As a Christian, I believe that the universe and its living creatures are the products of intelligent design. This belief is not merely derived from theology but is also supported by rational considerations. There is enormous intelligence embedded in the laws of nature. The greatest scientists over the past few centuries have worked to decode the intelligence mysteriously imprinted in the workings of nature. Scientific laws, as spelled out by Keppler, Newton, Einstein and others, reveal nature as exquisitely orderly. So who encoded this intelligence in nature?
Since the universe had a beginning, how did it get here? There is no natural explanation, since the universe includes all of nature. It is more than absurd to posit that the universe caused itself. The most reasonable explanation is that our rational universe is the product of some super-rational or omniscient intelligence. An intelligent designer is not the only explanation, but it certainly is the best explanation.
How the creator went about His business of making the universe and its life forms is another question, and this is a question for science to answer to the degree that it can be answered. Darwin's theory of evolution posits that chance, mutation and natural selection largely account for the transitions between one life form and another. Man, as an animal, is also the product of evolution, having descended from the same evolutionary "tree" that produced gorillas and chimpanzees.
Did God order things this way? Certainly if you read the Bible you would never predict Darwin's theory of evolution. But neither from the Scriptural accounts could one predict that the earth goes around the sun. The Bible is not and does not purport to be a science textbook. It takes no position, for example, on the heliocentric theory. Unfortunately, in past centuries, many Christians interpreted a few casual references to the sun "rising" to mean that the earth must be stationary and the sun must revolve around the earth. These interpretations were hasty, to say the least: the Bible is describing sunrise from a human or experiential perspective. Still, these narrow-minded Christians opposed Copernicus and Galileo until they were forced to admit that they were wrong. It wasn't the Bible that was mistaken; it was the foolish certainty of its interpreters that was exposed and discredited.
Today some Christians may be heading down the same path with their embrace of "intelligent design" or ID. This movement is based on the idea that Darwinian evolution is not only flawed but basically fraudulent. ID should not, however, be confused with bible-thumping six-day creationism. It does not regard the earth as 6,000 years old. Its leading advocates are legal scholar Phillip Johnson, biochemist Michael Behe, mathematician David Berlinski, and science journalist Jonathan Wells. Berlinski has a new book out The Devil's Advocate that makes the remarkable claim that "Darwin's theory of evolution has little to contribute to the content of the sciences." Ben Stein's movie "Expelled" provides horror stories to show that the case for ID as well as critiques of evolution from an ID perspective are routinely excluded or censored in the halls of academe.
ID advocates have sought to convince courts to require that their work be taught alongside Darwinian evolution, yet such efforts have been resoundingly defeated. Why has the ID legal strategy proven to be such a failure, even at the hands of conservative judges? Imagine that a group of advocates challenged Einstein's theories of general and special relativity. Let's say that this group, made up of a law professor, a couple of physicists, several journalists, as well as some divinity school graduates, flatly denies Einstein's proposition that e=mc2.
How would a judge, who is not a physicist, resolve the group's demand for inclusion in the physics classroom? He would summon a wide cross-section of leading physicists. They would inform him that despite unresolved debates about relativity--for example, its unexplained relationship to quantum theory--Einstein's theories are supported by a wide body of data. They enjoy near-unanimous support in the physics community worldwide. There is no alternative scientific theory that comes close to explaining the facts at hand. In such a situation any judge would promptly show the dissenters the door and deny their demand for equal time in the classroom. This is precisely the predicament of the ID movement.
The problem with evolution is not that it is unscientific but that it is routinely taught in textbooks and in the classroom in an atheist way. Textbooks frequently go beyond the scientific evidence to make metaphysical claims about how evolution renders the idea of a Creator superfluous. If I wanted to promote my book What's So Great About Christianity I'd direct you there to find examples. (But I don't, so I won't.)
