Difference between revisions of "Intelligent design"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Freedom777 (talk | contribs) |
|||
| (229 intermediate revisions by 47 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | [[Image: | + | :''Not to be confused with [[creationism]]'' |
| − | + | [[File:Alfredwallace.jpg|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|201px|Alfred Russel Wallace is the co-discoverer of [[natural selection]] along with Charles Darwin. He eventually came to hold a view that differed from Darwin in that higher intelligences were involved in the evolution of some species such as man.]] | |
| + | [[Image:Intelligent design.jpg|alt= Intelligent design|thumbnail|300px|right|Intelligent design theorists contend that the core feature of life consists of information processing systems that cannot be fully explained as being the result of unintelligent causes alone. When [[evolution]]ist [[Richard Dawkins]] was young, he recognized that the complexity of life indicates a designer.]] | ||
| − | + | '''Intelligent design''' '''(ID)''' is the empirically testable<ref>"Dembski and Wells argue calmly and convincingly that intelligent design theory is empirically testable (in spite of Darwinists' shrill protests to the contrary) by indicating precisely what it would take to refute the theory, namely a clear demonstration that systems exhibiting [[irreducible complexity]] with specified complexity can in fact arise spontaneously by purely material processes" source: [https://www.amazon.com/The-Design-Life-Discovering-Intelligence/dp/0980021308 The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems - Amazon page]</ref> theory that the natural world shows signs of having been designed by a purposeful, intelligent cause. It is a theory of design detection, has been applied in various fields or subjects such as protein science, genetics, flagellum-chemotaxis system, glycolysis, vertebrate limbs and joints, feathers, and brain blood flow; and has rigorous methodologies found in systems biology and systems engineering.<ref>Luskin C, Reeves E, Miller B, McLatchie J (2026) "The Broad Utility of the Theory of Intelligent Design to Guide Scientific Research". BIO-Complexity 2026 (4):1-46. doi:10.5048/BIO-C.2026.4. [https://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2026.4/BIO-C.2026.4]</ref> An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences. [http://www.uncommondescent.com/id-defined/ ID Defined] As [[Jonathan Wells]] wrote, "ID ... asserts only that some features of living things are better explained by an intelligent cause than by unguided processes." <ref>http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11/wired_science_one_long_bluff028441.html</ref> Wells, among others, uses ID to rebut the [[evolution|Darwinian]] assertion that the features of living things are "inexplicable on the theory of [[creation]]" but fully explicable as products of unguided natural forces.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/9151</ref> | |
| − | + | There is worldview diversity among proponents and intelligent design is a secular, or even non-religious, theory. Alfred Russel Wallace, a naturalist who co-discovered [[natural selection]] along with [[Charles Darwin]], eventually came to see that nature exhibited design and purpose with evolution, and in particular wrote about the advancements of research on the cell in the chapter "Mystery of the Cell" along with observations on man as being designed with purpose.<ref>Alfred Russel Wallace. 1911. [https://archive.org/details/worldoflifemanif00wallialaThe World of Life: A Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose]</ref><ref name="wallacenat">Alfred Russel Wallace. [https://wallace-online.org/converted/pdf/1895_NaturalSelection_S725%5B2d%5D.pdf Natural Selection and Tropical Nature: Essays on Descriptive and Theoretical Biology] important works on natural selection: "The Law which has Regulated the Introduction of New Species" (1855) and of course "On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type" (1858); on the the limits on natural selection and man see "Limits of Natural Selection as Applied to Man" (1869)</ref><ref name="intelligent evolution">Flannery, M.A. Alfred Russel Wallace’s Intelligent Evolution and Natural Theology. Religions 2020, 11, 316. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11060316</ref><ref>Flannery, Michael A. 2011. Alfred Russel Wallace’s Theory of Intelligent Evolution: How Wallace’s World of Life Challenged Darwinism, rev ed. Riesel: Erasmus Press</ref> Some intelligent design proponents such as Michael Behe carry on the ''intelligent evolution'' espoused by Alfred Russel Wallace.<ref name="intelligent evolution" /> Another prominent ID proponent is David Berlinski who is actually an agnostic atheist.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20150312200118/https://www.discovery.org/a/4536/ Agnostic takes New Atheists to Task for Trying to Hijack Science Author David Berlinski's New Book The Devil's Delusion]</ref><ref>David Berlinski. 2009. The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions. Basic Books. ISBN, 0786751479</ref> Other atheist defenders have been Bradley Monton.<ref>Bradley Monton, Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design, 2009, Broadview Press, ISBN 9781551118635.</ref> | |
