|
A CASE FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN Prompted by Words of Richard Dawkins and Others © 2010 Joe Nall Edited Foreword The people who have trouble with intelligent design are those who do not like the reality of the supernatural. With no proof at all they simply deny it. They seem to like the idea that something, especially life, came into existence without cause. They have a huge aversion to the thought of a Creator to whom they are responsible. Based on the linked essays my conclusion is that denying the supernatural is to assume there is no cause for our existence. Although it is no doubt unintentional, it embraces intellectual blindness. Evolution is not an evil word. I mention it here because there is a change in the use of the word in this later essay compared to the earlier essays linked in the site contents. Readers should interpret "evolution" in the earlier essays to refer to Darwinism, and "evolutionist" to refer to Darwinians. I have finally become satisfied there is room both technically and Biblically for some amount of biological evolution. After all, a progression is outlined in Genesis 1. If any biological evolution happened, it happened within the bounds of God's design and usage, both in amount and time. The intent of Darwinism, at least in its original form, was to explain the history of our biosphere in a way that required no intelligent design. But God did His intelligent design and creation. Adam was the first human, the first to receive the "breath of life" from God. INTODUCTION The purpose of this essay is neither an attack against nor endorsement of a general theory of evolution. It is a challenge focused on all forms of the Darwinian theory of evolution…random chance, survival, and natural selection…and any other theory of evolution that rejects the possibility of intelligent design. The validity of a number of assertions will be established, thus forming a solid basis for including the theory of intelligent design in the science curriculum of public schools. The assertions presented are:
These assertions form a sound basis for including intelligent design in science curriculums. Their validity is defended in the exposition section below. As implied by the title, Richard Ø “ Ø “The best general account of evolution I have read in recent years.” –E. O. Wilson Ø “As readable and vigorous defense of Darwinism as has been published since 1859” –The Economist Ø “He succeeds admirably …” –Michael T. Ghiselin, New York Times Ø “Brilliant exposition…” –London Times Ø “Beautifully and superbly written…one of the best science books—one of the best books—I have ever read” –Lee Dembart, Los Angeles Times EXPOSITION Assertion #1: The theory of intelligent design is not a religious theory. Assertion list Not only is intelligent design not a religion it is not even religious in nature. It does not call for worship of anything or anybody. Religion calls for worship. All intelligent design does is theorize that intelligence was involved in our coming to exist as we do. The theory does not claim to know the source of the intelligence, nor how involved the intelligence was/is, or who, or what did the designing. Religion makes those claims. Intelligent design does make room for religion without establishing or promoting religion. Coincidentally this is precisely what the Constitution of the If one claims intelligent design is religious, to be intellectually honest, one must also claim that Darwinism is religious. With no objective proof (as shown in Assertion #2) Michael Ruse says, “Natural selection is an incredibly powerful mechanism, and it does produce good solutions to design problems. Where a best solution exists, selection achieves it over and over again. All things being equal, selection does the same thing time and time again, to achieve the same ends.” (DD 316) The writings of Darwinists reveal their esteem for natural selection is similar to the esteem creationists have for their Creator. Their writings show a reverence for natural selection akin to worship. Natural selection is the comforter of Darwinian atheists. Dawkins said, “ To If theism cannot be taught in schools (in MICHAEL RUSE ISIS volume 98, Issue 4, Page 814–816, Dec 2007 (copied from the internet) Lee Smolin, a physicist, well known and respected by his peers, wrote a book entitled THE TROUBLE WITH PHYSICS. In the very first statement of the introduction he says “There may or may not be a God. Or gods.”4 He said nothing more about that in his book. But this statement implies Smolin has not ruled out the possibility of intelligent design. Einstein apparently accepted some form of the theory of evolution. However, he clearly believed intelligence was involved in the forming of our existence. Regarding the harmony of natural law he said it “reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.” 