John Burgeson reported on the Conference on Naturalism, Theism, and the
Scientific Enterprise (February '97 at the University of Texas at
Austin). He noted that one conclusion of the conference was:
> If theistic science or intelligent design theory is to become a
> progressive research program, it must do more than poke holes in the
> evidence for Darwinism: it must acquire auxiliary hypotheses about the
> intentions and preferences of the designer from which we can generate
> specific, testable predictions and informative explanations.
As scientists, where should we look for auxiliary hypotheses about the
intentions and preferences of the designer? This is a difficult
question because it is hard to get an empirical grasp on the theoretical
rates of evolution. We are a long ways from cataloging the genomes of
more than a handful of species. Once we do acquire complete genomes of
many species, we will still need to learn a lot more about developmental
biology, cellular physiology, mutation rates, and population dynamics
before we can get a solid empirical grip on rates of evolution. Given
the difficulty of empirical calculations, where should we look to
develop those auxiliary hypotheses?
Most (perhaps all) ID researchers are focusing on biological features of
the greatest complexity and/or features which historically developed very
quickly. (In other words, areas where it might be easiest to "poke
holes in the evidence for Darwinism.") This makes some sense. If a
mathematical function is too complicated, a simple way to test it is to
look at the "extreme cases" where simplifying assumptions are more
likely to be valid. So if ID theory is correct about biological
history, it seems plausible that the most complex/most rapidly developed
biological features are the most likely places to find clues about the
designer's intentions and preferences.
I would like to suggest a different strategy for dealing with evolution's
empirical difficulties. Rather than looking at the aspects of biological
history *least* amenable to empirical calculation, look at those
areas most amenable.
How about carbon?
Carbon is essential for life, and there was very little of it around
right after the Big Bang. Where did it come from? We've got a very
strong, empirical answer to that question. It was synthesized in stars
from hydrogen and helium nuclei. Moreover, as most of you know, there
is a very suspicious excited state ("resonance") in the carbon nucleus
of just the right energy to increase the amount of carbon produced by
stars. (This suspicious resonance has been used by a number of people
to point to the exquisite "fine tuning" of natural laws which makes life
possible. For more details, see
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth12.html and
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9501/natural.html.)
Now, if the same designer is responsible for both physical history and
biological history, and if that fine-tuning (which makes possible the
large-scale production of carbon via natural processes) reveals
something of the designer's intentions and preferences, this suggests an
auxiliary hypothesis which can "generate specific, testable predictions
and informative explanations." The auxiliary hypothesis suggested by
carbon is: we should look for additional fine-tunings of natural laws
which would promote the production of first life and biological complexity
via natural processes.
Ah, but now we have a problem, for this hypothesis is anathema to the
entire ID program. Well, back to the drawing board....
Seriously, though, it seems that ID theory is operating with two
conflicting paradigms. Fine-tuning of natural laws is embraced as
evidence of design in cosmology and geological history, but forcefully
rejected as inadequate for biological history. I would very much like
to see that apparent conflict addressed by as many people as are
willing.
Assuming you are willing to accept an evolutionary *physical*
cosmology (along with the fine-tuning of natural laws which makes it
possible), why reject an evolutionary creationist account of
biological history?
Is it primarily a matter of *scientific* judgment? (Your scientific
judgment is that "the numbers add up" in cosmological evolution, but
not in biological evolution.)
Or do you have additional philosophical and theological reasons for
supposing that our Designer acted differently in creating eyes,
wings, and flagella than he did in creating stars, carbon, planets,
and oceans?
Thanks for your time.
Loren Haarsma