*************************************************************************************
Chapter One
Defining Intelligent Design
Imagine that you are serving as a juror in a murder trial. As the prosecuting and defense attorneys prepare to present their evidence, the judge announces that only the defense attorney can present evidence in favor of the defendant. Will you hear an accurate and complete presentation of the evidence? Of course not! Yet, this is exactly the situation that students experience today as teachers are silenced in the classrooms from presenting scientific evidence that refutes the theory of evolution.
The purpose of this guide is to introduce students to the intelligent design theory – the scientific alternative to evolution. This guide will
Ø Discuss what the intelligent design theory is – and is not
Ø Briefly trace the history of the design argument
Ø Discuss methods used to detect intelligent design
Ø Give examples of design
Ø Address evolutionists’ arguments against the intelligent design theory.
What is the theory of intelligent design?
The question every person eventually asks is “how did life begin?” The three possibilities that explain the origin of life are
Ø Natural laws
Ø Chance
Ø Intelligent design.
The evolutionary theory says that natural laws and chance alone created life (Harris and Calvert 2003). Intelligent design, “the science that studies signs of intelligence” (Dembski 2003a, p 1), says that life can be a result of all three possibilities – natural laws, chance, and design. To demonstrate how these possibilities can work together, consider what happens when someone tosses a coin. The decision to toss a coin is an act of intelligence. How the coin falls is according to a natural law – the law of gravity. The result of the coin toss (heads or tails) is left to chance (Harris and Calvert 2003).
According to Harris and Calvert (2003), many scientists have concluded – based on studying and observing the complexity in the natural world – that intelligent action best explains the origin of the universe.
While intelligent design looks for signs of intelligence in objects, it does not identify the designer’s purpose (Dembski 2003a).
Is the Theory of Intelligent Design the Same as Creationism?
We understand that designed objects – such as cars – have a designer. When we observe objects in nature that show signs of design, we can reasonably conclude that these designed objects have a designer, too. Many identify this designer as God. Does this then imply that the intelligent design theory is the same as creationism – a theory that identifies the designer as God? Although many scientists today claim that intelligent design theory is creationism, it is not.
The intelligent design theory does not name the designer (Luskin 2001). Intelligent design is not a religion, and does not refer to religious texts such as the Bible. Creationism defends a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation and supports a young Earth theory. The intelligent design theory does not (West 2002). In Uncommon Dissent, Dembski defines creationism as “a literal interpretation of Genesis in which God through special acts of creation brings the biophysical universe into existence in six literal twenty-four hour days, somewhere in the last several thousand years” (2004b, p xxiii).
The following illustrates the differences between creationism and intelligent design:
Creationism
Identifies designer as God
Defends literal interpretation of Genesis
Supports young Earth model
Intelligent Design
Does not identify designer
Makes no reference to religious texts
Accepts an older Earth model
Why are evolutionists labeling the intelligent design theory as “intelligent design creationism”? Ronald Numbers, University of Wisconsin historian of science, is critical of the intelligent design theory; however, he explains that mislabeling intelligent design as intelligent design creationism is the “easiest way to discredit intelligent design” (West 2002, p 1).
Has intelligent design always been sharply criticized by scientists? In the next chapter, we will briefly trace the history of intelligent design and answer this question.
4 comments:
I don't understand the difference between "natural laws" and "chance"?
Is chance unnatural. Isn't a 50/50 coin toss chance because of natural laws?
Is your intelligent designer natural or supernatural?
If you are not claiming to know then why not have the following possible alternatives;
Natural law (including chance)
Natural intelligent designer.
Super-natural intelligent designer.
Thanks,
Psi
Is your intelligent designer natural or supernatural?"
To answer that would amount to speculation. The evidence is of design. The causative agency(s) is/are unknown.
"If you are not claiming to know then why not have the following possible alternatives;
Natural law (including chance)
Natural intelligent designer.
Super-natural intelligent designer."
First, 'natural' can include non-biologic agency, and that would not require it be 'supernatural', a term used to denote something outside of the natural universe.
Further, spirit forms exist, but as yet are not officially acknowledged by science. They could well be of lineage from earlier creative processes. Bio-forms, rather than conscious entities, could be vehicles for spirit forms to inhabit. This would fit well with a purposeful domain.
Consciousness is evident in virtually all life forms. It varies in degree, but is firmly in evidence. Watch a column of ants. Although you might downplay their carrying particles to the nest, even consider it a robotic function, it is nonetheless evidence of a purposeful existence, i.e. activities that obviously entail 'consciousness'. To conclude, it is more likely to be external to the bioform, rather than a synaptic function, and I would extend that to all bioforms, you included.
But ID doesn't need to answer those kinds of questions, and frankly, cannot, at least not at present. What it can (and will) do, is explore and quantify the evidences of design. It will also explore falsifying (or limiting to adaptive function only) random mutations as the source of novelty.
So could your designer by supernatural or not?
Does the natural include randomness or not?
What evidence do you have for this; "Further, spirit forms exist, but as yet are not officially acknowledged by science."
How do you draw this conclusion; "To conclude, it is more likely to be external to the bioform, rather than a synaptic function, and I would extend that to all bioforms, you included."
I'm sorry but I can't understand what you mean by this;"It will also explore falsifying (or limiting to adaptive function only) random mutations as the source of novelty."
Thanks,
Psi
Creationists come in several varieties, both Old Earth (non-Biblical literalist) Creationists and New Earth (Biblical literalist, Earth not more than 10k years old) Creationists. You pretend that all Creationists are of the YEC variety, because the existence of OECs undermine your argument.
If ID is not a form of Creationism, how then do you explain the provenance of the phrase "cdesign proponentsists"? If you've never heard the phrase, you can look it up.
To put a finer point on it, prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards v. Aguillard, the working draft of the book "Of Pandas and People" contained this definition:
"Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc."
Immediately after the Edwards decision which outlawed the teaching of Creationism in public schools, the authors of "Pandas" revised it to contain this definition:
"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc."
Where's the difference? If, as you claim, ID is not simply a form of Creationism, then how do you explain these definitions, which were written by the creationists themselves?
Isn't it obvious that the authors of this book simply relabeled Creationism as "Intelligent Design"?
Post a Comment