Most Christians don't care whether the eye evolved by natural selection or whether Darwin's theories can account for macroevolution or only microevolution. What they care about is that evolution is being used to deny God as the creator. For those who are concerned about this atheism masquerading as science, there is a better way. Instead of trying to get unscientific ID theories included in the classroom, a better strategy would be to get the unscientific atheist propaganda out. In future blogs I'll show such a strategy can be successfully implemented.
Reader Comments ( Page 3 of 63)
31. kkk,
real scientist have debunked ID? really? what seperates real scientist from un-real scientist? perhaps you just think real scientist are one who agree with you ,thats conveniant !!! were i an athiest i would make that shrill claim. though on merit its pretty baseless and hollow. please kkk you can make a better case,no?
brian at 1:28PM on Mar 31st 2008
32. ID is to remain an exercise in philosophy until it can produce the tools to carry it into the realms of practical or theoretical science. Ironically, the greatest enemy of ID is Creationism. As I said before, it is merely tautological epistemological spackel, like Novikov's answer to time-travel, or the Many-Worlds Quantum Theory. But when you say that it's more scientific than science you fall into the same hubris trap you accuse atheism of, only more hilariously.
Mokele-Mobembe at 1:29PM on Mar 31st 2008
33. This old thing again? If I.D. had any substance, then 99.5% of earth, biology, and physicists wouldn't declare it unscientific bunk.
As if "god" was a scientific theory. Ha.
Linda at 1:31PM on Mar 31st 2008
34. Earth, biology and physicist SCIENTISTS, that is.
Linda at 1:31PM on Mar 31st 2008
35. K, I completely agree. If you want to talk about having an agenda, maybe we can discuss why it is Christians, and ONLY Christians, who have a problem with the teaching of evolution. You don't see orthodox Jews up in arms about this. Every "scientist" that ID advocates dredge up, I GUARANTEE is a Christian. You would think that there would be some dissent from secular, non-atheist scientists over the "controversy". Believing in Creationism or ID means that you have to believe that scientists are all part of a conspiracy to suppress your worldview.
And the question still stands: why demand rigorous evidence for evolution, but no such evidence for Christianity? I DEMAND that brian or Former Atheist test God in a lab, or explain to me why they cannot do so.
AndrewV at 1:33PM on Mar 31st 2008
36. Oh, brian... Question: are you now calling me KKK because I'm not black, as you previously assumed? Or is it because you still think I'm black and you think KKK would be a bigger insult to a black person?
For the record, a real scientist will admit he was wrong if the evidence proves as much. Fake scientists will try to re-define the evidence. Like how those fake scientists running creationist museums (oxymoron) will ignore the fact that sheet rock is too hard to carve with a big rush of water all at once.
K at 1:34PM on Mar 31st 2008
37. If man evolved form apes, why did the remaining apes not evolve into man????
robert okane at 1:40PM on Mar 31st 2008
38. Call it philosophy, call it theology, ID is not science and, therefore, ought not be taught in science classrooms. Case closed.
emelpe at 1:40PM on Mar 31st 2008
39. K,
I've learned that when brian says you're wrong, it means he thinks you're right.
If he calls you KKK, it means he probably thinks you are a tolerant,well adjusted person. He calls you names to get you riled, thereby showing the ignorance of your ways. To your credit, you don't fall for his bullshit.
mac at 1:47PM on Mar 31st 2008
40. If man evolved form apes, why did the remaining apes not evolve into man????
robert okane at 1:40PM on Mar 31st 2008
--==--
okane, you must look for the evidence....brian is such
mac at 1:46PM on Mar 31st 2008
41. Actually, the orthodox and ultra-orthodox jews do believe the Torah to be the literal truth. They are as deluded as the christian literalists. But you are right,andrewv, they prefer to keep their religion separate from the secular world.
Reform and non-practicing jews tend to poo-poo the whole genesis thing.
Linda at 1:47PM on Mar 31st 2008
42. robert okane,
"If man evolved form apes, why did the remaining apes not evolve into man????"
You really shouldn't have cut class.
AndrewV,
"I DEMAND that brian or Former Atheist test God in a lab, or explain to me why they cannot do so."