| − | == | + | In general, design principles are compatible with biology since design is already used in biological fields (e.g. breeding, artificial selection, farming, synthetic biology, systems biology, etc).<ref>Castle, S.D., Stock, M. & Gorochowski, T.E. Engineering is evolution: a perspective on design processes to engineer biology. Nature Communications 15, 3640 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-48000-1</ref><ref>Kevin A. Janes, Preethi L. Chandran, Roseanne M. Ford, Matthew J. Lazzara, Jason A. Papin, Shayn M. Peirce, Jeffrey J. Saucerman, Douglas A. Lauffenburger, An engineering design approach to systems biology, Integrative Biology, Volume 9, Issue 7, July 2017, Pages 574–583, https://doi.org/10.1039/c7ib00014f</ref> Intelligent design theory does have extensive peer-reviewed publications.<ref>[https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/2024/05/Peer-Reviewed-and-Mainstream-Articles-Page-Update-May-2024_FinalPDF.pdf LIST OF PEER-REVIEWED AND MAINSTREAM SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS SUPPORTING INTELLIGENT DESIGN 2024]</ref> The central idea of Intelligent Design theory is that [[design]] is empirically detectable, just as the detectability of design in man-made objects is straightforward, non-controversial, and often intuitive (see: [[design detection]]). With respect to the origin and development of cosmological and biological systems, Intelligent Design theory holds that the same principles provide a logical inference of design in nature. That is, without necessarily "proving" actual intelligent design in nature, the observable material evidence provides a reasonable basis from which to infer design, and such a [[design inference]] supports a legitimate scientific hypothesis of ''intelligent'' design. As such, Intelligent Design theory is a scientific disagreement with the core claim of materialistic theories of [[evolution]] such as chemical and Darwinian evolution <ref>Darwinian Evolution: A materialistic theory of the history of the diversification of organisms from common ancestors through a process of descent with modification. The theory postulates that evolutionary change is the result of material causes [i.e., unintelligent causes due to the interactions of matter, energy, and the forces of nature], driven primarily by random variation and natural selection. The forces include gravity, the electromagnetic force and the weak and strong nuclear forces that define the structure of atoms. With respect to explaining the cosmos, the laws of chemistry and physics such as the laws of motion and thermodynamics dictate that material causes operate in generally periodic or regular patterns at best, and in entropy-increasing randomness at worst. ''See'', "Thirty-eight Nobel Laureates, ''Nobel Laureates Initiative,'' (The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity, September 9, 2005), stressing to Kansas State Board of Education: “[E]volution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.”</ref> that the design exhibited in our universe is merely ''apparent'' design, i.e., ''unintelligent'' design caused by unguided, purposeless, natural forces of physics and chemistry alone.<ref>As used in this article, "materialism" is used synonymously with "naturalism". Naturalism is a philosophical doctrine that material causes alone are adequate to account for all natural phenomena and that teleological (design) conceptions of nature are invalid.</ref> |
| − | '''Origins science''' is the scientific inquiry about biological and cosmological origins.<ref> ''See'', '''Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science''', definition of Origins Science, '''Intelligent Design Network''' http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Statement_of_Objectives_Feb_12_07.pdf</ref> Scientists investigating such origins seek to propose explanations for the direct cause of unobserved events and processes that occurred in the very remote past that can not be duplicated under presently observable conditions and that are not amenable to experimental confirmation. | + | |
| − | [[Image:Ernst_Mayr.jpg|thumb|150px|left|Ernst Mayr]] | + | In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection—how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, archeology, forensic sciences, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence ('''[[SETI]]'''). An inference that certain cosmological and biological features of the natural world may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.<ref>For example, Stephen C. Meyer, Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, notes at [http://www.discovery.org/a/1671 A Note to Teachers Stephen C. Meyer and Mark Hartwig, Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins May 1, 1993], the problem with limiting explanations to only "natural" causes: "Archaeologists routinely distinguish manufactured objects (e.g., arrowheads, potsherds) from natural ones (e.g., stones), even when the differences between them are very subtle. These manufactured objects then become important clues in reconstructing past ways of life. But if we arbitrarily assert that science explains solely by reference to natural laws, if archaeologists are prohibited from invoking an intelligent manufacturer, the whole archaeological enterprise comes to a grinding halt."</ref> |
| + | |||
