Intelligent Design

Archived Posts from this Category

June 14, 2006

SETI and the Nature of Faith

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Intelligent Design, Religions
Leave a Comment 

David Darling of the SETI Institute (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) wrote an article on http://www.space.com entitled “Of Faith and Facts: Is SETI a Religion?” to respond to charges that it is a religion. In his attempt to demonstrate how the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence is not a religious endeavor Darling offered what he believes to be the criteria for something to be properly identified as a religion, and then showed how SETI does not meet those criteria. He wrote:

 

Religions are characterized by two factors: worship—in other words, some system of devotion directed toward one or more omniscient and supranatural beings—and faith in the absence of material evidence. SETI qualifies as a religion on neither of these counts. Unless I’m very much mistaken no SETI researcher offers prayers to the subject of his or her quest…. … [W]e already have material evidence for intelligence in the universe: it consists of the brains you’re using right now to assimilate these thoughts. Unlike a religion which relies on pure faith that a god exists, we don’t need faith that intelligence and technology exist.

 

While I agree with Darling that SETI is not a religion proper, I would argue that it is a faith commitment based on unproven presuppositions and lacking in empirical support similar to many religious beliefs (this does not take away from the fact that SETI’s methods of design detection are indeed scientific). But this is not the purpose of my post. I am more interested in Darling’s view of what constitutes religion, or more particularly religious faith.

According to Darling faith is “the absence of material evidence,” also termed “pure faith,” a.k.a. blind faith. This is the typical “confidence without evidence” view of faith shared by so many people, both religious and non-religious, and unfortunately Christian and non-Christian.

While this may be the view of faith in some religions, by no means is this the Christian view of faith. Christian faith is not a blind leap, wishful thinking, or a commitment of the will in the absence of reason, but rather a carefully considered and reasoned judgment in reality. Faith is a persuasion based on reasonable evidence. Faith involves placing trust in what we have reason to believe is true. We believe, not in spite of the evidence, but because of the evidence. This is the Christian view.

 

That is why the idea that science and theology are in two different domains (or magisteria) that do not, and should not intersect is utterly opposed to Christian theology. On the Christian view God is the creator of the universe and He has left us evidence of His involvement with creation, thus theological truth and scientific truth should intersect if the Judeo-Christian religion is true. But if purely natural, blind, unguided, unintelligent, and purposeless processes are the best explanation for how the universe both came into being and came to exist in its present form, Christianity is shown to be false. Why? Because Christianity makes certain truth claims that can be falsified or verified by science. Christianity is not a religion based on wishful thinking. It is not a religion built on philosophical teachings that merely prescribe a certain way of life. No, Christianity is a religion whose God acts in history. It is based on certain historical truths. If science and history can demonstrate that God did not do in history what Scripture says He did (such as creating the cosmos or raising Jesus from the dead), then the foundation of Christianity crumbles, and the Christian religion along with it. Since the God of our Scriptures also claims to be the Creator of our universe and Lord over history, what we find in one domain (science) affects the other (religion). So contra Darling, Christianity is an evidence-based religion that rejects a “confidence without evidence” view of faith. While it is true that faith lacks absolute certainty, faith is not blind.

 

 

p.s. after completing this post I read an interview between Deborah Solomon of the New York Times and the pre-eminent evolutionary philosopher and ardent atheist, Daniel Dennett in which the same “faith is blind” line is given. Solomon asks Dennett, “So what can you tell us about God?

Dennett responded, “Certainly the idea of a God that can answer prayers and whom you can talk to, and who intervenes in the world – that’s a hopeless idea. There is no such thing.”

 

Solomon responded in turn, “Yet faith, by definition, means believing in something whose existence cannot be proved scientifically. If we knew for sure that God existed, it would not require a leap of faith to believe in him.” Not only does Solomon believe that faith cannot be verified, but that if it were it would cease to be faith. Furthermore, Solomon creates an all-or-nothing dichotomy when it comes to faith and proof. Either one believes something without any evidence whatsoever, or they have so much evidence that it cannot be doubted. Such is not the case when it comes to religious faith, or even knowledge in general for that matter.

 

May 23, 2006

Design in the Universe: Real or Apparent?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Dawkins, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Naturalism
[2] Comments 

Richard Dawkins of Oxford University wrote that “biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”[1] The appearance of design in the cosmos is so strong that Francis Crick (co-discoverer of DNA) felt compelled to warn that “biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”

 

The absurdity of such statements can be seen when we apply the logic to other areas of life. Can you imagine Crick’s advice being given to a car mechanic: “Mechanics must constantly keep in mind that what they see under the hood was not designed, but rather evolved.” Cars have the appearance of design because they are designed. Why should we believe anything different when it comes to the physical and biological worlds if they display the same tell-tale signs of design? Both contain specified and irreducibly complex systems, and the only known generator of such is intelligent designers.

