Upload, Administrators
630
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 115:
Line 115: − === Special Evidence for Intelligent Design in Biology === − The '''special evidence''' for Intelligent Design in biological systems is material evidence for which there is no known naturalistic explanation. Such evidence can only reasonably be considered to support an inference of intelligent causation (i.e., Intelligent Design Theory). − ==== Origin of Life ==== − [[Image:Origin_of_life.jpg|thumb|150px|left|Unguided origin of Life?]] − To date there are no known naturalistic (involving only ''un''intelligent processes) causes known that can explain the occurrence of life from non-life. Of all the proposed explanations for first life, only intelligent causation is tenable. − Darwin did not (and did not purport to) provide any explanation for the origin of the first replicating life form necessary for his theory of origin of ''species'' to work. That is, Darwinism is a naturalistic explanation for the origin of ''species'' that assumes a replicating life form to start the process. − − Origin of life from non-living sources is termed [[abiogenesis|'''abiogenesis''']] or '''chemical evolution'''<ref>Chemical Evolution: the hypothesis that the appearance of life from non-living materials occurred via Material Causes alone. </ref> and scientific hypotheses that seek explanations for a first replicating life form suitable for Darwinian processes must postulate at least an unintelligent, deterministic physical cause for the first complex strand of DNA or other biologically active material. − − Atheists, evolutionists and Darwinists who seek to provide an explanation for abiogenesis face the problem of proposing how the extremely unlikely occurrence of life could appear or evolve from purely unintelligent physical causes. By any account, the probability of such an occurrence by any known natural causes over any postulated time period is so low as to make the occurrence practically impossible. − − By way of example of the probabilistically impossible odds of abiogenesis, consider the May 31, 2007 paper published by '''Eugene V. Koonin''' of the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Peer reviewed and published in Biology Today <ref>''The cosmological model of eternal inflation and the transition from chance to biological evolution in the history of life'' [http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/15]</ref>, Koonin calculated the probability of the most simple life form arising by natural processes, with the following conclusion: − <blockquote> − The requirements for the emergence of a primitive, coupled replication-translation system, which is considered a candidate for the breakthrough stage in this paper, are much greater. At a minimum, spontaneous formation of: − − - two rRNAs with a total size of at least 1000 nucleotides − − - ~10 primitive adaptors of ~30 nucleotides each, in total, ~300 nucleotides − − - at least one RNA encoding a replicase, ~500 nucleotides (low bound) is required. In the above notation, n = 1800, resulting in E <10-1018. − − </blockquote> − − That is, the chance of life occurring by natural processes is 1 in 10 followed by 1018 zeros. Koonin's intent was to show that short of postulating a [[multiverse|'''multiverse''']] of an infinite number of universes, the chance of life occuring on earth is vanishingly small, and we can understand the practical import to be that life by natural processes in a ''uni''verse such as ours to be impossible. − − Other prominent evolutionists agree that naturally occurring life from non-life is impossible. Evolutionist and theoretical physicist [[Davies, Paul|'''Paul Davies''']], for example, considers random self-assembly of proteins to be “a nonstarter”.<ref>Paul Davies, ''The Fifth Miracle, The Search for the Origin of Life'' (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999), p. 91).</ref> Davies recognizes that life as we know it requires hundreds of thousands of specialist proteins, not to mention the nucleic acids; the number of amino acids sequenced in a small protein is 10^130 (written as one followed by 130 zeros). According to Davies, such an improbable sequence that is best explained by unconventional theories such as life has always existed. That is, there was no origin of life, because life is eternal, “spread around the universe … without having originated anywhere in particular”.<ref>Ibid., pp. 247-49).</ref> − − Davies also argues for a yet-to-be-discovered natural law, one that could be capable of abiogenesis: − − <blockquote> − [E]mergent laws of complexity offer reasonable hope for a better understanding not only of biogenesis, but of biological evolution too. Such laws might differ from the familiar laws of physics in a fundamental and important respect. Whereas the laws of physics merely shuffle information around, a complexity law might actually create information, or at least wrest it from the environment and etch it onto a material structure.<ref>Ibid., p. 259.</ref> − </blockquote> − With respect to problems presented regarding the chance origin of life, and his proposed explanations, Davies concluded, “If you have found the foregoing argument persuasive, you could be forgiven for concluding that a genome really is a miraculous object. However, most of the problems I have outlined above apply with equal force to the evolution of the genome over time” <ref>Ibid., p. 120.</ref> − − Likewise, Nobel Prize winner [[Crick, Francis|'''Francis Crick''']] (who along with [[Watson, James|'''James Watson''']], determined DNA’s molecular structure), considered the chance synthesis of even a small protein of 200 amino acids so improbable that he concluded that “the great majority of sequences can never have been synthesized at all, at any time.” <ref>Francis Crick, ''Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature'' (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981) p. 51-2).