| + | Intelligent Design theory, like all theories of origins, is scientifically and religiously controversial. All theories of origins are scientifically controversial because they often amount to [[Subjectivism|subjective]] historical narratives that seek to explain unobserved and unobservable singular past events that occurred many years ago and that cannot be adequately tested in the laboratory. They are religiously controversial because all religions, including non-theistic religions, depend on a particular origins narrative. Intelligent Design proponents believe institutions of science, including government agencies, public schools and universities, should strive for objectivity and academic freedom in facilitating origins teaching and research. Objectivity in the evaluation and interpretation of material evidence ensures that all evidence-based explanations for natural phenomena can be considered fairly on their respective merits, regardless of their ultimate metaphysical or religious implications. Institutions of science should promote objectivity and academic freedom, especially where minority viewpoints challenge scientific orthodoxy. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Despite its many strengths, many [[Young Earth Creationism|biblical creationists]], while acknowledging those strengths, criticize the Intelligent Design theory for refusing to specify the identity of the designer, refusing to bring the Christian God and the Bible into the picture, and for accepting long ages and a theistic theory of evolution.<ref name="Whitcomb"/><ref name="PurdomChapter13"/> | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Intelligent Design, Evolution, and Origins Science == | ||
| + | '''[[Origins science]]''' is the scientific inquiry about biological and cosmological origins.<ref>''See'', '''Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science''', definition of Origins Science, '''Intelligent Design Network''' http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Statement_of_Objectives_Feb_12_07.pdf</ref> Scientists investigating such origins seek to propose explanations for the direct cause of unobserved events and processes that occurred in the very remote past that can not be duplicated under presently observable conditions and that are not amenable to experimental confirmation. Explanations can only be inferred from the evidence. Intelligent design theorists argue that the evidence naturally leads to an inference of design. Darwinists argue unguided purposeless causes ''despite'' the clear evidence of design. Because no explanation can be tested by experimental methods, the historical nature of origins science can only lead to inferences, and the question is simply which inference is most reasonable. | ||
| + | [[Image:Ernst_Mayr.jpg|thumb|150px|left|[[Ernst Mayr]]]] | ||
Preeminent 20th century Darwinist [[Ernst Mayr]], billed as “one of the great shining figures of evolutionary biology” <ref>Ernst Mayr, ''What Evolution Is'' (New York: Basic Books, 2001); back cover, quote attributed to John Maynard Smith.</ref> correctly noted in his book entitled ''What Evolution Is'': | Preeminent 20th century Darwinist [[Ernst Mayr]], billed as “one of the great shining figures of evolutionary biology” <ref>Ernst Mayr, ''What Evolution Is'' (New York: Basic Books, 2001); back cover, quote attributed to John Maynard Smith.</ref> correctly noted in his book entitled ''What Evolution Is'': | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
| − | Evolution is a historical process that cannot be proven by the same arguments and methods by which purely physical or functional phenomena can be documented. Evolution as a whole, and the explanations of particular evolutionary event, must be inferred from observations. <ref>Ernst Mayr, ''What Evolution Is'', (New York: Basic Books, 2001), p. 12.</ref> | + | "Evolution is a historical process that cannot be proven by the same arguments and methods by which purely physical or functional phenomena can be documented. Evolution as a whole, and the explanations of particular evolutionary event, must be inferred from observations." <ref>Ernst Mayr, ''What Evolution Is'', (New York: Basic Books, 2001), p. 12.</ref> |
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
[[Image:Stephen Meyer.jpg|thumb|100px|right|Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] Director and Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute]] | [[Image:Stephen Meyer.jpg|thumb|100px|right|Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] Director and Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute]] | ||
| Line 23: | Line 32: | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
| − | Mayr's statement does not define "evolution", but his point is valid.<ref>"Evolution" is in quotes because one of the problems faced in debating "evolution" is the lack of a precise definition. If "evolution" is used to mean "micro-evolution" (minor changes like finch beak variation observed within some species), then "evolution" is uncontroversial. However, if (as Mayr intends, but does not state) by "evolution" is meant "unguided, purposeless processes to produce new and beneficial changes in living systems", then Mayr is correct -- "evolution" is not experimentally confirmable, and, exactly like Intelligent Design, can only be inferred from observations.</ref> More objectively, his statement should be that origins (whether cosmological or biological) are due to a historical process that cannot be proven . . . but must be inferred from observations. Thus the methods used to discern the cause of historical events and processes differ from those of inductive, experimental science, and inferences based on observations should not be limited only to inferences of unintelligent causation. As with other historical sciences like archeology, historical geology, forensics and cryptanalysis, origins science asks different kinds of questions and uses different methods than do inductive sciences. The inductive sciences, on the one hand, ask questions about how the natural world generally operates based on direct experimental observation. The historical sciences, on the other hand, use abductive reasoning that asks how certain or probable observable phenomena came to be, the answer to which often cannot be discovered through direct observation. Dr. [[Stephen C. Meyer]] fully develops this line of thought | + | Mayr's statement does not define "evolution", but his point is valid.