Upload, Administrators
630
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 113:
Line 113: − === General Evidence for Intelligent Design in Biology === − [[Image:Flagellum_2_ARN.jpg|thumb|150px|left|Bacterial Flagellum]] − The general evidence for Intelligent Design in biological systems is evidence that can be used to support both unintelligent causation (e.g., Darwinism) and intelligent causation (i.e., Intelligent Design Theory). Thus, the general evidence for Intelligent Design is the same evidence that evolutionists, particularly Darwinists, use to support theories of unintelligent causation. However, an objective approach shows that Darwinism is only one interpretation of the evidence. As with any evidentiary question in which present day evidence is used to determine a past historical event (as in crime solving), it's the ''interpretation'' of the evidence against competing explanatory theories that permits one to converge on a best explanation. In the case of origins science the present day evidence in nature can be viewed in light of alternative explanatory causes. To ''a priori'' rule out intelligent causation and mandate only explanations involving unintelligent causes removes the inquiry from the realm of science.<ref>Indeed, one characteristic of '''''religion''''' is the presence of dogmatic views. The mark of true science is ''tentativeness'' in holding to theories. Ironically, once a theory like Darwinism becomes unchallengeable based on the supposed religious implications of a competing theory, Darwinism itself is converted from science to religion.</ref> Insisting that science can only consider unintelligent causation converts origins science into unchallengeable dogma. Science should be tentative, considering all reasonable causal inferences based on observed material data. − − − ==== Speciation ==== − The fact of speciation, that is, that we observe distinct species of plants and animals in nature, is strong evidence of intelligent design.<ref>The term "species" is used in its ordinary and usual sense. Although the term can be defined in different ways, at least the term refers to organisms differentiated by reproductive compatibility and/or morphological dissimilarity, each of which involves the presence of differences in the coding of the information in the organism's genome.</ref><br /><br /> − − Darwin attempted to explain how unguided, purposeless processes could create new species. Darwin analagized to intelligent breeding, which involves intelligent selection among variant offspring to produce differences in future generations of a given animal or plant line. Darwin theorized that if intelligent agents could produce variations in physical characteristics in pigeons, for example, perhaps nature, via ''natural'' selection, over time could produce all the variety of species we observe.<br /><br /> − − Modern science calls Darwin's theory into question for at least two reasons. First, regardless of whether "selection" is unintelligent (by nature alone) or intelligent (by breeding), the selection process can only be effective once there is a favorable variation in the base species from which to "select". What this means is that regardless the efficacy of "natural selection", there is nothing to select until some beneficial feature or characteristic is created in the first place. Current scientific data shows that variations in the genome, i.e., random mutations, are rarely, if ever, beneficial in an organism. Most mutations are either neutral in effect, or harmful. Therefore, the idea that "selection" can be made in an unguided, unintelligent manner among largely harmful mutations to result in long term beneficial speciation is not supported by the evidence. Second, even when ''intelligent'' selection is utilized, such as in the breeding of dogs, cows, or fruitflies, the evidence shows that regardless the extent of selection, the respective species remain intact.<ref>The term "species" is itself malleable, and is often stretched to a meaningless status by those who wish to show that "natural selection" has produced a "new" species. In any event, the selection usually referred to is not "natural", but is performed by intelligent beings in a lab, and the "species" exhibits no new, beneficial features that might yield a reproductive advantage. Usually, like in the intelligently designed "four-winged fruit fly" the new features are not beneficial, but detrimental to survival.</ref> No amount of intelligent selection, as in breeding, has ever produced any new, beneficial features, like new organs, new eyes, new wings, etc.<ref>When any new features do appear, such as on the intelligently designed "four winged fruit fly", the features are actually harmful to the organism's survival. Such organisms are referred to as "freaks". (For more information on the four-winged fruit fly, see http://www.idthefuture.com/2005/12/icons_of_evolution_a_response_4.html)</ref><br /><br /> − − Therefore, the scientific question with respect to speciation is this: What evidence is there that unintelligent processes can create new, beneficial variations, such as genetic mutations, that can then be selected to propogate to future generations?