5 But Einstein was not a religious man. Such quotes from many other scientists could be included. However, this paper is not intended to be a book. Assertion #2: There is no objective proof that Darwinism is true. Assertion list Place two apples on a table, objective evidence. No one argues the objectivity of the apples. Place two more apples on the table, again objective evidence. No one argues the objectivity of the apples. Count the apples and see that there are four. It is objective proof that two plus two equals four. No one argues with it. Now remove the apples and place on the table records of all the objective biological changes known to mankind. Add as many tables as necessary. Place on them all the fossils gathered by scientists. The fossils are objective. The tables are loaded with tons of objective biological evidence. But adding them all together does not yield proof that Darwinism is true. Darwinists obviously consider it to be satisfactory proof. However, non-Darwinists do not. If they did there would be no debate. The only thing that the evidence proves objectively is that biological changes happen and that life existed in the past. About Darwinism- “A good case can be made that Darwinism is true…” (BW pXVII) About creationist beliefs- “We cannot disprove beliefs like these…” (BW p451). A “good case” (claimed at the beginning of The Blind Watchmaker) is certainly not proof, and he admits Darwinism cannot be proved by saying creationism cannot be disproved (at the end of the book). He accuses creationists of simply postulating a creator (BW p451) while he does exactly the same thing in reverse. He simply postulates the non-existence of a creator. It should be noted here that this paper does not deal with creationism. Creationism deals with the appearance on the scene of the physical materials of the universe before the beginnings of living organisms. Darwinism and intelligent design, as related to life, assume the material was already there before life began. The next “The basic idea of The Blind Watchmaker is that we don’t need to postulate a designer in order to understand life, or anything else in the universe.” (BW210) To reiterate, if you don’t postulate a designer you automatically postulate a non-designer, i.e. the nonexistence of a designer, without proof there was no designer. Either there was/is one or there was/is not. There are many unproven assumptions in The Blind Watchmaker. A couple of huge ones follow: “…we cannot escape the need to postulate a single-step chance event in the origin of cumulative selection itself” (BW p198) The thrust of the whole book supposes an endless chain of micro-tiny biological changes, i.e. cumulative selection, which advanced life from the elementary to where it is currently. But Darwinists and proponents of intelligent design are attempting to do the same thing, reverse engineer living organisms. (Not all biologists are Darwinists, by the way.) Here is an example of reverse engineering. A fully functional, latest high tech fighter aircraft has been hijacked by a competitor. The owner wants it back, but cannot get it. The competitor already knows why the thing flies. But they don’t know why it out performs their design. They assign their best engineers to find out why. The engineers begin to tear it apart. They make extensive measurements and create volumes of drawings and diagrams. They carefully diagram the electrical control system, but run into significant problems. They find many “little black boxes” in the system. They do not know what these little black boxes are. They put them under a microscope and begin to microscopically dissect them. They find their technology is insufficient to decipher the contents. They have not been able to gather enough data to understand what these little black boxes do. But they keep trying. Darwinists and proponents of intelligent design have the same aircraft, living organisms. They have the same objective data, they are confronted by the same little black boxes, but they reach different conclusions. Here is one of the little black boxes of biology. Cells replicate themselves. Hence, “For DNA molecules, ‘what it takes to be in the world’ comes to have a meaning that is anything but obvious and tautological. ‘What it takes to be in the world’ turns out to be the ability to build machines like you and me, the most complicated things in the known universe. Let us see how this can be. “Fundamentally, the reason is that the properties of DNA that we have identified turn out to be basic ingredients necessary for any process of cumulative selection. In our computer models in Chapter 3 we deliberately built into the computer the basic ingredients of cumulative selection. If cumulative selection is really to happen in the world, some entities have got to arise whose properties constitute those basic ingredients. Let us look, now, at what those ingredients are. As we do so, we shall keep in mind the fact that those very same ingredients, at least in some rudimentary form, must have arisen spontaneously on the early Earth, otherwise cumulative selection, and therefore life, would never have gotten started in the first place. We are not talking specifically about DNA, but about the basic ingredients needed for life to arise anywhere in the universe. “…What is the vital ingredient that a dead planet like the early Earth must have, if it is to have a chance of coming alive, as our planet did? It is not breath, not wind, not any kind of elixir or potion. It is not a substance at all, it is a property, the property of self-replication. This is the basic ingredient of cumulative selection. There must somehow, as a consequence of the ordinary laws of physics, come into being self-copying entities or, as I shall call them, replicators. In modern life this role is filled, almost entirely, by DNA molecules, but anything of which copies are made would do. We may suspect that the first replicators on the primitive earth were not DNA molecules. It is unlikely that a fully fledged DNA molecule would spring into existence without the aid of other molecules that only exist in other living cells. The first