it is not principally composed of neon.

Yes, it is bogus. I note with wry amusement that your linked PDF in turn links to http://www.ballofiron.com/ which has a "censored" graphic just above a link to a discussion with several hundred posts. Some people just get off on that victim-of-persecution thing.

There is no human species, there is man.

I beg to differ. I have been at the birthing of too many animals, and a few humans, to consider man other than another species. I do not feel any less because of it. Quite the contrary, I feel included in God's Creation because of the similarities. Furthermore, there is always a miraculous spirit present at the birth of a man or a beast that I must acknowledge. New life is a form of redemption. That Jesus was "born in a manger", (Luke 2:4-7) gives me comfort. Man may be a species given a heavenly cause, but man is a species nonetheless.

Man does evil in infinite names, and under infinite seductions.

Yes, Man is weak and prone to corruption of the flesh, body and mind. What man does, absent mental or physical pathology is his will. Sometimes free, sometimes influenced by ignorance or ideology or greed. I believe "ID" is the result of some portions of these last three corruptions.

On the contrary, it is you who needs to explain the desperate need for a hermetic seal on the science classroom, to explain what great harm would be done by allowing 30 to 45 seconds [??] a semester for a disclaimer to the effect that, "Some people think God is behind it all."

All you want is 30 to 45 seconds, huh? Yeah right!

I credit the majority of American children have a basic knowledge of the creation story in Genesis by the time that they are ready for biology. They should have learned it from their parents or in church by the time they are eight years old. You sell America's children short.

However, in rebuttal, would you then favor 30 to 45 seconds of an Evo announcing in each church, temple and mosque that "Some people think that man evolved, biologically, from other primates." I think not. Reciprocation is not an option with dogma. Venue and not subject IS the issue and not ID vs Evo.

On the contrary, it is you who needs to explain the desperate need for a hermetic seal on the science classroom, to explain what great harm would be done by allowing 30 to 45 seconds a semester for a disclaimer to the effect that, "Some people think God is behind it all."

This isn't what's being proposed. ID'ers want to interrupt class and tell students that science can't do anything right and then send them off to read a book full of nonsense.

Very little science is taught in public schools as it is. Undermining the little instruction that's left could put off impressionable kids form studying science at all.

If science were actually taught well in school we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

What do you think this statement says to a bunch of teenagers;

Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact," has inexplicable "gaps," and refers students to a textbook, "Of Pandas and People," for more information.

Especially since no one can say what the gaps are or what exactly is the evidence against evolution. And now Behe is backtracking on his "irreducible complexity" concept. And he claims that ID requires "no physical evidence".

How do you teach science without reference to any physical evidence???

"I credit the majority of American children have a basic knowledge of the creation story..."Some people think that man evolved, biologically, from other primates."

You need a scorecard. Can't tell the players without a scorecard.

My mother went to Catholic schools from 1917 to 1931, back in the day, and the nuns and priests taught her that the creation stories in Genesis are to be understood as allegories, not literal history, and that there is no conflict between the fossil record and Catholicism.

Atheists and believers are natural antagonists, as are evolution proponents and Biblical literalists.

However, it is not the case (as you seem to think) that all believers are natural antagonists of evolution proponents.

I have no problem with the application of scientific methods to the fossil record, or to most conclusions drawn as a result. I do have a problem with teaching young people that the fossil record demonstrates that there is no God.

Since the odds of atheists refraining from communicating that to their students are, for all practical purposes, zero, I'd like to see students exposed to the countervailing notion that many intelligent, educated, and sane people believe in God.

And that wouldn't take more than a few seconds a semester.

The only reason I can see for insisting on a hermetic seal on the classroom to prevent that from happening is that atheists want the opposition silenced.

"What do you think this statement says to a bunch of teenagers; Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact,"

Seems like teenagers would be old enough to understand the difference between a fact and a theory.

"has inexplicable "gaps,"

Are you seriously claiming that the theory of evolution has answered all questions?

"and refers students to a textbook, "Of Pandas and People," for more information."

I don't know what's in that book, but presuming for the sake of argument that it is not worthwhile, is it consonant with academic freedom to prevent people from recommending it? Surely the correct course is to advance reasoned argument showing why it is not worthwhile.

"Especially since no one can say what the gaps are"

Oh, now, the last time I looked responsible scientists admitted that questions remained.

"or what exactly is the evidence against evolution."

ID doesn't deny evolution.

"And he claims that ID requires "no physical evidence".

Why should it?

"How do you teach science without reference to any physical evidence???"

Who said belief in God was science?

On the other hand, lots of people seem to think that you can use science to throw doubt on the existence of God, and that isn't science either.

The only point of difference between ID and atheistic Darwinism is that the ID proponent says, "God is behind it all," and the atheist says, "No, He isn't." That's not a scientific dispute, much as atheists try to cloak themselves in the mantle of science. It's theology, on the part of the atheist as much as on the part of the believer.

If there were a way to keep both points of view out of the science classroom, I'd be content with that. However, there's not, and I don't think the classroom should be an exclusive preserve for proselytizing by atheists. If atheists are going to proselytize there, and they are, I want a few seconds too.

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.