</ref> − [[Image:Fred_Hoyle.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Sir Fred Hoyle, British Astronomer]] − Finally, consider [[Hoyle, Sir Fred|'''Sir Fred Hoyle''']], an atheist astronomer who nevertheless reached the conclusion that the universe is governed by a greater intelligence. In 1978, Hoyle described Charles Darwin's theory of evolution as wrong and claimed that the belief that the first living cell was created in the "sea of life" was just as erroneous. Together with [[Wickramasinghe, Chandra|'''Chandra Wickramasinghe''']], Hoyle stated: − <blockquote> − Precious little in the way of biochemical evolution could have happened on the Earth. It is easy to show that the two thousand or so enzymes that span the whole of life could not have evolved on the Earth. If one counts the number of trial assemblies of amino acids that are needed to give rise to the enzymes, the probability of their discovery by random shufflings turns out to be less than 1 in 10 to the power of 40,000.<ref>Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, ''Where Microbes Boldly Went'', New Scientist, vol. 91 (August 13, 1991), − p. 415</ref> − </blockquote> − − Mathematician and intelligent design theorist [[Dembski, William|'''William Dembski''']] calculates a [[universal probability bound|"universal probability bound"]] at 10^150 (1 in 10 followed by 150 zeros). <ref>William Dembski, ''The Design Inference'', (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), sec. 6.5.</ref> − − Clearly, then, to an objective observer of the material evidence, the fact of life's existence, knowing that it must have a genesis, or a beginning, holds little in the way of evidence for naturalistic, unguided, unintelligent processes of nature. − − Origin of life, therefore, is ''prima facie'' evidence of intelligent agency, and is at minimum sufficient observational evidence to support a reasonable scientific inference of intelligent design. − − ==== Specified Complex Information ==== − [[Image:Wm_Dembski.jpg|thumb|150px|right|[[William Dembski]], mathematician and philosopher, and senior fellow with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture ]] − '''Specified Complex Information (SCI)''' is noted by [[Dembski, William|'''William Dembski''']] as strong evidence of intelligent agency in biological systems. Based on the probability of certain arrangements or components of a whole, Dembski explains his idea in an essay entitled '''''Explaining Specified Complexity'''''<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-specified.html</ref> − − Briefly, Dembski states: − <blockquote> − Life is both complex and specified. The basic intuition here is straightforward. A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex (i.e., it conforms to an independently given pattern but is simple). A long sequence of random letters is complex without being specified (i.e., it requires a complicated instruction-set to characterize but conforms to no independently given pattern). A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified. − − </blockquote> − “Information” is the intangible property of an arrangement of elements that imparts a message or conveys meaning. Just as a book is more than paper and ink, the message formed by the specific, non-random combination of letters and spaces you are now reading reflects the purposeful character of this sentence. Living organisms exhibit vast amounts of information content similar to that in a computer program. In fact, information is defined as “the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects."<ref>''Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary'', Tenth Edition: 1996 (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster. Inc.)</ref> The idea that the information in a computer program or in DNA could possibly be formed in an unspecified manner by unintelligent causes is a matter for mathematicians and statisticians, all of whom report back numbers that, in the time available in our universe, make such an occurrence by unguided processes effectively impossible. − − DNA is one example of specified complex information in living organisms, reflecting a purposefulness that cannot be reduced to matter alone. As intelligent design theorist [[Johnson, Phillip E.|'''Phillip E. Johnson''']] explains: − − <blockquote> − The important thing about DNA is not the chemicals but the information in the software, just as the important thing about a computer program or a book is the information content and not the physical medium in which that information is recorded.<ref>Johnson, Wedge of Truth, p. 53.</ref> − </blockquote> − − Very simply, there is no known unguided, purposeless process (including Darwinism) that can make non-repetitive, specified sequences of matter, particularly the long, detailed sequences of DNA, comparable in quantity and quality to an entire set of encyclopedias. <ref>Atheist and Darwinist [[Dawkins, Richard|'''Richard Dawkins''']] states that each nucleus of plant or animal cells contains ''a digitally coded'' database larger, in information content, than all 30 volumes of the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'' put together." Richard Dawkins, ''The Blind Watchmaker'', (New York: W.W. Norton & Co. 1996) p. 17-18, (emphasis added).</ref> − [[Image:DNA_information.jpg|thumb|150px|right|DNA contains immaterial information]] − The information content of DNA is many, many times more complex and specified than a Shakespearean sonnet. Just as no scientist would suggest that Shakespearean sonnets were the work of unintelligent causes (even if the author were unknown), the presence of specified, complex information in DNA is equally dispositive of intelligent causes in living systems. The question of the '''''cause''''' of Specified Complex Information is critical to the origins science debate. If “evolution” means “change over time,” then there is no controversy. However, if “evolution” is defined as “a natural, unguided, information-producing process capable of creating Specified Complex Information,” then virtually no one would be an evolutionist based on the evidence. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests an intelligent cause. However, the question of the '''''source''''' of Complex Specified Information is secondary, and not necessarily a scientific question. But to rule out intelligent '''''causes''''' for Specified Complex Information based on the supposed inability for science to detect the '''''source''''' (e.g., as due to a conflict between "science" and "religion") is to make a category mistake. As Dembski states, “The proper contrast is between ''natural'' causes on the one hand and ''intelligent'' causes on the other.” Dembski elaborates: − − <blockquote> − Intelligent causes can do things that natural causes cannot. Natural causes can throw scrabble pieces on a board but cannot arrange the pieces to form meaningful words or sentences. To obtain a meaningful arrangement requires an intelligent cause. Whether an intelligent cause operates within or outside nature (i.e., is respectively natural or supernatural) is a separate question entirely from whether an intelligent cause has operated.<ref>Dembski, Intelligent Design, p. 106.</ref> − − </blockquote> − − For more on the importance of biological information, see, Stephen C. Meyer, ''The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'',<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177</ref>. Meyer argues, citing numerous studies by other scientists, that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms. Proposing intelligent design as an alternative explanation, arguing that new life forms such as those exhibited in the Cambrian explosion can only be attributed to a “remarkable jump” in complex specified information. No known material cause exists for such a jump. − − ==== Irreducible Complexity ==== − [[Image:BacterialFlagellum.jpg|thumb|300px|right|The bacterial flagellum exibits irreducible complexity]] − − [[Behe, Michael|'''Michael Behe''']], Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University, argues that the most convincing evidence for design is not to be found in the stars or the fossils, but in biochemical systems. Author of ''Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution'',<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Black-Box-Biochemical-Challenge/dp/0743290313/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/104-1803249-2067114?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194232123&sr=1-2</ref> and ''The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism'',<ref>http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/103-4254630-6741457?url=search-alias=stripbooks&field-keywords=behe</ref> Behe has posed a scientific response to [[Darwin, Charles|'''Charles Darwin's''']] challenge in ''Origin of Species'':<br /><blockquote> − ''If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.'' − − </blockquote> − − Michale Behe claims to have shown exactly what Darwin claimed would destroy the theory of evolution, through a concept he calls '''irreducible complexity'''. As explained by the '''Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center''' ('''IDEA''')<ref>http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840</ref>, "In simple terms, this idea applies to any system of interacting parts in which the removal of any one part destroys the function of the entire system. An irreducibly complex system, then, requires each and every component to be in place before it will function." − − The IDEA Center continues: − <blockquote> − Since the publication of ''Darwin’s Black Box'', Behe has refined the definition of irreducible complexity. In 1996 he wrote that “any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.”<ref>Behe, M, 1996. Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry, a speech given at the Discovery Institute's God & Culture Conference, August 10, 1996 Seattle, WA. http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_idfrombiochemistry.htm</ref>. By defining irreducible complexity in terms of “nonfunctionality,” Behe casts light on the fundamental problem with evolutionary theory: evolution cannot produce something where there would be a non-functional intermediate. Natural selection only preserves or “selects” those structures which are functional. If it is not functional, it cannot be naturally selected. Thus, Behe’s latest definition of irreducible complexity is as follows:<br /> − <blockquote> − “An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway.” (A Response to Critics of Darwin’s Black Box, by Michael Behe, PCID, Volume 1.1, January February March, 2002; iscid.org/) − </blockquote><br /> − Evolution simply cannot produce complex structures in a single generation as would be required for the formation of irreducibly complex systems. To imagine that a chance set of mutations would produce all 200 proteins required for cilia function in a single generation stretches the imagination beyond the breaking point. And yet, producing one or a few of these proteins at a time, in standard Darwinian fashion, would convey no survival advantage because those few proteins would have no function-indeed, they would constitute a waste of energy for the cell to even produce. Darwin recognized this as a potent threat to his theory of evolution-the issue that could completely disprove his idea. So the question must be raised: Has Darwin's theory of evolution "absolutely broken down?" According to Michael Behe, the answer is a resounding "yes." − − </blockquote> − − For a good description of irreducible complexity, including examples, see the entire article at the IDEA Center website.