First_Things

Return to Research

Intelligent Design

12/15/09 Consider a visit to Letter 09 05, as of this date the current editorial page. The analogies between the intelligent design debate, within science, and the debate within science concerning manmade global warming, are instructive. In common is the corruption of science so as to advance the primacy of a secular political agenda. Same folks, same agenda; aka fascist control at the expense of freedom. JES

07/17/06 George Guilder in National Review: "----at its root, Darwinian theory is tautological. What survives is fit; what is fit survives. While such tautologies ensure the consistency of arguments based on them, they could contribute little to an analysis of what patterns of behavior and what ideals and aspirations were conducive to a good and productive society."

11/17/05 In response to an e-mail from a friend, I wrote back: "There is a knee jerk assessment that frames intelligent design as in conflict with science. If you actually investigate intelligent design you will discover that it is a series of observations by scientists that point toward a conclusion of creation. It is a debate within science, not a religious conspiracy against rational thought. That secular academia is reacting as it is says much about how education, and "science", has been co-opted by Rationalism, at the expense of science as traditionally understood. Go study this matter, as a matter of real science, not as a matter of an enlightened "Rational" defense of "science" against the hoards of bible thumpers beating at the gates."

From the Mountain Observer MO 05-07. 11/17/05 Intelligent Design. Nothing strikes fear into the minds of the Great Secular Rational Liberal Elite more than to contemplate the real possibility of the return of a Judeo-Christian God to the public square. This is really what is at the bottom of the debate over the respectability, shall we say, of a consideration of the implications of intelligent design. The problem with intelligent design, however, is that what falls under this label does not arise out of a little white church in Alabama, or a schoolhouse in Tennessee. It is the product of scientific considerations by scientists, and its implications are dividing the scientific community with about the same level of reasoning and rhetoric as to whether Clarence Thomas is a Black Man. The wayward scientists are not starting out by proposing creation; that is not their purpose. They are proposing a closer examination of the theories of random selection, which underlies evolution, as they puzzle over a lot of numbers that don't appear to add up. These people do not have a religious purpose, whatever the implications. These people are attempting to pursue good science, in the tradition of good science, whatever the implications. That the Rational among us quake with fear mirrors the history of those in the past who could not cope with the meaning of the fact that a ship at sea gradually disappears over the horizon; with similar hysterical reaction. Given the political opportunities for exploitation on all sides, of a "debate" that will be less Rational than Emotive, and in the spirit of supporting true science, and rational consideration, it will be necessary to create o new web page. Go to Intelligent Design. JES

NOTE: To be sure, there are those who are pushing the arguments of Intelligent design who have a religious purpose. There are also objectors to the effort who are blinded by their atheism under the guise of science. What the Mountain Observer pleads for is a mindset of object analysis and consideration of the issues at hand from a perspective of science cleansed of bigotry. Is it possible for sincere people to reason together on these matters?

It is necessary to recognize that random evolution and incremental creation are not necessarily mutually exclusive. (Disclosure: personally, and as a Catholic, and consistent with Catholic thinking on the matter, I am inclined to the view that the right answers lie with some combination of the two, however differentiating between macro evolution and micro evolution.)

Within this context one can posit a number of scenarios. Intelligent Design theorists cannot prove, by material standards, that there is a God, nor do they claim to do so. What they point out is that, by material standards, a lot of numbers don't add up, and that in fact, the numbers contradict material standards as we think we know them. Hard core Material Evolutionists counter by pointing out that, by definition, science is constantly pushing the frontiers of the unknown, and that because we do not know something today does not mean we may not know it tomorrow. True enough, but by the same reasoning, one cannot rule out a creationist explanation. You see, by any presently understood material standards, hard core Material Evolutionists cannot prove their case, and it seems that the further we dig into the physics the more shaky the material explanations become. I suspect that physics, as we understand it, falls far short of an ability to explain the universe, past or present, and it is clear to me that that physics, as we understand it, falls far short of "proving" the material case for random selection and evolution. Material Evolutionists need to come to grips with the complexity problem and time lines, and they have not done so. The ignorance defense that does not work for you cannot, at the same time, be used to deny what you otherwise claim to believe.

Way out there, at infinity, at the Omega point, I suspect that God will prove to be science, and science will prove to be God. That is not for us to know or understand in this lifetime. We are not that smart. Yes, I know; my premise is that there was a beginning and will be an end.

As always, your comments are invited. e-mail Jim@FirstThings.us

I reserve the right to any mail you may send, and my answers to it. JES

LINKS:

www.pewforum.org/events/print.php?EventID=93 Legal and historical background

www.arn.org Access Research Network

www.iscid.org International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID)

www.idurc.org Intelligent Design Undergraduate Research Center (IDURC), a student organization

www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org Intelligent Design Network, Inc.

www.discovery.org The Discovery Institute

www.themonkeytrial.com

www.sciencemag.org Go to the 09/09/05 issue to pull up a couple of fascinating articles on

evolution with racial implications. Ref: microcephalin genes, and brain size.

BOOKS: (For availability on this website, go to Science and search by title.)

THE LANGUAGE OF GOD: A SCIENTIST PRESENTS EVIDENCE OF BELIEF

FRANCIS S. COLLINS

FREE PRESS 304 PGS $26.00

BY DESIGN: SCIENCE AND THE SEARCH FOR GOD

LARRY WITHAM

ENCOUNTER 236 PGS $24.95

DOUBTS ABOUT DARWIN: A HISTORY OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN

THOMAS WOODWARD

. BAKER BOOKS 320 PGS $19.99

UNCOMMON DISSENT: INTELLECTUALS WHO FIND DARWINISM UNCONVINCING

WILLIAM A. DEMBSKI, ED

ISI 403 PGS $28.00

THE DESIGN INFERENCE (ON INTELLIGENT DESIGN)

WILLIAM A. DEMBSKI 1998

. CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS XXX XXX

THE DESIGN REVOLUTION: ANSWERING THE TOUGHEST QUESTIONS ABOUT INTELLIGENT

DESIGN

WILLIAM A. DEMBSKI

INTERVARSITY PRESS 334 PGS $22.00

MODERN PHYSICS AND ANCIENT FAITH

STEPHEN M. BARR

. NOTRE DAME 312 PGS $30.00

DEFEATING DARWINISM: OPENING MINDS (1997)

PHILLIP E. JOHNSON

. INTERVARSITY PRESS 120 PGS $12.00 PB

DARWIN ON TRIAL (1993)

PHILLIP E. JOHNSON

. INTERVARSITY PRESS 220 PGS $15.00 PB

DARWIN'S BLACK BOX: THE BIOCHEMICAL CHALLENGE TO EVOLUTION (1998)

MICHAEL J. BEHE

. SIMON & SCHUSTER XXX $9.18