Intelligent design
The intelligent Design (ID) argument is a critique of the naturalistic theory of evolution through natural selection. Intelligent design argues that life and other aspects of the physical universe are too complex to have come about through natural processes alone. In particular, the cell is too intricate to have come into being without having been designed (see irreducible complexity). Thus various features of the universe and of living things are best explained by a designer and not by undirected processes. [1][2][3][4]
Design theory leaves the identity of the Intelligent Designer open; it seeks instead to develop a reliable methodology for characterizing when a material/energy configuration is best explained by reference to more than strictly unguided natural processes, the identity of the designer being left to follow-on forensic investigative initiatives.
Evidence
One of the first major books with evidence for intelligent design was Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box". Behe is a Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University. He states in his book "Darwin's Black Box" [5] that there are certain irreducible complexities in organisms which can only be addressed by an intelligent designer.
Michael Behe wrote the following:
| “ | Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or book—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct experience, and since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that—like the contention that the Eagles will win the Super Bowl this year—the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster." - Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 186[6] | ” |
William Dembski in book No Free Lunch, states the the following:
| “ | A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, non-arbitrarily 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. [7] | ” |
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer argued that naturalistic explanations for the origin of life have failed and that inference to the best explanation for the origin of biological information is an intelligent cause. [8] In the peer reviewed biology journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington Dr. Meyer argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms and proposed an intelligent cause as the best explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa. [9] The editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Dr. Richard Sternberg, came under intense scutiny and persecution for the aforementioned article published by Dr. Meyer. [10] William Dembski argues that the existence of complex specified information in biological organisms argues for an intelligent cause. [11][12]
Criticism
Not one paper concerning Intelligent Design has been accepted by peer review by the scientific community at large, except by other "Creation Scientists". Thus it's difficult to support any claim that Intelligent Design is a true theory, rather than a religious statement, since it fails to pass muster with the overall scientific community.
Statements and Analogies
Many Intelligent Design advocates propose the "watch" analogy made famous by William Paley (1743-1805).
Paley wrote in his work Natural Theology the following:
| “ | Suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there: I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever; nor would it, perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place. I should hardly think of the answer I had before given - that, for anything I knew, the watch might always have been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone? When we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we could not discover in the stone) that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e.g. that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion is soregulated as to point out the hour of the day.
Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater and more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation. I mean, that the contrivances of nature surpass the contrivance of art, in the complexity, subtlety, and curiosity of the mechanism.” .[13] |
” |
More recently, Stephen C. Meyer, Ph.D. in his essay, The Origin of Life and the Death of Materialism wrote the following:
| “ | During the last forty years, molecular biology has revealed a complexity and intricacy of design that exceeds anything that was imaginable during the late-nineteenth century. We now know that organisms display any number of distinctive features of intelligently engineered high-tech systems: information storage and transfer capability; functioning codes; sorting and delivery systems; regulatory and feed-back loops; signal transduction circuitry; and everywhere, complex, mutually-interdependent networks of parts. Indeed, the complexity of the biomacromolecules discussed in this essay does not begin to exhaust the full complexity of living systems. As even the staunch materialist Richard Dawkins has allowed, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Yet the materialistic science we have inherited from the late-nineteenth century, with its exclusive conceptual reliance on matter and energy, could neither envision nor can it now account for the biology of the information age.[14] | ” |
Support
Recently, there have been articles which were favorable to the intelligent design position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position. [15]
In addition William Dembski wrote the following in a essay:
| “ | In a 1996 review of Michael Behe’s book Darwin's Black Box, James Shapiro, a molecular biologist at the University of Chicago, wrote: "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject -- evolution -- with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity" (National Review, 16 September 1996). Five years later cell biologist Franklin Harold wrote a book for Oxford University Press titled The Way of the Cell. In virtually identical language, he notes: "There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations."[16] | ” |
Design theory enjoys a small amount of stated support within the worldwide scientific community (creationist scientists report there is widespread discriminatory action against creationist scientists [17]). From 2001 to 2007, over 700 scientists had signed the pro-Intelligent Design manifesto, A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, published by the leaders of the design movement, the Discovery Institute. [18] This has caused some scientists to question the claim of the dominant scientific community that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of life and call for public school science students to study the evidence supporting it in greater detail.
Opposition
Some scientists who reviewed Behe's book felt that the structures he defined could evolve through the mechanisms of naturalist evolution and that the evidence provided was not convincing. [19]
In a recent trial in Dover, Pennsylvania Judge John E. Jones III ruled that Intelligent Design was not valid science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents". Legal scholars Jay D. Wexler and Arnold H. Loewy questioned Judge Jones's ruling. [20] Also, the WorldNetDaily stated: "A historic judicial ruling against intelligent design theory hailed as a "broad, stinging rebuke" and a "masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking" actually had material in its "finding of facts" that was "cut and pasted" from a brief by ACLU lawyers and includes many of their provable errors, contends the Seattle-based Discovery Institute." [21][22][23] The Discovery Institute states that Judge Jones followed the ACLU and ignored contrary facts. [24] Critics of Discovery Institute contend that it is a misrepresentation of legal precedent and that the ruling followed standard procedure. [25]
In a speech to the Anti-Defamation League, Jones said that "had I decided the Dover matter in a different way, I would have then engaged in just the kind of judicial activism which critics decry," stating that he was bound by "over a half century of strong legal precedents."[26]
Organizations and Internet Resources
The main intelligent design organizations are the Discovery Institute, Access Research Network, Intelligent Design Network, and the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design.
In regards to internet resources in relation to intelligent design, William Dembski and Denyse O'Leary help administer a blog entitled Uncommon Descent. [27] The Center for Science and Culture which is a Discovery Institute program has a blog called Evolution News & Views.[28] ResearchID.org is a wiki exploring empirical, hypothetical, and technological research possibilities for intelligent design.
References
- ↑ http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2348
- ↑ http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2834&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20History%20and%20Philosophy%20of%20Science
- ↑ http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2571
- ↑ http://www.arn.org/idfaq/What%20is%20intelligent%20design.htm
- ↑ http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684834936/thetalkorigin-20/
- ↑ http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html#wp1033719
- ↑ William Dembski, No Free Lunch,(2001), p. 285. ISBN 0742512975
- ↑ http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html
- ↑ http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177
- ↑ http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2399
- ↑ http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-specified.html
- ↑ http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idtheory.htm
- ↑ William Paley, Natural Theology, page 2
- ↑ http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_origins.htm
- ↑ http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640
- ↑ http://www.designinference.com/documents/2002.07.kurzweil_reply.htm
- ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i2/suppression.asp
- ↑ http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
- ↑ http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/box/nature.shtml
- ↑ http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/03/kitzmiller_attorney_uses_harsh.html
- ↑ http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330
- ↑ http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3829
- ↑ http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/01/a_response_to_darwinist_defend.html
- ↑ http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/judge_jones_follows_aclu_ignor.html
- ↑ http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/12/casey_luskinnot.html
- ↑ http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/speech_judge_jones.asp
- ↑ http://www.uncommondescent.com/
- ↑ http://www.evolutionnews.org/