Design (Week 25)

I would like to take a momentary break from the Bible and historical evidence. I want to revisit the idea of design, because I think my treatment of this fundamental argument was too brief… we were flying through the arguments early on, but intelligent design (if true) is the characteristic that separates the theistic universe from the deistic (causer would be involved at the inception only) or materialistic (no intelligence necessary) universe models. The arguments I gave previously focused more on cosmological probabilities in sticking with the prior theme, but I’d like to delve into the arena of the theories for first life and the data contained within each life form. Evolutionary theory does not offer an explanation for first life that is accepted by an abundance of scientists. As Jerry Coyne, author of Why Evolution is True noted, “…we have only a foggy window into the earliest and most interesting developments in evolution, and none at all into the origin of life.”

Intelligent design has a huge hurdle to overcome before the race even begins: the term “Intelligent Design” speaks to the conclusion of the theory and not to the science behind it; as such, it’s easy for someone who is not an ID proponent to scoff at the notion before even seeing the evidence (reactions just from my own audience included “Bwahahahaha!” and “…the entire premise of ID is that there is nothing to study – God did it….”). Evolutionary theory has met similar resistance in religious communities primarily because it is viewed as a sort of no-need-for-God theory. I think the attitudes on both sides (not to say that the theories are necessarily at odds… I get to that momentarily) lead to a sort of intellectual dishonesty. Certainly, many Christians are guilty of dismissing evolutionary theory without knowing the scientific discoveries that have had a profound impact over the past several decades. I would argue, too, that many evolutionary theorists consider ID as being a sort of capitulation by theists who can’t explain certain phenomena and thereby just insert God into the equation. Both parties, I think, are missing out on the opportunity for a good scientific discussion. Evolutionary theory has come a long way since Darwin, and ID has made huge strides since Paley. There is evidence for both theories, and I think that the scientific approach for both theories is very similar. This is the notion I want to explore over the next few weeks.

There is an understandable predilection for scientists to look for materialistic causes. After all, the explanation “God did it” seems to many tantamount to throwing up one’s hands and giving up on the problem. ID, however, is not necessarily an enterprise that seeks to justify one’s religious convictions; rather, it is a natural extrapolation from the evidence at hand. Evidence for ID has religious implications, but it is not necessary to presume God in order to look for intelligence. Similarly, it is not necessary to posit a materialist universe in order to form the theory of evolution.

Like evolutionary theory, ID seeks to draw on what we know and to extrapolate this to the fundamental properties of earthly beings. In its simplest form, ID theory says simply that the data contained within a living being is indicative of a designer. Often, ID proponents will say something like, “If you look at the Grand Canyon, you will see a beautiful landscape that appears to have been created by the natural forces of wind and water; on the other hand, if you look at Mount Rushmore, you can note clear elements of design. This evidence, to any unbiased onlooker, obviously points to an intelligent sculptor, or designer.” This is a nice notion and one that I have used in the past (maybe even in a previous blog… I don’t recall), but it is not sufficient to a scientist to simply say, “Look at this thing. It sure looks designed to me.” The clearest evidence of design, I think, is not formation, but information.

One thing that I want to make clear is that I don’t believe evolution to be the anti-God argument that some have made it out to be. I do think that, as Richard Dawkins made clear, it enables atheists to have a scientific backing of their own beliefs – that if evolution is indeed a wholly natural process, there is no need for theistic explanations; however, I don’t believe that – even if the general premise of inter-species changes over time is true – this somehow negates God. Even the most devout evolutionist would likely acknowledge that there are holes in our knowledge of how these changes take place in a relatively short amount of time. So, my focus will not be in attacking evolutionary theory; rather, I would prefer to focus on the issue at hand: do we have evidence to indicate that organisms were designed?

If evolutionary theorists like Coyne cannot offer a sufficient explanation for first life, should the scientific community really look upon ID with such disdain? Who is throwing up their hands? It seems to me that by making an assumption that first life could have occurred via natural processes without first formulating a reasonable explanation, scientists are essentially yielding to the notion “…that there is nothing to study.” I personally find it a tad unusual that a group could be so militantly opposed to a theory when attempts to formulate materialistic theories have fallen woefully short of substantive proof. Instead, I propose simply that we take a look at the evidence behind ID, and view the data thoughtfully and with detachment. As Darwin put it, “A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, - a mere heart of stone.” One doesn’t have to presume intelligence to find it, and one shouldn’t disregard intelligence if the evidence is plain. Chance simply does not provide a sufficient explanation for the formation of life, and the idea that natural selection preceded life is incongruous.

Over the next few weeks, I’ll be delving a bit deeper into the principles behind ID theory, but I’ll also be equating the scientific methods to those utilized by proponents of evolutionary theory. I would like to give a special thanks to Skyhook for providing me with materials for comparison. This will give us a good grounding for discussion.