<ref>http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840</ref> '''Michael Behe's''' concept of '''irreducible complexity''' is further explained by the '''International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID)'''<ref>http://www.iscid.org/</ref> in their '''Encyclopedia of Science and Philosophy''':<ref>http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Irreducible_Complexity</ref><br /><br /> − − '''Michael Behe's''' Original Definition: − A single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function of the system, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. (''Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution''<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Black-Box-Biochemical-Challenge/dp/0684834936</ref>, p. 39)<br /><br /> − − '''William Dembski's''' Enhanced Definition: − A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, nonarbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system. (''No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot be Purchased Without Intelligence''<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Free-Lunch-Specified-Complexity-Intelligence/dp/074255810X/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-1803249-2067114?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194726709&sr=1-1</ref>,p. 285)<br /><br /> − − '''Michael Behe's''' "Evolutionary" Definition: − An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway.<br /> − − − Behe first introduced the concept of irreducible complexity in his book ''Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution''.<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Black-Box-Biochemical-Challenge/dp/0684834936</ref> He has since expanded on the concept in his book ''The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism''.<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Edge-Evolution-Search-Limits-Darwinism/dp/0743296206/ref=pd_sim_b_title_1/104-1803249-2067114</ref> In ''Edge of Evolution'' he extends his analysis to define what evolution is capable of doing and what is beyond its scope. − [[Image:mousetrap_1.jpg|thumb|200px|left|Irreducibly complex]] − In ''Darwin's Black Box'' Behe used the illustration of a mousetrap as an example of an irreducibly complex system. See here.<ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm</ref> A simple mousetrap includes: (1) a flat wooden platform to act as a base; (2) a metal hammer, which does the actual job of crushing the little mouse; (3) a wire spring with extended ends to press against the platform and the hammer when the trap is charged; (4) a sensitive catch which releases when slight pressure is applied; and (5) a metal bar which holds the hammer back when the trap is charged and connects to the catch. There are also assorted staples and screws to hold the system together. − − If any one of the components of the mousetrap (the base, hammer, spring, catch, or holding bar) is removed, then the trap does not function. In other words, the simple little mousetrap has no ability to trap a mouse until several separate parts are all assembled, i.e., all the parts arrive in functional order and are assembled at the same time. Because the mousetrap is necessarily composed of several parts, it is irreducibly complex. Thus, irreducibly complex systems exist. − − Behe then asks: Now, are any biochemical systems irreducibly complex? Yes, it turns out that many are. In many biological structures proteins are simply components of larger molecular machines. Like the picture tube, wires, metal bolts and screws that comprise a television set, many proteins are part of structures that only function when virtually all of the components have been assembled. A good example of this is a cilium. The components of cilia are single molecules. This means that there are no more black boxes to invoke; the complexity of the cilium is final, fundamental. And just as scientists, when they began to learn the complexities of the cell, realized how silly it was to think that life arose spontaneously in a single step or a few steps from ocean mud, so too we now realize that the complex cilium can not be reached in a single step or a few steps. But since the complexity of the cilium is irreducible, then it can not have functional precursors. Since the irreducibly complex cilium can not have functional precursors it can not be produced by natural selection, which requires a continuum of function to work. Natural selection is powerless when there is no function to select. We can go further and say that, if the cilium can not be produced by natural selection, then the cilium was designed. − [[Image:Flagellum_3_ideacenter.jpg|thumb|300px|right|Bacterial Flagellum]] − − Another example is the bacterial [[flagellum|'''flagellum''']]. As quoted at '''Access Research Network''',<ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/flagellum_all.htm</ref> Behe explains: "Because the bacterial flagellum is necessarily composed of at least three parts -- a paddle,a rotor, and a motor -- it is irreducibly complex. Gradual evolution of the flagellum, like the cilium, therefore faces mammoth hurdles." The bacterial flagellum is just one of virtually innumerable biological structures, that, once understood in detail, have no naturalistic causal explanation. Many evolutionists have attempted to deny Behe's contention that the flagellum is irreducibly complex, but every attempt fails to show how the flagellum actually could have been formed by Darwinian gradualism. Rather, all denials by evolutionists of irreducible complexity rely on non-confirmable, non-falsifiable, non-experimental assumptions to justify belief in unguided processes to produce such structures. − − For more on irreducible complexity, go here<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/1831</ref>, or here<ref>http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1142</ref>, or here<ref>http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/irreducible_complexity_01.html</ref>.
→Special Evidence for Intelligent Design in Biology
==Examples of Intelligent Design Theory Used in Science==
==Examples of Intelligent Design Theory Used in Science==