<ref>"Evolution" is in quotes because one of the problems faced in debating "evolution" is the lack of a precise definition. If "evolution" is used to mean "micro-evolution" (minor changes like finch beak variation observed within some species), then "evolution" is uncontroversial. However, if (as Mayr intends, but does not state) by "evolution" is meant "unguided, purposeless processes to produce new and beneficial changes in living systems", then Mayr is correct -- "evolution" is not experimentally confirmable, and, exactly like Intelligent Design, can only be inferred from observations.</ref> More objectively, his statement should be that origins (whether cosmological or biological) are due to a historical process that cannot be proven . . . but must be inferred from observations. Thus the methods used to discern the cause of historical events and processes differ from those of inductive, experimental science, and inferences based on observations should not be limited only to inferences of unintelligent causation. As with other historical sciences like archeology, historical geology, forensics and cryptanalysis, origins science asks different kinds of questions and uses different methods than do inductive sciences. The inductive sciences, on the one hand, ask questions about how the natural world generally operates based on direct experimental observation. The historical sciences, on the other hand, use abductive reasoning that asks how certain or probable observable phenomena came to be, the answer to which often cannot be discovered through direct observation. Dr. [[Stephen C. Meyer]] fully develops this line of thought. |
| − | The distinction between inductive and historical sciences is not an idea inspired by intelligent design theory. The | + | The distinction between inductive and historical sciences is not an idea inspired by intelligent design theory. The '''[[National Academy of Sciences]]''' (NAS) makes the same distinction to defend "evolution" as science.<ref>As noted above, with respect to Mayr's statement, "evolution" is in quotes here again because the NAS fails to use the term with a precise meaning. If "evolution" is used to mean "micro-evolution" (the minor change like finch beak variation, usually inconsequential, but observed within some species), then of course "evolution" is scientific and verifiable by experimentation. However, if by "evolution" is meant "unguided, purposeless processes to produce new and beneficial changes in living systems", then "evolution" is not experimentally confirmable, as the NAS notes. However, as the NAS notes, such lack of being able to be experimentally confirmed does not remove a hypothesis from the realm of science (otherwise, as the NAS confirms, "evolution" would not be science).</ref> In its publication ''Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science'',<ref>''Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science'' Washington DC, National Academy Press, (1998), p. 55.</ref> the NAS responds to the question, "How can evolution be scientific when no one was there to see it happen?": |
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
| Line 31: | Line 40: | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
| − | Intelligent design theorists agree; one must not take a “narrow view” of science, such that certain disciplines like archeology, the | + | Intelligent design theorists agree; one must not take a “narrow view” of science, such that certain disciplines like archeology, the '''[[SETI]]''' project, forensics, and intelligent design are removed from the realm of science. Such disciplines propose hypotheses, and the testing of these hypotheses is often only effective by proposing competing hypotheses and objectively analyzing the evidence to determine which hypothesis correlates best with the evidence. As '''Carol Cleland''' elaborates in her paper entitled ''Historical Science, Experimental Science and the Scientific Method'', in actual practice historical researchers tend to search for “positive evidence—a smoking gun.” <ref>Carol Cleland, ''Historical Science, Experimental Science and the Scientific Method'' (Geology, November 2001, Vol. 29, No. 11), pp. 987-990.</ref> Ms. Cleland explores the necessary role of hypothesis testing for scientific disciplines not amenable to classical experimental testing. Hypothesis testing by formulating multiple competing hypotheses is essential in the context of historical sciences, such as cosmology, geology, and biogenesis. According to Cleland, “A smoking gun is a trace that picks out one of the competing hypotheses as providing a better causal explanation for the currently available traces than the other.” <ref>Carol Cleland, ''Historical Science, Experimental Science and the Scientific Method'' (Geology, November 2001, Vol. 29, No. 11) p. 988.</ref> |
== Methods of Intelligent Design Detection == | == Methods of Intelligent Design Detection == | ||
| + | |||
| + | ''See also:'' [[Design inference]], [[Irreducible complexity]] and [[Argument from beauty]] | ||