<br /><br /> − − Darwin's 19th century theory was bolstered with the advent of modern genetics, microbiology, and other science disciplines, from which ''neo''-Darwinism was born. [[Neo-Darwinism|Neo-Darwinism]] holds that the variation necessary for creating new features and benefits arises due primarily to the random mutations that occur in the genome of a living organism.<br /><br /> − − But can the random variation produced by chance mutations in the genome produce any beneficial change, and especially enough long-term, directional change in major features and body plans to create a new species? To date there is no evidence to suggest that such unintelligent variation can cause speciation. Just as intelligent selection can produce only different versions of an existing species, it appears from the evidence that unintelligent variation (i.e., random mutations) is likewise limited to change only within the bounds of a species. Even the intelligent manipulation of existing species such as the fruit fly has produced only more and different fruit flies.<br /><br /> − − There is simply no evidence to suggest that the random action of chance mutations can create beneficial changes from which natural selection can "select" sufficient to produce new body plans evident in even closely related species. In fact, random mutations are almost universally neutral in effect, but when of a magnitude to affect the organism are likewise almost universally detrimental to the health of the organism. In most cases such mutations result in what are called birth defects.<br /><br /> − − For this reason, the fact of different species, each being bounded by a genomic limit with respect to change, is evidence for intelligent design. An intelligent cause can create with a purpose. An intelligent cause can be forward looking to produce changes that are beneficial. An intelligent cause can create information-bearing genetic instructions, where unintelligent causes can simply shuffle genetic information in random ways, usually harming the organism. − − ==== Fossils ==== − Fossils offer both positive evidence for design, and negative evidence for Darwinian gradualism. − − =====Positive Evidence for Design===== − [[Image:fossil_trilobite.jpg|thumb|300px|left|Fossil trilobites exhibit all the attributes of a creature designed for a purpose]] − Fossils exhibit features that appear designed, much like living organisms. The scientific question presented is, "is the design exhibited by fossils the result of unintelligent causes, or intelligent causes?"<br /><br /> − − The assumption of those steeped only in Darwinism, of course, is that fossils are solely the result of unintelligent causes, specifically Darwin's "descent with modification" in which each fossil is the unintelligently modified version of an ancestor in a gradual chain of cause and effect occurences. The unintelligent operations of physics and chemistry alone are believed to have produced the specified complexity observed in fossils, and in ever-increasing specification and complexity over time.<br /><br /> − − The true cause of fossils can only be determined by testing known causal agents to see if they can produce the specified complexity evident in the design of fossils. Unintelligent causes such as the random variation of mutations or the deterministic law of natural selection have not been shown to be capable of producing specified complexity, much less new and more specified complexity. Specifically, natural selection (which can only select what is already created) has no creative power. The only things that can be "selected" are things already in existence. Therefore, in Darwinism any "creating" of new DNA information coding for new body designs as evidenced in fossils must be produced by unintelligent deterministic physics. Each random mutation of the genome of an existing body plan must be directionally beneficial in producing a new, beneficial body plan. But, as discussed above, no unintelligent natural process has been shown to produce new, beneficial morphology, or new, beneficial information content in the genome, or new species. Therefore, the ability of Darwinian processes to produce the specified complexity evident in fossils is called into serious question.<br /><br /> − − =====Negative Evidence of Darwinian Gradualism===== − [[Image:Darwin.jpg|thumb|150px|right|[[Charles Darwin]]]] − [[Charles Darwin]] himself recognized in his book '''''On the Origin of Species'''''<ref>Online at http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F391&viewtype=text&pageseq=1</ref> that the fossil record does not support his theory. Beginning in Chapter 6, entitled, "Difficulties on Theory", Darwin himself noted that among the "crowd of difficulties" with Darwinism, the foremost difficulty is that the fossil record does not support his theory of gradual descent with modification. Darwin himself asked: "why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?"<ref>See online at http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F391&viewtype=text&pageseq=1, p. 133.