Over 150 scholars gathered at Biola University, Los Angeles on
14-17 November 1996 with a goal which few in academic circles
seem to share: to develop an approach to science which is free
from naturalistic philosophy (the idea that nature is all there
is). There was a sense of urgency in the conference, because the
message broadcast by most opinion-formers in science is that
science cannot be done without a prior commitment to naturalism.
What this rules out is any thought that the natural world
exhibits design. The best-known British advocate for naturalism
is Richard Dawkins. He has suggested the word "designoid" to
be appropriate for living things (i.e. they appear designed, but
they are actually the result of a mindless process known as
Darwinian evolution.)
Christians in science have only two options. One is to view
evolution as a God-ordained natural process: one which he used
to create all things. Since God ordains natural laws and
controls chance, he is responsible for what results. However,
few find this a convincing argument for design. Apart from
reacting to the extraordinarily wasteful route chosen, we expect
a creative designer to take things beyond natural law. Both the
design concept and the fabrication process take things beyond
law: materials are moulded and fashioned to do things they would
not naturally do. In other words, an intelligent input is always
required if we are to recognise design. This is the one thing
that is never allowed in evolutionary accounts of origins.
The other option for Christians is to say that the naturalists
are wrong and that living things really are designed by God.
They cannot be explained without reference to the intelligent
input of a Designer. Natural law, by itself, will never bring
about life. To say such a thing necessitates, of course, a
rejection of Darwinian evolution as it is held within the
academic world. This radical option is the one taken by those
participating in the conference.
Focusing the debate on "Intelligent Design" issues is a strategy
which has been led by Professor Phillip Johnson, author of
"Darwin on Trial". The aim is to change the way the debate over
origins proceeds. The issue is not "evolution vs creation
science" but "naturalistic science vs theistic science". It asks
the question: should science be undertaken with the prerequisite
of naturalism, or should it be open to theistic possibilities?
Some years ago, a book was published with the title "Chance and
Necessity". Its message was that everything is either the
result of chance or the consequence of law. The theistic
alternative is to say that there is a genuine third option:
things may be the result either of chance, or law, or intelligent
design.
What is needed, and what the conference set out to address, is
a development of these ideas in a form that can stand up to the
critical evaluation of the academic world. Scientists need a
methodology for identifying design and for incorporating the
concept harmoniously into explanations of origins. We need to
be able to point to ways in which these ideas make a difference
to scholarly work. We need to have a robust philosophical
framework for science incorporating intelligent design. The
general feeling was that the conference achieved substantial
progress in these areas, making it a resounding success.
A few specific examples of presentations follow. Professor
Michael Behe gave a synopsis of his recent book "Darwin's Black
Box", which demonstrates that the biological world has
innumerable examples of irreducibly complex systems which defy
Darwinian explanations of origins. Professor Siegfried Scherer
spoke about research into the concept of Basic Types in the
biological world: evidences of distinct groupings of organisms
that are genetically related within the Type but which appear to
be genetically separate from other Types. This work provides
empirical evidence of the discontinuities introduced by
intelligent design activity by the Creator. Dr Jonathan Wells
spoke of confirmatory evidence from developmental biology, that
distinct differences between different types of organism are
apparent from their earliest development. Dr Sigrid Hartwig-
Scherer applied the Basic Type biology concept to hominid
fossils, showing how sense can be made of the diverse collections
of fossils - pointing to a coherent story of the intelligent
design of mankind.
Professor Phillip Johnson, whose writings, lectures and personal
influence catalysed the conference, gave the final address. He
spoke of the momentum that already exists: the conference
proceedings will be published to make the papers available to a
wider readership; further conferences will be organised; media
opportunities are growing; etc. But everyone can contribute to
the goals of the conference by being much more sensitive as to
what constitutes "science". Science is NOT forcing everything
into a naturalistic framework of "chance" or "necessity". We
must be prepared to allow for the possibility that chance and
necessity are inadequate to explain the real world. If
practising science means seeking truth, then scientists will be
open to the possibility of intelligent design and will not rule
the concept out of bounds as inherently unscientific. Christians
who claim to be interested in both truth and science should be
giving a lead here. A culture change is needed about the
scientific enterprise - and culture involves everyone who has any
interest in science: teachers and students, parents and children,
researchers and writers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***