| + | [[File:Fire-investigator.jpg|150px|right|thumbnail|Design detection is used in a variety of [[science]]s including [[forensic]] science that investigates the cause of a death or fire.]] | ||
Design detection asks whether an effect or pattern that arose unobserved in the past is due to intelligent or unintelligent material causes. Is the pattern or effect a design or just an occurrence? | Design detection asks whether an effect or pattern that arose unobserved in the past is due to intelligent or unintelligent material causes. Is the pattern or effect a design or just an occurrence? | ||
| Line 40: | Line 52: | ||
The question of causation turns on whether the characteristics of a given pattern or effect are within the capacity of the cause to which it may be attributable. Do unintelligent material causes have the ability or capacity to account for the occurrence of a replicating cell? Does Darwinism's unintelligent material causes, consisting of random variation and natural selection, have the capacity to account for the diversity of life once it gets started? To start the analysis, one should first compare and contrast the capacities of intelligent causes and unintelligent material causes and the kinds of patterns those capacities produce. | The question of causation turns on whether the characteristics of a given pattern or effect are within the capacity of the cause to which it may be attributable. Do unintelligent material causes have the ability or capacity to account for the occurrence of a replicating cell? Does Darwinism's unintelligent material causes, consisting of random variation and natural selection, have the capacity to account for the diversity of life once it gets started? To start the analysis, one should first compare and contrast the capacities of intelligent causes and unintelligent material causes and the kinds of patterns those capacities produce. | ||
| − | ===The Capacity of Unintelligent Material Causes=== | + | ====Inferring design==== |
| + | Design is often inferred intuitively. However, there are formal ways to establish a [[Design inference]]. For example, logical and/or mathematical assessment of both ''small probabilities'' and ''specifications'' on any phenomenon or event, and the resulting elimination of chance as a viable explanation for the phenomenon or event.<ref>William Dembski and Winston Ewert. 2023. The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (2nd edition). Discovery Institute. ISBN 9781637120347. Page 70</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | ''Chance'' can occur as a side effect of design (e.g. car accidents occur even when cars, controls, and roads are designed). Chance can also be a an unguided natural phenomenon (e.g. earthquake, landslide, etc).<ref>William Dembski and Winston Ewert. 2023. The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (2nd edition). Discovery Institute. ISBN 9781637120347. Page 75-85</ref> In order to narrow down if something is designed or natural, specifications should be present. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ''Specifications'' "are patterns that identify events and that have short or simple descriptions. But descriptions can be represented in bits." Also, "Design inferences engage in a balancing act between the complexity of events and the simplicity of descriptions."<ref>William Dembski and Winston Ewert. 2023. The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (2nd edition). Discovery Institute. ISBN 9781637120347. pages 132-133</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | The term '''specified complexity''' is term used and endorsed by eminent scientists such as Francis Crick, Paul Davies, Leslie Orgel, and even Richard Dawkins, sometimes using the very term and at other times using "complexity" and "specification" in the same breath. The actual term "specified complexity" goes back to biologist Leslie Orgel in 1973 in connection to origin of life research.<ref>William Dembski and Winston Ewert. 2023. The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (2nd edition). Discovery Institute. ISBN 9781637120347. page 258-266</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | ====In biology==== | ||
| + | [[File:Generegulatory_networkS_cerevisiae.png|250px|thumb|right|Example of a Gene Regulatory Network (GRN) in a single cell bacteria called ''S. cerevisiae'' where Transcription factors (large blue circles) and other genes (small green circles) have complex chemical interactions in the cell.<ref>Ma S, Kemmeren P, Gresham D, Statnikov A (2014) De-Novo Learning of Genome-Scale Regulatory Networks in S. cerevisiae. PLOS ONE 9(9): e106479. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106479</ref>]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | Cells display a highly specified and complex set of chemical interactions. For example, '''gene regulatory networks''' highlight complex chemical interactions that occur per second in each cell. Resembling chemical manufacturing and synthesis of biological matter. Gene regulatory networks are segments within DNA that govern the rate and products of genes, controlling essential processes such as transcription and translation to prevent the production of harmful or ineffective gene products and also display how segments of cellular activity is automatically controlled by information embedded in DNA.<ref>[https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/gene-regulatory-network Gene Regulatory Networks] Science Direct Journals "Gene regulatory networks are segments within DNA that govern the rate and products of genes, controlling essential processes such as transcription and translation to prevent the production of harmful or ineffective gene products."