</ref> − − There are no unambiguous transitional forms, and few purported forms in a fossil record that should be teeming with millions upon millions of such creatures. Such knowledge is common among educated scientists and paleontologists, but virtually unknown among members of the public, including students. In fact, evolutionist [[Stephen J. Gould]] described the rarity of transitional fossils as the "'trade secret' of paleontologists" in his book, ''The Panda's Thumb'' (see further, below). − − Note the suprising conventional wisdom that fossils are not only evidence, but ''proof'' of "evolution". Rather than being proof for Darwinism, however, an honest assessment of the evidence shows fossils to be stronger evidence of true design than unguided, purposeless evolution. Consider, for example, the preeminent Darwinist [[Mayr, Ernst|'''Ernst Mayr''']], known as "the Darwin of the 20th century."<ref>Ernst Mayr, ''What Evolution Is'', (New York: Basic Books, 2001), back cover.</ref> In his 2001 book entitled ''What Evolution Is''<ref>Ernst Mayr, ''What Evolution Is'', (New York: Basic Books, 2001).</ref> Mayr discusses the evidence for evolution in Chapter 2, in a section headed "What evidence does the evolutionist have?" Predictably, he first discusses the fossil evidence. Specifically, on page 14 of the paperback Basic Books edition, he states: − − <blockquote> − Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. ''But this is not what the paleontologist finds.'' <ref>Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is, (New York: Basic Books, 2001), p. 14.(emphasis added).</ref> − </blockquote>. − − Mayr goes on to make clear that the fossil record does not support Darwinian gradualism (as noted above, a fact Darwin himself recognized, but believed future fossil finds would fill in the gaps). Then Mayr asks a revealingly honest question: − <blockquote> − This raises a puzzling question: Why does the fossil record fail to reflect the gradual change one would expect from evoution? − <ref>Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is, (New York: Basic Books, 2001), p. 14.</ref></blockquote> − − The fact is that the fossil evidence does not support Darwinian gradualism. It never has and likely never will. Evolutionists such as [[Gould, Stephen Jay|'''Stephen Jay Gould''']] were forced to propose theories such as "[[punctuated equilibrium|'''punctuated equilibrium''']]" to "save the phenomena," i.e., explain the evidence in a coherent fashion." Stephen J. Gould refers to the rarity of transitional fossils as the "'trade secret' of paleontologists". Gould states: − <blockquote> − − "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record: ". . . He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory." <ref>''The Panda's Thumb'', (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1980), p. 181.</ref> − </blockquote> − − ====Homology==== − Comparative anatomy of many living beings shows similarity in morphology, ''i.e.'', in body parts and structure. Sometimes refered to as an organism's ''Bauplan'', which is a German word coined to refer to the "building plan" or "blueprint" of the organism, common or "homologous" morphological features such as skeletal frameworks point to a common intelligent designer. Just as modern architects use blueprints having common building features and engineers use common parts in different models of machines, it is not surprising that an intelligent designer of living beings would use common structure across various "models" of animals. In fact, it would be surprising if that were not the case. − [[Image:Jonathan_Wells.jpg|thumb|300px|left|Jonathan Wells, PhD., Senior fellow of the Discovery Inst. Center for Science and Culture]][[Image:Paul_Nelson.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Paul Nelson, PhD., Fellow of both the Discovery Insitute and the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design]] − Without a "rule" that prohibits a scientific inference of intelligent causation,<ref>Intelligent design's opponents rely on a hidden assumption to remove Intelligent Design as a challenge to Darwinism. The assumption is that materialism is effectively true, meaning that only unintelligent causes can be considered to explain the cosmos, includign life. The "rule" effectively re-defines “science” and serves to block all but unintelligent natural forces as potential causes for life and its diversity. The assumption operates as a rule—the “unwritten rule” of science, as described in a book by popular science writer Robert Wright. In his book, Wright explains that certain assumptions in science result in “unwritten rules of scientific conduct” that require adherents “to scrupulously avoid even the faintest teleological [i.e., design] overtones. (See, Robert Wright, Three Scientists and Their Gods (New York: Times Books, 1988), 70-71.)