Modesty Survey

TheRebelution.com: The Modesty Survey

Thursday, July 31, 2008

Intelligent Design - Part VI

This is the final chapter in this series. Thanks to everyone for their comments.



Chapter Five
Intelligent Design Critics

The most common argument against the intelligent design theory is that it is not a true science. According to scientist Linus Pauling, science is defined as the “search for truth” (Harris and Calvert 2003, p 557). Sciences that study the origin of life (origin sciences), such as intelligent design, seek the truth regarding how life began. In order to separate truth from fiction, scientists follow a procedure called the scientific method. Can scientists apply this method to the intelligent design theory?

The Scientific Method

The scientific method generally consists of five steps:

1. Observe an object or phenomenon and gather information
2. Form a hypothesis (a description of what is observed)
3. Make predictions based on the hypothesis
4. Perform experiments to test the predictions and update the hypothesis if the test results require it
5. Continue testing and modifying the hypothesis until the hypothesis and test results match one another (Wudka 1998).

Critics claim that intelligent design is not scientific because it cannot be tested or make predictions – two elements of the scientific method (Harris and Calvert 2003).

Can Intelligent Design be Tested? Make Predictions?

Harris and Calvert (2003) explain how intelligent design is tested by the same techniques used in other sciences such as forensics, cryptanalysis, and archeology. Scientists in these three fields must determine if intelligent action is at work:

Ø Forensics: Scientists perform tests to determine whether a death is a result of an accident or natural death (chance/necessity) or murder (intelligent action proven by the intent to kill).

Ø Cryptanalysis: Specialists called code breakers look closely at characters to determine if they communicate a message (intelligence).

Ø Archeology: Archeologists test objects to determine if they are man-made (intelligent action) or produced by natural causes. For example, a clay pot exhibits intelligent design while a rock formation may exist because of natural causes (wind, erosion, etc.).

Likewise, intelligent design is a science that uses various methods (discussed in chapter three) to “test” whether or not objects are caused by intelligent action or chance.

Intelligent design also makes predictions. For example, theorists predicted that a purpose for “junk DNA” would be found (Harris and Calvert 2003). As you recall, the instructions in DNA are made up of sequences or patterns of letters. DNA that does not contain instructions is called non-coding or “junk” DNA. Recently, scientists discovered that so-called “junk” DNA has a special job within the nucleus – to help the proteins created by DNA to function (The Designing Times 2002; The Free Dictionary.com by Farlex 2005).

Is the Intelligent Design Theory Peer Reviewed?

When scientists want to share their findings with others, they follow a process called peer review. Scientists submit their manuscripts to at least two experts who work in the same field addressed in the manuscript. For example, if a scientist writes about molecular biology, then experts in the biology field read and comment on the contents contained in the manuscript (Henneberg 1997).

Critics argue that the intelligent design theory is unscientific because it is not peer reviewed. However, this claim is deceptive. Because the majority of scientists today do not support intelligent design, many refuse to review any work on the subject (Harris and Calvert 2003).

However, others have reviewed the works of leading scientists in the intelligent design movement - Michael Behe and William Dembski, and “an enormous amount of work is being done to find naturalistic explanations of their arguments” (Harris and Calvert 2003, p 538).

Motivation

While early design arguments relied on the metaphysical realm as well as scientific data, today’s intelligent design theory relies exclusively on scientific evidence. Scientists have discovered, through advances in technology, that objects in nature – such as the cell – exhibit the same complexity as designed objects made by human hands and minds. Therefore, many scientists have concluded that nature exhibits signs of intelligent design. Why, in spite of the evidence, do many scientists reject intelligent design? Perhaps the following quotes help explain the motivation behind the rejection of intelligent design:

Evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith wrote, “Evolution is unproven and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable” (Dvorak 2004, p 4).

Dr. Michael Walker, Senior Lecturer – Anthropology, Sydney University said, “One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay lip-service to Darwinian theory only because it supposedly excludes a Creator” (Dvorak 2004, p 5).

Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University wrote, “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic” (Dvorak 2004, p 5).

“Naturalistic” refers to the philosophy of naturalism. This philosophy is the foundation of evolution and states that natural laws explain all phenomena. Naturalism eliminates design, purpose, and the supernatural.

**********************************************************************************
Take Note
Naturalism is a philosophy and not a belief based on scientific data. All other possible causes of life are rejected, not based on scientific data, but because they fail to meet the definition of naturalism (Harris and Calvert 2003).
**********************************************************************************

The Future of Intelligent Design

The belief that living organisms show design and, therefore, are a product of intelligent action has existed for thousands of years. While Darwin offered an alternative to the design theory, and many scientists have followed his lead, advances in technology will continue to strengthen evidence for intelligent design.

Perhaps Behe says it best:

The idea of Intelligent Design is widely discussed now and, although there’s resistance to it, I think it will fade as science progresses. As we learn more about biology, we’ll see that it’s becoming more complicated and fits less into the Darwinian evolutionary model (Peters 1999, p 6).
#########

References

Access Research Network. 1998. Molecular Machines Museum. Accessed 2005 March 31.

Behe, Michael J. 1996. Darwin’s black box. New York: The Free Press.

Behe, Michael J. 1999 June 7. The God of science: the case for intelligent design. Accessed 2005 January 24.

Carpi, Anthony. 1999. The cell. Accessed 2005 January 27.

Cells Alive. 2004. Lysosomes, peroxisomes, secretory vesicles. Accessed 2005 January 26.

Dembski, William A. 1999. Explaining specified complexity. Accessed 2005 January 24.

Dembski, William A. 2003a August 28. Intelligent design.
Accessed 2005 January 26.

Dembski, William A. 2003b February 17. Still spinning just fine: a response to Ken Miller. Accessed 2005 January 26.

Dembski, William A. 2004a January 16. Detecting design in biological systems. Accessed 2005 February 2.

Dembski, William A. 2004b. Introduction: the myth of Darwinism. In: Dembski, William A, editor. Uncommon dissent: intellectuals who find Darwinism unconvincing. Wilmington: ISI Books. p xvii-xxxvii.

The Designing Times. 2002. Accessed 2005 January 26.

Dvorak, Allen. 2004. When evolutionists tell the truth. Sermon outline that includes quotes from evolutionists regarding the problems with the theory of evolution.

The Free Dictionarary.com by Farlex. 2005. Non-coding DNA. Accessed 2005 February 2.

Harris, William S; Calvert, John H. 2003. Intelligent design: the scientific alternative to evolution. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly Autumn 2003: 531-561. Accessed 2005 January 26.

Henneberg, Marcie J. 1997. Peer review: the Holy Office of modern science.
Accessed 2005 February 25.

Intelligent Design Basics. [undated]. What is the theory of intelligent design? Accessed 2005 January 27.

Luskin, Casey. 2001. The science behind intelligent design theory. Accessed 2005 January 26.

McDonald, John H. 2000. A reducibly complex mousetrap. Accessed 2005 March 31.

Meyer, Stephen C. 2000 April 1. DNA and other designs. Accessed 2005 January 26.

Mondore, Robert; Mondore, Patricia A. 2002 December 14. Designer genes. Accessed 2005 January 31.

Peters, Holly. 1999. Darwin’s demise. Accessed 2005 January 26.

Pittman, Sean D. 2003. Natural selection. Accessed 2005 February 25.

Richards, Stephen. 2004. The design argument. Accessed 2005 February 25.

Strobel, Lee. 2004. The case for a Creator. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Umedicine.net.2005. GCE “o” level biology (5093) study guide. Accessed 2005 March 31.

University of California in Santa Barbara [undated]. The bacterial flagellum.
Accessed 2005 January 26.

University of Wisconsin. 2005. The why files. Accessed 2005 March 31.