</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Gene regulatory networks are visualizations of thousands of genes that are expressed and work in concert to ensure the cell's function, fitness, and survival whereby each gene is expressed at the proper time and in the proper amounts to ensure the appropriate function in each cell.<ref>Macneil LT, Walhout AJ. [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3083081/ Gene regulatory networks and the role of robustness and stochasticity in the control of gene expression]. Genome Res. 2011 May;21(5):645-57. doi: 10.1101/gr.097378.109."In any given cell, thousands of genes are expressed and work in concert to ensure the cell's function, fitness, and survival. Each gene, in turn, must be expressed at the proper time and in the proper amounts to ensure the appropriate functional outcome. The regulation and expression of some genes are highly robust; their expression is controlled by invariable expression programs. For instance, developmental gene expression is extremely similar in a given cell type from one individual to another. The expression of other genes is more variable: Their levels are noisy and are different from cell to cell and from individual to individual. This can be highly beneficial in physiological responses to outside cues and stresses. Recent advances have enabled the analysis of differential gene expression at a systems level. Gene regulatory networks (GRNs) involving interactions between large numbers of genes and their regulators have been mapped onto graphic diagrams that are used to visualize the regulatory relationships."</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Life requires multiple chemical processes to exist simultaneously in a microscopic space. According to leading chemist Felix Franks<ref>Felix Franks. 2010. "2. Water and Life Friend or Foe?". In Harper, Charles (ed.). Water and Life: The Unique Properties of H2O. CRC Press. ISBN 9781439803561 page 13</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | "To translate the dictionary definition into scientific terms, life processes, as we understand them, must encompass all of the following functions in sequence: | ||
| + | |||
| + | * To control the synthesis of simple, chiral molecules and their reactions to form complex polymers, based mainly, but not exclusively, on carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorus | ||
| + | * To program and direct the assembly of such molecules into supramolecular structures, organelles, cells, organs, tissues, and organisms, that is, the achievement of differentiation in the right places and at the right time | ||
| + | * To control cascades of chemical reactions (e.g., metabolism), resulting in growth to maturity, steady-state maintenance, defense against predators and chemical deterioration, energy- conversion processes, reproduction, followed by a more-or-less rapid senescence and expiry" | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===The Capacity of Unintelligent Material Causes === | ||
Unintelligent material causes consist simply of the interactions of the properties of matter, energy and the forces. These interactions are generally governed by the laws of chemistry and physics, such as the laws of motion and thermodynamics. These causes do not have the capacity to “know” the environment within which they exist and then seek to change it for a particular future purpose. In other words, as stated by evolutionary biologist '''Douglas J. Futuyma''', they lack forward looking "foreknowledge. . . only an intelligent mind, one with the capacity for forethought, can have purpose.”<ref>“Darwin's immeasurably important contribution to science was to show how mechanistic causes could also explain all biological phenomena, despite their apparent evidence of design and purpose. By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. ......Darwin undid the essentialism that Western philosophy had inherited from Plato and Aristotle, and put variation in its place. He helped to replace a static conception of the world with the vision of a world of ceaseless change. Above all, his theory of random, purposeless variation acted on by blind, purposeless natural selection provided a revolutionary new kind of answer to almost all questions that begin with "Why?" It cannot be sufficiently emphasized that before Darwin, both philosophers and people in general answered "Why?" questions by citing purpose. Only an intelligent mind, one with the capacity for forethought, can have purpose. Thus questions like "Why do plants have flowers?" or "Why are there apple trees?"? or plagues, or storms? were answered by imagining the possible purpose that God could have had in creating them.” Douglas J. Futuyma, '''Evolutionary Biology''', Third Edition,(Sinauer Associates, Inc. 1998) p. 5, 8.</ref> | Unintelligent material causes consist simply of the interactions of the properties of matter, energy and the forces. These interactions are generally governed by the laws of chemistry and physics, such as the laws of motion and thermodynamics. These causes do not have the capacity to “know” the environment within which they exist and then seek to change it for a particular future purpose. In other words, as stated by evolutionary biologist '''Douglas J. Futuyma''', they lack forward looking "foreknowledge. . . only an intelligent mind, one with the capacity for forethought, can have purpose.”