Sir Isaac Newton once demonstrated to a friend that design suggests a "designer".  Seeing a model of the solar system on Newton’s desk, he asked who the designer was.  Newton told his friend that no one made it.  Of course, it was obvious that the mobile had been made by someone, but Newton kept insisting that no one made it until his friend was ready to leave the room in disgust.  At this point, Newton asked how his friend could be so insistent that someone had made the mobile, yet at the same time deny that the solar system itself from which the mobile was patterned was not made by anyone.  Clearly, design does suggest a designer, and, in fact, this reasoning is used in science by evolutionists.

Scientists reason that if the universe, life, and species were created supernaturally, then evidence for design should be observed in the creation.  In his recently published book Evolution Under the Microscope, David Swift outlines the rise of evolutionary ideas up to Darwin, who introduced the key concept of natural selection.  He describes how the theory developed as an understanding was gained of hereditary mechanisms, leading to the emergence of Neo-Darwinism—evolution through natural selection in the context of Mendelian genetics.  By the middle of the 20th century there were good reasons for the widespread acceptance of evolution—to the extent that many were convinced the theory must be true, no matter what further discoveries were made.

Swift then goes on to show that, from what we have learned in the last 50 years of molecular biology, the facts belie the theory.  He examines current theories of how such macromolecules might have evolved, and explains why they are totally unsatisfactory; indeed he shows that the complexity of molecular biology completely defies any sort of evolutionary explanation.  Further, there is no evidence for the constructive mutations that would be required to fuel long-term evolution, and the book includes a detailed discussion of the acquisition of resistance to pesticides which is frequently portrayed as demonstrating such evolution.  Many evolutionists point to the operation of natural selection and the fossil record as evidence, even proof; but any demonstrable evolution is strictly limited and does not answer the fundamental problems posed by biochemistry—it adds weight to them.  Even circumstantial evidence such as homology (e.g. the similarity of vertebrate skeletons) is not what it seems; in fact the lack of homology between apparently related groups of organisms further challenges their supposed evolution from a common ancestor.

The scientific theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.  Intelligent design theory (ID) then is an alternative solution to answer problems with Darwinian evolution.  Most Intelligent Design arguments assert that the theory of evolution cannot explain certain phenomena, and that these can therefore be more reasonably explained by ID.  One such argument is the concept of Irreducible Complexity, a term coined by biochemist Michael Behe and discussed at length in his book Darwin's Black Box.  According to the theory of evolution, genetic variations occur randomly, and the environment selects variants that have most fitness.  Change occurs in a gradual, stepwise manner, and is able to create complex structures from simpler beginnings.  Most ID advocates accept that evolution occurs through mutation and natural selection, but assert that it cannot lead to new instances of irreducible complexity.

A variant of this argument is the theory of specified complexity which was developed by mathematician, philosopher and theologian William Dembski.  The term "specified complexity" originated from the research of life researcher Leslie Orgel, and was later used by physicist Paul Davies to denote what distinguishes living things from non-living things.  Dembski defines complex specified information (CSI) as something containing a large amount of specified information, which is assumed to have a low probability of occurring.  He defines this probability as 1 in 10^-150, which he calls the universal probability bound.  Anything below this bound has CSI.  The terms "specified complexity" and "complex specified information" are used interchangeably.  Dembski and other proponents of ID assert that specified complexity cannot come about by natural means, and is therefore a reliable indicator of design.  Dembski himself has formulated this as the Law of Conservation of Information.

The creationist movement in general perceives several problems with evolutionary theory.  The ID movement often accepts various aspects of evolutionary theory, for example common descent and microevolution that other creationist groups disagree with.  Problems perceived by the intelligent design movement include:

• Abiogenesis — arguing that science has thus far failed to conclusively demonstrate any mechanism by which life may have arisen from non-life, they assert that it is most reasonable to conclude that life was created.

• Macroevolution — While some proponents of ID ascribe to macroevolution, others assert that evolutionary theory has failed to show sufficient evidence from the fossil record to support belief in macroevolution, and has failed to show any mechanism by which mutation and natural selection can lead to macroevolution.