West, John G. 2002 December. Intelligent design and creationism just aren’t the same. Accessed 2005 January 26.

Wudka, Jose. 1998. The scientific method.

9 comments:

Psiloiordinary said...

Hi,

I am just picking out one error at a time to keep things simple - but you seem to be ignoring me.

Scientists don't refuse to review ID material - none is produced.

Regards,

Psi

Kim said...

Psi - That's because your "errors" are not factual but rather an expression of your opinion...or denial. To claim that "no ID material is produced" is outright false. What did I use for my research?

Anonymous said...

Howdy,

ID is simply junk science, no more no less. It's not taken seriously in any reputable science journals whatsoever. Evolution has been demonstrated by a consilience of clues ranging from genetics, paleontology, chemistry, nested hierarchies, among other things. If you want specifics, I can provide. Otherwise I suggest reading Kenneth Miller, Francis Collins, or Francisco Ayala.

Cheers!

Kim said...

Vance, your opinion does not surprise me. This is what every evolutionist claims. And, of course, the only "reputable" science journals are defined as those that support evolution.

Anonymous said...

Hey,

Since I noticed that Olorin and Lee have already fired critical rounds into your defense of ID, I’ll mention that there is a significant philosophical problem with your cited defense of functioning sub-units as not disproving IC. First, what exactly is so special about IC if it can have functioning sub-units? For it can no longer be said to designate a system that has no function unless it exists as is. Rather it just designates a system that doesn’t have the exact same function without all necessary components.

But so?

Evolution only needs functional precursors as a rung to climb the latter. As long as it has these functional sub-units to operate with, evolution cannot be said to require “huge leaps” from virtually nothing to something as IC in Behe’s first book was original defined to suggest. Of course Behe, and Darwin before him, was right to suppose that if there were absolutely no intermediary steps for evolution to operate on, then the probability for evolution to make such a leap would indeed be virtually nil. But these functioning sub-units disprove that very critical argument of IC, because functional sub-units imply just such intermediary steps!

Naturally, you don’t mention this so you via Dembski seek to move the goal posts instead. Dembski tries to appeal to the absurd by pointing to items that are unarguably designed without mutation and natural selection and essentially saying how silly it is to attribute Darwinian mechanisms to the existence of those items. But of course it is absurd to suggest that items we know weren’t created by Darwinian means were! Now, the absurdity here only carries into the debate over evolution if the ID proponent assumes what he or she needs to prove; that biological units were thus designed. But aside for the begged question, the whole digress is a red-herring because none of it has anything to do with the original argument from IC and the fact that functioning subunits exist to close the gap in probability and remove the infinitesimally small odds that would exist if evolution actually did have to work without intermediary steps.

Kim said...

Vance, I think I already addressed that in chapter IV under "Evolutionists' Arguments." Subsystems are not evolutionary precursors. For example, the TTSS system in the bacterial flagellum has absolutely nothing to do with how the flagellum fuctions or came to function. They are two separate functions. In order for the flagellum to function as a flagellum, all parts related to its function had to be present at the same time - not over time. It's really not that difficult to understand and certainly doesn't require a PhD. in science to "get."

Anonymous said...

Hi, Kim

I enjoyed reading your booklet. You've obviously put a lot of research and effort into it. Thanks for posting this.

Cindy

w_w_c_l said...

Hi,

Your quote of Sir Arthur Keith, that evolution is "unproved and unprovable," etc., is referenced to a sermon outline by Allen Dvorak.

1) Can you provide the original source of the Keith quote?

2) Can you provide the sermon outline you cite?

Thanks.

w_w_c_l said...

Well, it's been a couple of years now and I see my question has never been answered. So I'll just go ahead and tell you: Sir Arthur Keith never said what you (via Allen Dvorek) claim he said. I will further inform you that there are a number of other outright falsehoods in Dvorek's sermon outline.

Good luck on your journey.