<ref>“Darwin's immeasurably important contribution to science was to show how mechanistic causes could also explain all biological phenomena, despite their apparent evidence of design and purpose. By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. ......Darwin undid the essentialism that Western philosophy had inherited from Plato and Aristotle, and put variation in its place. He helped to replace a static conception of the world with the vision of a world of ceaseless change. Above all, his theory of random, purposeless variation acted on by blind, purposeless natural selection provided a revolutionary new kind of answer to almost all questions that begin with "Why?" It cannot be sufficiently emphasized that before Darwin, both philosophers and people in general answered "Why?" questions by citing purpose. Only an intelligent mind, one with the capacity for forethought, can have purpose. Thus questions like "Why do plants have flowers?" or "Why are there apple trees?"? or plagues, or storms? were answered by imagining the possible purpose that God could have had in creating them.” Douglas J. Futuyma, '''Evolutionary Biology''', Third Edition,(Sinauer Associates, Inc. 1998) p. 5, 8.</ref> | ||
| − | Material causes are to nature as thoughts are to a dead man. The past, present and future is irrelevant to material causes for they | + | Material causes are to nature as thoughts are to a dead man. The past, present and future is irrelevant to material causes for they can't comprehend it. Unintelligent material causes are not merely blind watchmakers, they are mindless, purposeless, and meaningless. Lacking a mind, they lack the capacity to “make” anything. Unintelligent material causes can adequately account for physical systems like the occurrence of rocks, rivers, wind and rain. However, it is not clear how they account for time-dependent living systems or themselves. |
The laws of motion explain that matter stays in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it. Thus, patterns produced by material causes reflect an intersection of forces which start or stop the motion of matter. An intervening warm spell that melted a glacier carrying rocks and boulders caused them to come to rest in an unsorted pattern as glacial till. Similarly, when the Mississippi River hits the Gulf of Mexico it drops a load that forms a fan-shaped delta. | The laws of motion explain that matter stays in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it. Thus, patterns produced by material causes reflect an intersection of forces which start or stop the motion of matter. An intervening warm spell that melted a glacier carrying rocks and boulders caused them to come to rest in an unsorted pattern as glacial till. Similarly, when the Mississippi River hits the Gulf of Mexico it drops a load that forms a fan-shaped delta. | ||
| Line 56: | Line 92: | ||
Intelligent causes produced by minds are ubiquitous to the natural world. Humans have minds, as do birds and beavers. We are also finding that cellular systems appear to have a kind of internal intelligence. The immune system consists of cells that act as forward observers that look for foreign invaders. Those observers on the front line send messages to command central that develops weapons to be used to defend against the attack. | Intelligent causes produced by minds are ubiquitous to the natural world. Humans have minds, as do birds and beavers. We are also finding that cellular systems appear to have a kind of internal intelligence. The immune system consists of cells that act as forward observers that look for foreign invaders. Those observers on the front line send messages to command central that develops weapons to be used to defend against the attack. | ||
| − | Intelligent causes differ from unintelligent material causes in that intelligent causes have minds hooked up to input and output devices that have the capacity to manipulate unintelligent material causes for a purpose. Intelligent causes perceive the present, store the perception in memory to build experience and then process the experience and knowledge to predict what will occur in the future. Intelligent causes have knowledge that can be processed by processors to generate “foreknowledge,” while unintelligent material causes have neither. Intelligent causes also have the capacity to choose to change the future so that a desired or intended goal or purpose is achieved and to generate outputs efficient to achieve the purpose. Intelligent causes use unintelligent material causes and the stuff unintelligent material causes produce to make a | + | Intelligent causes differ from unintelligent material causes in that intelligent causes have minds hooked up to input and output devices that have the capacity to manipulate unintelligent material causes for a purpose. Intelligent causes perceive the present, store the perception in memory to build experience and then process the experience and knowledge to predict what will occur in the future. Intelligent causes have knowledge that can be processed by processors to generate “foreknowledge,” while unintelligent material causes have neither. Intelligent causes also have the capacity to choose to change the future so that a desired or intended goal or purpose is achieved and to generate outputs efficient to achieve the purpose. Intelligent causes use unintelligent material causes and the stuff unintelligent material causes produce to make a bird's nest, a beaver's dam or an aqueduct. |