replicators were probably cruder and simpler than DNA. “There are two other necessary ingredients, which will normally arise automatically from the first ingredient, self-replication itself. There must be occasional errors in the self-copying; even the DNA system very occasionally makes mistakes, and it seems likely that the first replicators on Earth were much more erratic. And at least some of the replicators should exert power over their own future. This last ingredient sounds more sinister than it actually is. All it means is that some properties of the replicators should have an influence over their probability of being replicated. At least in the rudimentary form, this is very likely to be an inevitable consequence of the basics facts of self-replication itself.” (BW182, 183 emphasis by underline is mine) You have just read the soft, gelatin-like, unstable foundation of Darwinism, a conglomeration of links of imagination, Imagination, postulations, guesses ooze out the pores of this quote. A close reading of The Blind Watchmaker shows it to be replete with them. The Blind Watchmaker can be visualized as a number of genuine scientific nuggets in a deep soup of imagination. Why should Darwinism be accepted as a valid theory, with all of its unproved assumptions and imagination, if the more scientific theory, intelligent design, is not? There is objective evidence in the soup. But the objective evidence does not provide objective proof for the imagination. There is a huge difference between objective evidence and objective proof. Assertion #3: The essence of Darwinism is imagination. Assertion list Michael Ruse, a professor of philosophy at “It took a very large leap of the imagination for Darwin and Wallace to see that, contrary to all intuition there is another way…A leap of the imagination so large that, to this day, many people seem unwilling to make it. It is the main purpose of this book to help the reader to make this leap.” (BWxix) He makes it very clear. Darwinism is a huge leap of imagination. His goal is to pique and guide the imagination of his readers. Interestingly he says evolution needs a guide in a quote which will be presented later (assertion #11). Simply note here that guiding is what intelligence does. Without massive adhesions of imagination Darwinism falls apart. Darwinists cannot prove the imaginations. A brief review is in order here. On the subject of guessing, Darwinism is 100% imagination. That statement will likely stir the ire of Darwinists. However, the facts remain. 100% of the evidence Darwinists present might be objective. But the evidence and Darwinism are not the same thing. Darwinism is an unconfirmed theory, not about the evidence, but about how the evidence came to be. Darwinism and evolution are not the same idea. Evolution is a theory about the process by which life advanced. Darwinism is one form of the theory of evolution. Perhaps it is more accurate to describe it as a class of forms of the theory of evolution. In either case, it is an elaborate hypothesis about the cause of the process and how the process took place. It provides the directorship of the biological changes. For the Darwinist it is Assertion #4: Darwinism is faith based. Assertion list Darwinism is not about objective evidence. Darwinism is the collection of imagined conclusions fashioned by Darwinists from observing objective evidence. Faith is acting upon what one believes. One can believe one can walk across a street without being run over. But the belief is fruitless unless one steps out and walks. The stepping out and walking is faith. Darwinists believe their unproven imagined conclusions and step out on them. They perform experiments and write books about them. They build careers upon them. They base their lives upon them. Darwinism is their faith. They find objective evidence, but cannot objectively prove their conclusions, admitted by Assertion #5: The term “something” can replace “natural selection” throughout the theories of evolution without changing the scientific value of empirical data. Assertion list Here are two statements of equal scientific value: Natural selection caused a change. Something intelligent caused a change. Where is the scientific value in the following statement? Natural selection caused a change in the virus so that it became immune to the antibiotic. The scientific value is in the phrase “caused a change in the virus so that it became immune to the antibiotic”. The change was observed and documented to have happened. It must have had a cause. There is no scientific value in the term “natural selection”. In the realm of pure science “natural selection” is altogether assumed. Where is the scientific value in following statement? An intelligent evolution program caused a change in the virus so that it became immune to the antibiotic. Again, the scientific value is in the phrase “caused a change in the virus so that it became immune to the antibiotic”. The change was observed and documented to have happened. There is no scientific value in the phrase “an intelligent evolution program”. In the realm of pure science, just as in the case of "natural selection," “an intelligent evolution program” is altogether assumed. In other words both of these statements are of identical scientific value. An identical portion of each statement is observable and can therefore be scientifically documented. There was obviously a cause. But the identity of the cause is thus far not scientifically observable. The cause therefore