Is ID Irreparably Defective?

From: Dick Fischer <dickfischer@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon Oct 18 2004 - 00:30:33 EDT
Paul Reese wrote:

I have been reading a book entitled The Design Revolution, by William Dembski, and he has a very firm scientific argument that the origins of species could only be the result of an intelligent designer. William Dembski is a brilliant mathematician and philosopher and dissects the subject of the origins with impeccable logic.

William Paley, English theologian, advanced the idea that an organism's complexity is evidence for the existence of a cosmic designer.  "If we find a pocket watch in a field," Paley wrote in 1802, "we immediately infer that it was produced not by natural processes acting blindly but by a designing human intellect."  Further, he reasoned, the natural world contains abundant evidence of a supernatural creator.
 
Yet if that pocket watch failed to keep time, and upon examination we discovered that one of the gears was improperly installed, what would that tell us about the designer?  Would we likewise implicate the Creator when a child is born so crippled by genetic defects that it cannot survive or live a normal life?  Watches roll off assembly lines that work flawlessly for years.  Life, besides being more complex, doesn’t function like clockwork.
 
In Michael Behe’s book, Darwin’s Black Box, he states his case for Intelligent Design (ID).  Behe's argument is that certain features in organisms are “irreducibly complex,” a disembodied creative force or intellect has to do the heavy lifting.  His mousetrap argument is that all the systems must be assembled before the trap can catch mice.  How could natural selection pick out the components before there was any advantage?  The individual components by themselves offer no advantage to an organism and would offer no beneficial advantage to future offspring until all the components are in place and can work together.
 
Behe presumes that each individual part of a system arises by itself - that a segment of DNA codes for a particular protein that has one function alone without interaction with other segments of DNA.  His picture of a sequence of unrelated genetic changes which eventually come together to perform a specific task breaks down with new evidence.  DNA is capable of multi-tasking. 
 
This article by Paul Silverman appeared in the May 24, 2004 issue of The Scientist:

          For more than 50 years scientists have operated under a
        set of seemingly incontrovertible assumptions about genes,
        gene expression, and the consequences thereof. Their mantra:
        One gene yields one protein; genes beget messenger RNA, which
        in turn begets protein; and most critically, the gene is deterministic
        in gene expression and can therefore predict disease propensities.

        Yet during the last five years, data have revealed inadequacies in
        this theory. Unsettling results from the Human Genome Project
        (HGP) in particular have thrown the deficiencies into sharp relief.
        Some genes encode more than one protein; others don't encode
        proteins at all. These findings help refine evolutionary theory
        by explaining an explosion of diversity from relatively little
        starting material.
We therefore need to rethink our long-held
        beliefs: A reevaluation of the genetic determinism doctrine, coupled
        with a new systems biology mentality, could help consolidate and
        clarify genome-scale data, enabling us finally to reap the rewards
        of the genome sequencing projects.

And so the idea that an organism must somehow put all the component parts together piecemeal to form an operating system capable of functioning for a specific purpose could be likened to putting together box cars one at a time to form a train.  What we are beginning to discover is that DNA has the capability to put the entire train together complete with box cars, engine, and caboose.

The prime difficulty with ID, however, is that it demands that God must interact in the progression of life in order to bring about new species or even new adaptive features in organisms.  Can a portion of an existing species become isolated and through purely natural procreation become a distinct species on its own without divine intervention?  Is it necessary for the Creator to pull the switches and alter the DNA code before anything worthwhile can happen?

This demand on the Creator has a downside.  Evolution doesn't always move in a positive direction.  Genetic defects, which occur all the time, that cause a creature to die before it can procreate are washed out of the system.  No harm to the gene pool.  Genetic defects which may be harmful later in life such as Alzheimer's or Huntington's Disease are preserved in the gene pool because the harmful effects come too late to prevent the genetic defect from being passed on to another generation.  So what was the Creator doing when these genetic defects occurred?  Windsurfing on Mars?

ID only looks at the upside.  Positive changes are credited to the personal acts of a loving Creator.  So who or what is blamed for the deleterious effects of certain harmful gene mutations?   We humans suffer from over 3,000 genetic diseases caused by genetic defects.  Natural causation doesn't point an accusing finger at the Creator as ID does.  Genetic changes occur naturally and natural selection weeds out some of the imperfections and allows creatures to adapt to a changing environment.  Nice system.  Let's give God credit for devising it.

But if He did pull the switches as demanded by ID, well, He missed some, or He pulled the wrong ones occasionally, or He pulled some the wrong way.  Promoting a Creator who pushes the throttle but sleeps at the switch serves no useful purpose.

Furthermore, if God operated in the way that ID suggests, there is no evidence of it.  Not only is the Creator a bit clumsy at times, He does it without leaving a trace.  So He pulls the switches, right ones and wrong ones alike, and makes it appear as if it all happened naturally?  Sorry, this scenario doesn't fit the God of the Bible whose "way is perfect” (2 Sam. 22:31).
 
One last point.  If the Creator continually acted in life processes, who is to say that He doesn't act in physical processes?  Do we need to rethink the laws of physics to account for the intermittent actions of a helpful Creator?  Perhaps Boyle's law should read, "Under conditions of constant temperature and quantity, there is an inverse relationship between the volume and pressure for an ideal gas, God permitting."  School text book committees will love that one!

We serve our Creator best by giving Him full credit for setting the bounds and establishing the laws under which nature is free to operate.  God empowers nature, and nature orchestrates the procession of life.  In Genesis 1, God commands, “let the earth bring forth” and “let the waters bring forth.”  Personal action or divine intervention not required.   Further in Genesis, God pronounces His creation “very good.”  He did not say it was perfect.

Dick Fischer  - Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org Received on Mon Oct 18 00:39:20 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Oct 18 2004 - 00:39:21 EDT