Patterns produced by a mind like the dam, nest or aqueduct often reflect millions of precise starting and stopping points not found in systems driven only by the uniform motion of regular natural forces, stopped only by accidental opposing forces. Patterns produced by intelligent causes integrate starts and stops for a purpose. The integration becomes clear when the pattern is both complex and useful. The integrated stopping points are evident in the case of the nest, dam and aqueduct. But for the stopping of matter at integrated precise points, the assembly would not function as a whole. This article reflects thousands of instances where matter has been started and then stopped – integrated - to produce precise, and hopefully understandable, meaning. Unlike patterns produced by the chemical and physical necessity of matter in uniform motion, designs consist of patterns of stopping points that are integrated for a particular purpose. Minds tie events together to for a purpose. Material causes do not. When the patterns are both complex and purposeful the inference to an intelligent cause is compelling. | Patterns produced by a mind like the dam, nest or aqueduct often reflect millions of precise starting and stopping points not found in systems driven only by the uniform motion of regular natural forces, stopped only by accidental opposing forces. Patterns produced by intelligent causes integrate starts and stops for a purpose. The integration becomes clear when the pattern is both complex and useful. The integrated stopping points are evident in the case of the nest, dam and aqueduct. But for the stopping of matter at integrated precise points, the assembly would not function as a whole. This article reflects thousands of instances where matter has been started and then stopped – integrated - to produce precise, and hopefully understandable, meaning. Unlike patterns produced by the chemical and physical necessity of matter in uniform motion, designs consist of patterns of stopping points that are integrated for a particular purpose. Minds tie events together to for a purpose. Material causes do not. When the patterns are both complex and purposeful the inference to an intelligent cause is compelling. | ||
| − | + | [[Image:Saint Thomas Aquinas.jpg|right|thumbnail|175px|[[St. Thomas Aquinas]] ]] | |
| − | In the 13th Century, the famous Christian Philosopher, Thomas Aquinas, noted that systems which have a purpose either have a mind or are driven by one: | + | In the 13th Century, the famous Christian Philosopher, [[Thomas Aquinas]], noted that systems which have a purpose either have a mind or are driven by one: |
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
| Line 75: | Line 111: | ||
====Formal Design Detection -- ''The Explanatory Filter''==== | ====Formal Design Detection -- ''The Explanatory Filter''==== | ||
| − | [[Image: | + | [[Image:Wm Dembski.jpg|right|thumbnail|200px|Dr. [[William Dembski]] ]] |
| − | Dr. [[William Dembski]] is a leading intelligent design theorist, and has written several books on the subject, including ''Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology'',<ref> | + | Dr. [[William Dembski]] is a leading intelligent design theorist, and has written several books on the subject, including ''Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology'',<ref>https://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Design-Between-Science-Theology/dp/083082314X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/104-1803249-2067114?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194228951&sr=1-2</ref> and ''The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory)''.<ref>https://www.amazon.com/Design-Inference-Eliminating-Probabilities-Probability/dp/0521678676/ref=sr_1_7/104-1803249-2067114?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194229141&sr=1-7</ref> Dr. Dembski has a Ph.D. in mathematics and philosophy, and an M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary. One of Dembski's contributions to the intelligent design movement is to set forth one method of detecting design, a method he describes as the "[[explanatory filter]]". |
| − | Dembski describes his three-part ''' | + | Dembski describes his three-part '''explanatory filter''' together with an example of its use in a paper published at '''Access Research Network'''.<ref>http://www.arn.org</ref> In the paper, entitled ''The Explanatory Filter: A three-part filter for understanding how to separate and identify cause from intelligent design'',<ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_explfilter.htm</ref> |
| − | Dembski found that all formal design detection methodologies can be reduced to three logical steps in what he refers to as an explanatory filter. The filter first asks whether a given pattern is best explained by some chemical or physical necessity or law? If not, can it be explained by chance. If chance and necessity | + | Dembski found that all formal design detection methodologies can be reduced to three logical steps in what he refers to as an explanatory filter. The filter first asks whether a given pattern is best explained by some chemical or physical necessity or law? If not, can it be explained by chance. If chance and necessity can't explain the pattern, does it exhibit a “specification” or apparent purpose? If a complex pattern reflecting the integration of numerous stopping points does exhibit purpose and can't be explained by chance or necessity, then the scientific, logical inference to the best explanation is design. |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||