cannot be scientifically documented or verified. This scientific equality of the assumed cause can be applied through the entirety of the theory of evolution. Throughout the theory where “natural selection” is asserted, simply replace it with “Something intelligent”. This replacement does not remove any of the scientific value in the theory. Nor does it change any empirical scientific data. From a purely scientific perspective, based on the premise that every effect has a cause, both of the statements above need to be changed to read something caused a change in the virus so that it became immune to the antibiotic. Science cannot say what the “something” is. Intelligent design theorists have both the right and responsibility to see to it that public science textbooks are corrected to present pure science, not imagined assumption as if it is the actual proven cause. We have two choices, (1) remove the unscientific license to write imagination as if it is fact in textbooks or (2) continue to misinform students. Assertion #6: Richard He says, “The first cause we seek must have been the simple basis for a self-bootstrapping crane which eventually raised the world as we know it into its present complex existence…we know how it came about: by the gradualistic crane of natural selection…The crane does not have to be natural selection…It may even be a superhuman designer [emphasis mine]-but, if so, it will most certainly not be a designer who just popped into existence, or who always existed. [Oh?? Something or someone has always existed or popped into existence without cause.] If (which I do not believe for a moment) our universe was designed, and a fortiori if the designer reads our thoughts and hands out omniscient advice, forgiveness and redemption, the designer himself must be the end product of some kind of escalator or crane [another convenient assumption], perhaps a version of Darwinism in another universe.” (GD 155,156) So, a premier advocate of Darwinism states it does not have to be natural selection. That follows of course out of the fact that natural selection is imaginary. Interestingly, he admits it could be a designer right after saying we know it was natural selection. It is well established now that Darwinism is the result of imagination, not objective scientific proof. He says, if there is a designer, “it will most certainly not be a designer who just popped into existence, or who always existed.” With absolutely no scientific corroboration he says most definitely it will most certainly not. This is an example of the extremes of imagination that Darwinists employ in piecing together Darwinism. Another example is He says there is no designer that always existed. Period. End of statement. But in his books he claims to rely upon science. There is no scientific basis for objectively saying there is no such designer. We have just two choices. Either something sprang from nothing without cause. Or something has always existed. Who chooses the first? The reasoned rational conclusion is that something has always existed. We were not there. That which always existed could be a designer. Objective science cannot say otherwise. Assertion #7: In Chapter 3 of The Blind Watchmaker Interestingly Assertion #8: Chance has been used as an initiator in intelligent design. Assertion list Interestingly, a search for the word “random” on the U.S. Patent Office website results in nearly 1,000 finds. Assertion #9: Intelligent design is more scientific than Darwinism. Assertion list Intelligent design has no argument with confirmed biological changes, empirical data. Biological changes have happened, they are segments in the “on stage” play of our existence. Intelligent design’s beef with Darwinism is where the “play” came from, what goes on “behind stage”, from whence comes “direction”. Neither “intelligent designists” (to coin a term) nor Darwinists can by objective science demonstrate their claims about where the play came from, or what goes on behind stage, i.e. the source of directorship. Human tinkering with genes only shows intelligence at work. Genetic engineering itself, by its very nature implies intelligent design. Those who demand scientific evidence should appreciate the fact that no one has ever seen, touched, tasted, heard, or smelled a natural selection. No natural selection has ever been isolated, identified, measured, observed or tested. Changes, the results of some cause, have been observed. The scientifically unverifiable cause, whatever it is, has been conveniently classified as “natural selection” by Darwinists. The term natural selection speaks of an unproven, imagined cause. Intellectually honest scientists will not debate that statement. Scientists who adapt the term do so because they like it. They simply dismiss other possibilities that are just as feasible scientifically. They claim natural selection has been accepted by most "reputable" scientists. But these scientists cannot prove it to be true. They can only imagine and claim it, then brainwash students with the idea. A creature appears in a back yard. It has not been seen there before. The owner sees it. Immediately he notices it looks like a dog. Then a squirrel moves in the yard. The creature sees it and begins a chase. Then a cat appears. The creature chases it with a vengeance. Then along the back fence a couple of kids pass by. The creature begins barking and wagging its tail. Then it starts whining because the kids are moving on and it cannot get to them. The owner