</ref> common homology among various organisms would be plainly and simply clear evidence of intelligent design. As [[Wells, Jonathan|'''Jonathan Wells''']]<ref>Jonathan Wells is a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute. Jonathan Wells has received two Ph.D.s, one in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley, and one in Religious Studies from Yale University. He has worked as a postdoctoral research biologist at the University of California at Berkeley and the supervisor of a medical laboratory in Fairfield, California, and he has taught biology at California State University in Hayward. Dr. Wells has published articles in ''Development, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, BioSystems, The Scientist and The American Biology Teacher''. He is also author of Charles Hodge's ''Critique of Darwinism'' (Edwin Mellen Press, 1988) and ''Icons of Evolution: Why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong''. Most recently Dr. Wells authored, ''The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design.'' − </ref> and [[Nelson, Paul|'''Paul Nelson''']]<ref>Paul A. Nelson, Fellow of the Discovery Institute, received his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago in Philosophy (1998). He is a philosopher of biology, specializing in evo-devo and developmental biology. He has published articles in such journals as ''Biology & Philosophy, Zygon, Rhetoric and Public Affairs'', and ''Touchstone'', and chapters in the anthologies ''Mere Creation, Signs of Intelligence'', and '''Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics''. Nelson is also a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design. </ref> explain in their essay, '''''Homology, a Concept in Crisis''''',<ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od182/hobi182.htm</ref> "Before Darwin, homology was defined morphologically and explained by reference to ideal archetypes -- that is, to intelligent design." It is only when unintelligent causes are mandated that common morphological features are "proof" of unintelligent Darwinian descent with modification. Wells and Nelson continue: − <blockquote> − Darwin reformulated biology in naturalistic* rather than teleological terms, and explained homology as the result of descent with modification from a common ancestor. Descent with modification, however, renders design unnecessary only if it is due entirely to naturalistic mechanisms. Two such mechanisms have been proposed, genetic programs and developmental pathways, but neither one fits the evidence. Without an empirically demonstrated naturalistic mechanism to account for homology, design remains a possibility which can only be excluded on the basis of questionable philosophical assumptions.<br /> − − *In this article, "naturalism" and "naturalistic" refer to the philosophical doctrine that nature is the whole of reality, and that intelligent causation does not qualify as a scientific explanation. − − </blockquote> − − Wells and Nelson continue: − <blockquote> − Diverse organisms possess homologous features. Homology in some cases may or may not be due to inheritance from a common ancestor, but it is definitely not due to similarity of genes or similarity of developmental pathways. In 1971, Gavin de Beer wrote: "What mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same 'patterns', in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked this question in 1938, and it has not been answered." (de Beer, 1971, p.16) Twenty-six years later, the question still has not been answered.<br /><br /> − − Without a naturalistic mechanism to account for homology, however, Darwinian evolution cannot claim to have demonstrated scientifically that living things are undesigned, and the possibility remains that homologies are patterned after non-material archetypes. Without a demonstrated mechanism, naturalistic biologists are left with only one alternative: exclude design a priori, on philosophical grounds.<br /><br /> − − This exclusion could be taken as a statement that intelligent design does not exist, or it could be taken as a statement that intelligent design is beyond the reach of empirical science. The first is a philosophical or theological statement, and warrants the same response. The second is a methodological limitation which cannot be logically extrapolated to a limitation on reality. In other words, a scientist who makes the first move is engaging in metaphysical disputation, while a scientist who makes the second is declining to investigate a possible aspect of reality.<br /><br /> − − Unfortunately, many biologists make both moves, but fail to distinguish logically between them. While justifying their exclusion of intelligent design on methodological grounds, they act as though science has disproved its existence by providing a naturalistic explanation for homology. When confronted with the fact that science has failed in this regard, they reaffirm their methodological commitment and express faith that a naturalistic mechanism will someday be discovered. − − </blockquote> − − In the end, Wells and Nelson contend that genetics and developmental pathways are insufficient unintelligent causal agents to account for common morphology. − − Further information from a creationist perspective can be found at '''The Parent Company'''<ref>http://www.parentcompany.com/creation_essays/essay11.htm</ref> in an essay entitled '''''Do Similarities Prove Evolution from a Common Ancestor?'''''
→General Evidence for Intelligent Design in Biology
=== Special Evidence for Intelligent Design in Biology ===
=== Special Evidence for Intelligent Design in Biology ===