• Cambrian explosion — arguing that the sudden appearance of an enormously greater number and variety of life-forms at the rock strata associated with the "Cambrian" era than those below cannot be explained by naturalistic evolution alone, and it is therefore most reasonable to conclude that those new species were created.

• Human evolution — arguing that the fossil record has failed to provide a common ancestor for hominids and the lower primates, they argue that there is no positive evidence that there is any such common ancestor, and it is most reasonable to conclude that humanity was created.

Scientific educators, however, see intelligent design as a thinly veiled version of Creationism, whose supporters believe the earth was made by God as described in the book of Genesis. "Intelligent design is creationism in a cheap tuxedo," said Nick Matzke, a spokesman for the National Council of Scientific Education.  "If there was a court case, it would not be found constitutional."   But is it correct to portray the theory of Intelligent Design as non-scientific when many research scientists themselves have adopted it?

Challenges to the teaching of evolution in America are not new.  Darwin's ideas were famously argued in the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, in which the state of Tennessee put teacher John Thomas Scopes on trial for knowingly infringing a law banning the teaching of evolution.  Although Scopes was convicted and fined the minimum $100, the verdict was reversed on a technicality by the state Supreme Court.  In 1999, the Kansas Board of Education rejected evolution as a scientific principle.  It was a short-lived victory for religious conservatives, however, as Kansas educators reinstated the theory of evolution less than two years later.  Christian conservatives, who played a significant role in the re-election of President Bush have been pressing for decades to bring creationism back to classrooms.  It is already happening in Georgia, Wisconsin, and now Pennsylvania.  More states will follow.

But since many aspects of Darwin's Evolution of the Species have been confirmed by scientific investigation, including the process commonly known by the aphorism "survival of the fittest", the general thrust of evolutionary theory must be regarded as empirically true.  Thus, it is important to distinguish theories based on empirical observation from beliefs derived from religious tradition that have no such scientific basis.  A "theory" may be much more than a theory, while a "science" may not be a science at all.  Indeed, the term "theory" in science can mean something much different from the same word in general use.  The Theory of Evolution is far more than a simple idea; it is the foundational belief upon which many branches of science are based, not simply speculation.  Dr. Gerald Wheeler, director of the National Science Teachers Association said in 1999, "Everything is a theory, but ...[evolution is] probably the biggest unifying theory that exists in all of science.  If either evolution or an old earth were to be proven incorrect, it would challenge our understanding of many different sciences."

Various U.S. court decisions have concluded that "Creation Science" is not actually science.  This is because the beliefs of creation scientists cannot be falsified. i.e., it would be impossible for a creation scientist to accept a proof that naturalistic or theistic evolution is true.  That is because their fundamental, foundational belief is that the Book of Genesis is inerrant.  All physical evidence is judged by comparing it to Genesis.  No evidence from nature can disprove this belief.  Once a person accepts a religious text as the basis of his scientific studies, he is no longer free to follow where the data leads; he ceases being a scientist.   But while creationists assert that God created life as described in the Biblical book of Genesis, ID makes no explicitly religious claims, relying simply on evidence that life was created by an "Intelligent Designer," which could be the God of any religion or no religion, or some other intelligence that is not God.

There is nothing inherently anti-theistic in the "survival of the fittest" concept.  And just as you don't have to reject the theory of evolution to believe in Judeo-Christian principles, you need not be a theist to see purpose in the world and to attribute that purpose to a Creator.  In philosophy, the dynamics that bring the energy of the cosmos into an organized, self-sustained system is called Teleology.  It is the purposive creating and supporting of a rational creature with the sensitivity and intelligence to realize the value of its creator.  That man's existence is seen as a process that involves millions of years in finite time, or that defies the laws of probability, is of far less consequence than the end result.  Without that result—individual cognizance of reality—there would be no physical world and no observer to appreciate its value, much less ponder how he got here.

--HP

 RETURN TO VALUES PAGE