walks out to a friendly greeting from the creature. He reaches out to pet the creature. His hand is sniffed, then licked. He concludes with no doubt what the creature is. If the owner is a physicist he immediately concludes the creature is a dog. If the owner is an engineer he immediately concludes the creature is a dog. If the owner is a chemist he immediately concludes the creature is a dog. If the owner is a politician he immediately concludes the creature is a dog. If the owner is a housewife she immediately concludes the creature is a dog. If the owner is a medical doctor he immediately concludes the creature is a dog. People of every sort known to humanity, except one, would conclude the creature is a dog. A Darwinist would immediately conclude the creature is not a dog. Would he really? Probably not, in such cases as this the Darwinist thinks normally. He would likely conclude the creature is a dog. But when the issue is the human body a Darwinist abandons normal thinking. When the issue is the human body, despite all the obvious, objective evidence, a Darwinist concludes the human body is not a design. He has no scientific reason to think that. He simply prefers the idea that the human body is “design like”. Darwinists cannot accept the possibility of a designer. But Darwinists cannot provide any objective proof the human body is not a design. That idea is in fact based on an imaginary faith hypothesis, namely, that there was/is no designer. On the other hand, IDers can point to the undeniable next assertion (#10) which is not imagination. This makes intelligent design more scientific than Darwinism. Assertion #10: The human body is a collection of many extremely complex negative feedback, closed loop control systems. Assertion list An enormous number of such controls systems are used by modern industrial humanity, and in the gadgets used by consumers. All have been designed by intelligence. A sure assertion is that not even one was designed apart from intelligence. Being aware that the human body contains so many complex control systems and claiming the body is “design-like” not “designed” is equivalent to saying a dog is not a dog even though it has the necessary dog attributes. It is like saying the moon is not a sphere. The control systems of the body obviously don’t always work properly. But just as obviously, that is no reason to claim they are not designed. Darwinists can’t get away from the word design so they have coined the term “design-like”. It is incredibly easy to demonstrate that intelligence designs such control systems and to point to the patent offices of the world to show that design of such systems is a historical fact and is still being done. The human body is an integrated, continually synchronized conglomerate of such control systems. Consider just a few: vision, balance, walking, speaking, gripping, chewing, digestion, pointing, breathing, blood sugar level, body temperature, on and on. And they function simultaneously. Again, it can be easily demonstrated and confirmed that intelligence designs closed loop control systems. This compels the “natural” and altogether logical conclusion that the human body was designed. To conclude otherwise is to close ones intellectual eyes. Intelligent design is more scientific than Darwinism. Darwinists do not like the word design but cannot get away from it. They simply imagine that natural selection arrived at the so-called “design-like” status. If it looks like a dog, barks like a dog, wags its tail like a dog, chases cats like a dog, has all the attributes of a dog, it is a dog. That form of logic appears acceptable in all human reasoning except Darwinian reasoning. Darwinists simply postulate that the human body is not a design. It is worthy of being dubbed “Supreme Postulation” since it is so central to the Darwinism. Reiterating, the intelligent design theory can be legitimately claimed to be more scientific than natural selection. The human body has the attributes of design with its multiple functioning feedback control systems. It is easy to prove by demonstration that intelligence designs functioning feedback control systems. On the contrary it is impossible to demonstrate that natural selection exists or designs, or has designed, anything. To simplify and augment, forget the complexity of the eye for a moment. The system embodies a simple concept that is quite intelligent. The concept is simply to use reflected light to make one entity aware of another entity. Concepts are the product of intelligence. This concept utilizes several separate entities, a light source, reflected light, a light sensor, signal generators and a signal processor. But whence came these components and awareness the components were available to be used to accomplish the concept. That sounds like a severe need for intelligent awareness and analysis. (Darwinists of course imagine and claim there is no need for awareness or analysis.) Vision is a very simple concept that is exceedingly complex in the details of the designs. Significantly, that is the way design takes place. A simple concept is followed by design, sometimes very complex design requiring intensive intellectual effort, which yields results. A valid question (one of many) which demands an answer is "How did dumb dead light and dumb dead matter come together as parts of the exceedingly complex and functioning feedback control system called vision, if intelligence was not involved?" Engineers who design closed loop feedback control