 

The only reason to believe something different about the cosmos is an a priori commitment to philosophical and/or methodological naturalism. If you start off with the presupposition that there is no God (or if there is He is not involved with the universe) then it must be true that the appearance of design in our universe is only apparent, not real. But why should we believe God does not exist, or is not involved with our universe? These presuppositions must be defended before philosophical materialism should be taken seriously, and the random and purposeless evolution it supports.

 

If the world looks designed as Dawkins and Crick admit, why deny that it was indeed designed (it would be the simpler explanation)? What compelling evidence is there that would cause us to opt for a naturalistic explanation over some kind of theistic explanation? There is none! Only a predisposition to look for a naturalistic explanation that leaves God out. That’s why evolutionary theory is becoming less of a scientific theory and more of a philosophical (if not religious) dogma that cannot be questioned. That is why Darwinists all over the land are doing everything they can to run intelligent design theorists off the map. They can’t defend their philosophical viewpoint with solid empirical data so they resort to name calling and dismissals.

 

Darwinism has dominated science for the last 150 years, not because there is a plethora of evidence for the theory, but because the modern definition of science presupposes methodological materialism (you act as if the only thing that exists and is causally active in the world is matter), if not philosophical materialism itself (you actually believe nothing exists except the material world). If you arbitrarily define science as the pursuit of material causes, it should be no surprise that evolution will be the undisputed king of the scientific hill. By fiat definition it is the only game in town. That’s why the main thrust of the Intelligent Design movement has been to challenge the very definition of modern science itself, exposing the fact that it is presupposes philosophical materialism. If we have good reason to believe philosophical materialism is false (and we do), then much of the evolutionary theory comes crashing down with it like a house of cards in the wind.

 

The evolution vs. intelligent design debate is not a debate between science and religion or science and faith, but a debate over the very definition of science itself. It is a debate of science vs. science. Each side offers a competing scientific account of the physical world, but each driven by different philosophical presuppositions. May the best philosophy win!

[1]Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: Norton, 1987), 1.

[2]Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit (New York: Basic Books, 1988), 138.

 

May 3, 2006

Meyers and Ward Debate Intelligent Design and Evolution

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Intelligent Design
[9] Comments 

Evolutionist, Peter Ward, from Washington University, and Intelligent Design theorist, Stephen Meyer, of the Discovery Institute squared off in debate at Town Hall in Seattle on the topic of intelligent design. You can listen to the audio here. It reveals just how much the theory of evolution relies on dogma rather than empirical evidence. It was Meyer, not Ward who was willing to talk about the empirical science of it all. Check it out.

 

April 28, 2006

CT on the Intelligent Design–Creationism Feud

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Intelligent Design
[2] Comments 

Christianity Today wrote a piece on 04-25-06 entitled “The Other ID Opponents.” The article focuses on the squabble some Biblical creationists have with the Intelligent Design (ID) movement. The article spent an inordinate amount of time discussing Ken Ham’s ministry, Answers in Genesis (a young earth creationist organization), and his beef with ID. I read a lot of things that get my blood boiling, but it’s not too often I will write the author to express my concerns. This time, however, I did just that. I was quite astonished that CT would write such a one-sided story that misrepresented ID and did not let ID proponents speak for themselves. They labeled as “enemy” a genuine friend of Christianity: ID. Read the article at the link above and then the following response I sent to CT:

I am a Pentecostal Christian who has studied both creationism and ID. I was quite shocked at the presentation of the issue in this article. In my opinion it was incredibly one-sided (Ken Ham was referenced or quoted 11 times without a single quote from an ID advocate in response), and I would argue it misconstrued the nature of ID and its relationship to creationism (mainly through the words of Ham).

The theory of ID is not facing off with creationism or Genesis as if the two are at odds. Creationism simply picks up where ID leaves off. ID uses scientific means to identify hallmarks of intelligence in the physical and biological worlds, demonstrating that certain aspects of the world could not have been formed by unintelligent processes such as those put forth by neo-Darwinism. But because of the constraints of science the nature/identity of this designing intelligence (natural or supernatural) cannot be identified, nor can the designer’s methods of design/creation be detailed. That’s where philosophy and religion come in; that’s where Biblical creationism comes in. Biblical creation puts a face on the designer “discovered” through the scientific disciple of design detection.

While some Christians may wish ID spoke to more, it is constrained by the empirical and epistemological limits of the scientific method. It only seeks to demonstrate that undirected material causes alone are not sufficient to explain the specified complexity found in our world. A designing intelligence is needed, and ID has identified positive empirical evidence for the existence of such a designer.

Just because ID is not a do-it-all package that takes one from materialism to theism does not mean ID is not an ally to Biblical creationism. Ken Ham and others seem to argue that since ID doesn’t tackle everything creationists think should be tackled that it is a danger to creationism. That’s like arguing a cancer institute is dangerous to health improvement because it doesn’t tackle AIDS, Leukemia, and the like. While creationism may be the home run of Christian truth, ID is a base hit. We should not try to eject them from the game simply because they don’t slam the ball out of the park. We’re on the same team, and we’re all playing against the Darwinists and their mascot of materialism. We are both united in our opposition to Darwinism’s insistence on blind, undirected natural causes as an explanation for the present state of the cosmos. We are both united in our affirmation that an intelligent designer was responsible for creating. As Nancy Pearcey wrote, “Thus the heart of the battle is whether the universe is the result of Intelligent Agency or of blind, noncognitive forces—and that’s where we must direct our energies.” (Total Truth, 174)

I hope you will write another piece that looks at the issue a little more objectively and allows ID to speak for, and defend itself.