That may not be a good idea. I don't think they know the difference between a Bunsen burner and a pipette. If you clamp a precision voltmeter to a gold crucifix can you detect the amount of spiritual damage in the room if you have lab rats gay breeding under the 451°F warmth of a burning Bible (Don't try this at home)? It's possible a Christian scientist has already tried it.
Mokele-Mobembe at 1:51PM on Mar 31st 2008
43. There seems to be several camps with the Christian/religious community regarding Intelligent Design. Mr. D'Souza apparently sides with the camp that believes that I.D. is more a movement to discredit evolution rather that a legitimate science in its own right. In his blog, he cites no examples of I.D. science or why he believes them wrong.
His central argument is that I.D. is attempting to invalidate Darwinism, an accepted provable science and therefore is invalid as a scientific argument. In short since most scientists agree with Darwinism and few believe in I.D. it is therefore I.D. is invalid.
Using his argument, when Quantum physics first came into its own in the early 20th century, it should have been banned. Most scientists of the time accepted E=mc2 as an all encompassing theory which explained the nature of the universe as a whole. The quantum mechanics concepts of "Spin" and weak forces directly contradict the idea of gravity being the central force in the universe, leading Einstein to famously declare, "if this is how the universe works then the universe is crazy."
But Quantum mechanics, has withstood the test of time and is now being taught in schools as part of the regular curriculum. Likewise, Intelligent design, a discipline of microbiology raises legitimate scientific questions. For example:
- Statistically speaking, the odds of the DNA sequences that create life randomly forming are astronomical to the point of being impossible. If random chance (evolution) didn't create these DNA sequences, what did?
- In order for even the simplest forms of life to exist, it requires multiple things . The ability, reproduce, to feed and repair basic damage to itself. Without any of these functions, the species dies. So if all of these complex abilities appeared simultaneously, how did they form by a natural evolutionary process?
Simply because lawyers and pundits dislike Intelligent Design, doesn't mean that these questions (and others it raises) are not legitimate ans shouldn't be debated in a free society. While an argument can be made that the religious implications of intelligent design should not be taught in schools, the scientific questions it raises can and should be debated in a free society.
Mr. D.Souza Raises the example of how early Christians rejected the idea the earth went around the sun because of a misinterpretation of biblical verse. I would argue that he is rejecting a legitimate discipline of science for the exact opposite reason.
Steve at 1:56PM on Mar 31st 2008
44. Here, okane. Here's a website with a pictorial representation of the primate evolutionary tree.
http://darwiniana.org/intro1.htm
The third chart down shows the branching of the primates with the time involved (in millions of years)
Hominids share common ancestors with apes, but apes are not directly linked to hominids.
Linda at 1:56PM on Mar 31st 2008
45. We're the designer. All of us, together, designed this place, by our very attempts to observe and understand it, from time immemorial. We created the dream-reality within which we now find ourselves. It's not solid, dead matter and energy like we think it is; it's all just consciousness. All that exists is consciousness, a vast sea of consciousness in which we are patterns of consciousness within the larger whole.
The world's far from perfect because the designers are far from perfect.
There's no plan, other than seeking for it to make sense. That's why it makes sense. Because we need it to. That's why it looks designed. And the closer we look at reality, the finer detail we provide for us to see. The more powerful our telescopes become, the larger the universe gets. It's all in our expectations and we fix it in place with our logic and science.
That's where creation happens. In our observations and expectations. In our minds. It's all in our minds, but our minds are all one at the deepest level anyhow, so it all agrees. It has to. We're all one.
I know, I need to take my meds, etc... except that, it is not as crazy as it sounds.
Anyhow, have fun deciding how many angels can dance on that pin, hypochrists.
Science and evolution guys, I know where you stand as well, but I like to think that your side is at least capable of keeping a truly open mind about it. It's not as if evolution isn't real. It's just that, as it turns out, matter isn't. :-)
Godless Heathen Brian at 2:03PM on Mar 31st 2008