systems, know that intelligence conceives of and designs such systems. It can be easily confirmed and demonstrated. It cannot be demonstrated that chance plus natural selection plus survival can produce such control systems. Darwinists conveniently assume that it can. In fact, it cannot be demonstrated that natural selection exists. That which is called natural selection could well be response designed in a DNA program. There is no scientific reason to say otherwise, although Darwinists find the idea repugnant. The following real, not imagined, biological function compels one toward intelligent design. If this one is not enough to compel, there are many more. It is a description of vision in action, the “Watch my finger” instruction given by physicians. (The following description is based upon my knowledge and experience as a registered professional electrical engineer.) The sense we call vision is a negative feedback closed loop control system, actually more than one. That is not as complicated in essence as it sounds. The light reflected off the doctor’s finger enters your eye which transmits data to your brain which generates the picture of his finger. When the doctor moves his finger your brain notices the finger leave your focal point and which direction it moves. Your brain tells your eye muscles to move the focal point in the direction the finger moves. Negative feedback within your brain tells the eye muscles to stop eye movement when the focal point is where it needs to be. Positive feedback would cause your eye to move wildly to extremes and it would never stop where it needs to stop. The closed loop feature causes the focal point to actually land where the brain tells it to, not somewhere else. The essence is simple. The details are very elaborate and complicated indeed. Your body contains many complex control systems of this type, a number of examples have already been mentioned. But the emphasis here is the simple aspects of the systems. They are complex in detail but simple in concept. Concepts are ideas. Ideas are the product of intelligence. The normal Intelligent explanation of the beginnings of vision is that it was first conceptualized by a designer, after which it was designed. The intelligent design theory does not claim to know the nature of the designer/s beyond possessing intelligence. Those claims are left unanswered. Intelligent design does not try to affirm or deny any religion. This paper is written without appealing to any religion. In the realm of design, concept precedes design. The concept of flying to the moon led to NASA. To reach the moon NASA needed a spacecraft to be propelled in the proper direction, the basic flying concept. A rocket without wings was envisioned with engines that would tilt as required to guide the direction of propulsion, an expansion of the basic concept. Those simple concepts led to the enormous project that required great expense, hundreds of engineers, countless experiments and calculations, years of effort, of trial and error experiments, of abandoned ideas and expanded ideas which finally resulted in a successful design. The design evolved. Darwinian evolutionists do not like the foregoing analysis advocating intelligent design. But they cannot disprove it. Nor can designists prove the conclusion objectively. Therein is the crux of the matter. Darwinian evolutionists can come no closer to “objectively” proving their theory than designists can come to “objectively” proving intelligent design. Actually Darwinists cannot come as close. Darwinists latch on to objective evidence, interpret it to their liking, and cling to their interpretation with all their might. Their whole Darwinian theory depends on imagined “design-like”. Designists use the same evidence without depending on design-like. Darwinists cite biological changes to fashion their claim that the story of our existence is random mutations, survival and natural selection. But they cannot demonstrate that natural selection exists. They cannot demonstrate the “why”, what is behind, their extensive evolutionary story. It is held precariously together by unending, postulations emerging from fertile imagination including “design like”. They say, with no proof whatsoever, the story is not a predesigned biological program responding to various stimuli. Note again the statements of To summarize, those who demand scientific evidence should appreciate the fact that no one has ever seen, touched, tasted, heard, or smelled a natural selection. No natural selection has ever been isolated, identified, measured, observed or tested. Changes, the results of some cause, have been observed. The scientifically unverifiable cause, whatever it is, has been conveniently named “natural selection” by evolutionists. The cause has not been objectively proven. Those who claim it is proven make the claim motivated by personal preference, not objective proof. It is easy to claim evolution produces functioning systems but it cannot be proven. Claiming the human body is not an intelligent design is worthy of a revealing dubbing, the Supreme Personal Incredulity. In the absence of objective proof that the human body is not a design, "design like" is a concept which falls outside confirmed science into guessing. Since it can be demonstrated that intelligence designs negative feedback closed loop control systems and it cannot be demonstrated that Darwinism can do so, intelligent design is a better fit to the existence of the human body. Claiming unconfirmed