 

April 27, 2006

More on Spain’s Ape-Person Proposal and the Genetics of it All

Posted by Jason Dulle under Animal Rights, Apologetics, Bioethics, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Politics
Leave a Comment 

Jonah Goldberg over at National Review Online wrote the following concerning the proposed bill in Spain:

Lord how [I] hate it when people do those DNA comparisons. I’m all for being nice to monkeys and gorillas, but please. We share a lot of the same DNA with dogs and, if memory serves, a big chunk of our DNA matches up nicely with some fruits and vegetables. What, exactly, should that tell us? We share 100% of our DNA with fetuses — as Ramesh would likely note — and yet that never seems to argue much in their favor among the crowd that wants animals to have rights.

This is a powerful argument to make when dealing with PETA people who are typically pro-animal rights and pro abortion rights.

I would add to Goldberg’s list that mice are said to 97.5% genetically similar to humans.Will the Socialist Party in Spain include them in the bill?Of course not.Clearly it’s not all in the DNA.

Turning to the evolutionary aspect of this discussion, the amount of genetic similarity between man and chimps is not surprising given the amount of morphological similarity between chimps and man (By the way, the article claims the two are 98.4% similar.Actually, it’s more like 95.2%).It’s important to understand that the genetic similarity does not mean the genes function in the same way.It is similar to the way in which authors use most of the same words and yet write radically different stories. As William Dembski wrote:

It’s like going through the works of William Shakespeare and John Milton, and finding that almost all the words and short phrases they used are identical. Such a similarity would not be surprising since what separates Shakespeare from Milton is not so much their vocabulary but how they used their vocabulary to express their thoughts. Different authors might use nearly identical sets of words. The crucial difference is in how those words are utilized in their respective contexts. The overall meaning only emerges from the way the words are put together. Likewise, two organisms might have nearly identical sets of genes, and even situate those genes in roughly the same order; and yet they can utilize those genes so differently as to produce markedly different organisms.

While the genetic alphabet of man and chimp may be the same, the way in which those letters are put together create vast differences.Consider the following to sentences:

Charles Darwin was a scientific god.

Charles Darwin was a scientific dog.

Both sentences contain the same number of letters, and in almost identical order.The slight difference, however, makes their meaning very different.The same goes for living things.The gene sequence diversion between humans and chimpanzees has been “found to have significant effects both on the amino-acid sequences of proteins and on the ways those proteins are regulated.”[1]About 20% of proteins are different between the two species.An examination of chimp and human brain cells reveals that humans have accumulated 5.5 times the changes as chimps over the same period of time.The human brains produce 31% more proteins than chimps.

Evolutionists tend to overemphasize the similarities between chimps and humans and underemphasize the differences, but the challenge of evolutionists is to explain their differences.

Physical Differences between Humans and Chimpanzees[2]

(1) The feet of chimpanzees are prehensile, in other words, their feet can grab anything their hands can. Not so for humans.

(2) Humans have a chin, apes do not.

(3) Human females experience menopause; no other primates do (the only known mammal besides humans to experience menopause is the pilot whale).

(4) Humans have a fatty inner layer of skin as do aquatic mammals like whales and hippopotamuses; apes do not.

(5) Humans are the only primate whose breasts are apparent when not nursing.

(6) Apes have a bone in their penis called a baculum (10 millimeters in chimpanzees); humans do not.

(7) Humans have a protruding nose.

(8) Humans sweat; apes do not.

(9) Humans can consciously hold their breath; apes cannot.

(10) Humans are the only primates that weep.

For humans to have come from chimps (actually it is said to be a hominid ancestor common to both man and chimps) we have to explain how 600 million base pairs in the DNA sequence were changed over a period of only 6 million years.There are only about 600,000 generations during this expanse of time, and given mutation rates we end up with a mere .6% change in DNA (and this assumes that every mutation is inheritable).This is 7x short the 4.8% genetic difference we find between man and chimps.The math simply does not add up even in optimal circumstances.

[1]William Dembski, “Reflections on Human Origins”; available from http://www.iscid.org/papers/Dembski_HumanOrigins_062204.pdf; Internet; accessed 11 January 2005.

[2]Taken from Geoffrey Simmons, What Darwin Didn’t Know (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House, 2004), 274-278, as found in William Dembski, “Reflections on Human Origins”; available from http://www.iscid.org/papers/Dembski_HumanOrigins_062204.pdf; Internet; accessed 11 January 2005.

 

« Previous Page