guessing is confirmed science is not scientific integrity. Imagining microevolution into macroevolution is not science. The required imagining makes it science fiction. There is no objective scientific proof leading to the conclusion the human body is not a design. If there was such a proof there would be no debate. At the risk of being too repetitious considerable hammering and reiteration has been done in the preceding paragraphs. The goal has been to drive home the assertion that intelligent design is more scientific than Darwinism. Assertion #11: He doesn’t say it in those words. But that assertion can be easily deduced. On the very last page of The Blind Watchmaker he says in a summary statement, “No matter how improbable it is that an X could have arisen from a Y in a single step, it is always possible to conceive of a series of infinitesimally graded intermediates between them. However improbable a large-scale change may be, smaller changes are less improbable. And provided we postulate a sufficiently large series of sufficiently finely graded intermediates, we shall be able to derive anything from anything else, without invoking astronomical improbabilities. We are allowed to do this only if there has been sufficient time to fit all the intermediates in. And also only if there is a mechanism for guiding each step in some particular direction, otherwise the sequence of steps will career off in an endless random walk.” (BW p453) He says evolution needs a “mechanism for guiding”. Ironically, that is precisely what intelligence does, it guides. It guides processes. It guides designs. It could be the guide for the development of life. Objective scientific study has no grounds for saying it is not, nor can objective science say natural selection is the guide. The objective data accumulated by biologists is not objective proof of an imagined theory. If intelligent design is confined to philosophy, so is Darwinian evolution along with its terminology…natural selection, adaptation. That which is called adaptation guided by natural selection could just as easily be called, and actually be, response to a designed intelligent evolution program. And this depiction does not have to imagine that a dog is not a dog. (See assertion #9 ) Moving on, in The Blind Watchmaker Assertion #12: In the last sentence of The Blind Watchmaker Perhaps the greatest offense in The Blind Watchmaker is In the first sentence of that last paragraph of The Blind Watchmaker Dawkins contends that the Darwinian world-view is a valid explanation for our existence. His use of the word contention on the very last page emphasizes that the Darwinian theory has not been proved by science (BW p453). Stack the documentation of biological changes and effects into the stratosphere if they will reach that height. Every one, and the combination of them all, will fail to provide objective proof for Darwinism. Darwinism is not even logical unless you are willing to imagine that a dog is not a dog. If you can imagine that, imagination can take you anywhere…even to design-like. The marvelous sense of vision we enjoy is a closed loop, negative feedback control system. We can demonstrate and thus we know intelligence designs closed loop, negative feedback control systems. Darwinists have to imagine and assume natural selection can overcome “astronomical improbabilities” and produce design-like closed loop, negative feedback control systems…when there is no scientific evidence that our biological systems are not actual, genuine designs. Proponents of intelligent design therefore have a stronger case than Darwinists about the DIRECTORSHIP of the development of life, whatever, or whomever, the DIRECTOR is. Assertion #13: There is no scientific evidence confirming that the human body is not a design. See assertions 1 through 12. Assertion #14: Darwinists cannot refute these assertions. Assertion list This writer is obviously persuaded Darwinists will not be able to refute the foregoing assertions. And this paper is presented as a challenge to Darwinists. Refute what you can. If any assertions are objectively shown to be erroneous in part or whole, a similarity to typical provisions in legal documents will hold, i.e. the balance of the assertions will remain in effect. Conclusion Assertion list Closed loop negative feedback control systems do not come into existence without the guidance of intelligence. This should be considered a law of rational thinking. Darwinian thinking does not concur. Darwinian thinking imagines such systems into existence, a profound oxymoron. As a brief review:
With these factors in mind a decision to include intelligent design in science curriculums is in order. As confirmation, since Darwinists cannot prove Darwinism is true, they could be asked to provide objective proof to at least the following three statements. Absence of such proof should compel inclusion of the intelligent design theory in science curriculums.
Intelligent design should be recognized as a scientifically viable theory. It should be taught as a scientific theory along with the reasons many scientists believe it. Or Darwinism with its related terms, natural selection and adaptation, should be stricken from science curriculums. The fact that intelligence designs along with the fact that the living bodies contain so many closed loop negative feedback control systems should give intelligent design “theory” status. Darwinism should be branded “hypothesis” since there is no such proof for it. End notes:
|