Group
Here is an article about Intelligent Design that was posted in another list I
am on.
The ID movement continues to gather strength!
Steve
=====================================================
James Eckert, "Breaking through Darwinism's Defenses," Concordia
Journal, 24 (1998):214-218
In recent years, the theory of evolution has come under attack by some
who claim that life could have come about only through intelligent design.
Darwinists typically counter this attack with several standard arguments.
The god-of-the-gaps argument goes something like this: In the past, people
often pointed to some god to explain what they could not understand. Even
some early scientists pointed to God to explain things when they could find
no other explanation. However, further study often made it possible to
explain what was happening using only natural laws and forces. The
unexplained phenomenon turned out to be a gap in our understanding of
how nature works, and God was not needed to bridge the gap. Today
scientists are understandably reluctant to use some god as an explanation.
Is it not best for scientists to continue to look for an answer rather than
give up and say a god did it?
Then there are the rules-of-science and the its-a-fact arguments. Darwinists
argue that they are just playing by the rules of science. Science investigates
natural causes, not divine intervention. This is because only natural causes
can be studied using repeated experiments. They also claim that rejecting
evolution is like rejecting the fact that the earth is a sphere or that it travels
around the sun. Only zealots, people blinded by their beliefs, reject such
things. Although there is some debate over which theory best explains how
evolution happened, Darwinists insist there is no disputing that it happened.
Having been persuaded by these arguments, many people will not listen to
any evidence for a Designer no matter how good it is. The arguments act
as a defensive wall. For the message of intelligent design to get a fair
hearing, the flaws in the wall need to be exposed. This can be done by
pointing out two things. First, the arguments in the previous paragraphs
shift the discussion away from intelligence and over to the supernatural.
They are arguments for excluding God and miracles as causes, not for
excluding intelligence. Second, they obscure the difference between
investigating ongoing phenomena and investigating events in the past. Once
these mistakes are out in the open, the philosophical bias of the Darwinists
will become apparent to most people, and they will be willing to listen to
the case for intelligent design.
The first flaw is a case of misdirection. Evolutionists often contrast natural
and supernatural causes and since they exclude the supernatural because of
the limits of science, they are left with only natural causes. No one disputes
that miracles are unique events and that we cannot put God under a
microscope. But does this limit us to only natural causes when we enter the
realm of science? Evolutionists would like us to think so. However, they
are overlooking something.
Consider your own experience. When you go for a drive in the country, it
is readily apparent which fields are wild and which ones are cultivated. You
probably have observed the wind scatter dandelion and maple seeds, and
you probably have seen farmers plant seeds. Through experiences like
these, we learn that intelligent agents and natural forces are very different
in what they are capable of doing. This is why we often can tell whether
impersonal forces or intelligent agents caused an event simply by looking at
the results.
Take the example of archeologists who come across a statue buried in the
ground. They do not assume that only natural forces were involved in
producing the statue. If someone insisted that wind and water erosion,
cracking due to freezing water, and other natural forces must have created
the statue, people would say, "He's overlooking the obvious. The statue
was carved by an intelligent agent."
Evolutionists insist that life developed through a process involving only
natural forces and random events. But how do they know that no
intelligent planning and activity were involved in the history of life? Think
again of the archeologists. Even if pottery, foundations for homes, and
human remains are not found in the area, the archeologists would still
conclude that a person made the statue. This is because only an intelligent
being can create an image or design and then take the steps needed to
produce that design. Similarly does not the enormous complexity of living
things suggest the need for intelligent planning and activity, and therefore
the need for a Designer?
Now we turn to the second flaw. Scientists use only natural laws and
forces in their theories about ongoing phenomena (like the motion of the
planets). Theists do not have a problem with this. That is because they
recognize that scientists are not investigating the ultimate cause when they
look at how things work day after day. They are not trying to find out
whether or how God is involved. They are simply seeking to explain and
describe the various instruments and laws that God has established. This
kind of science is called empirical science. The three arguments mentioned
in the first two paragraphs all assume that the science being discussed is
empirical science.
Again the Darwinists have overlooked something. There is another kind of
science. It is called forensic or historical science. The difference between
empirical and forensic science can be seen with the help of the following
illustration. If you are interested in antique cars, you might want to know
how a Model "T" Ford works. You also might be interested in its history
and ask how was it built. The methods used to answer these two questions
are very different. The car can be observed in operation and disassembled
to find out how it works. However, there are no Model "T" factories in
operation today. With cars, you can look for answers in historical records,
but for many objects these records do not exist. This makes your search for
answers much more difficult and means that the answers you come up with
might be educated guesses.
Scientists ask these how-does-it-work and how-did-it-get-here questions
about nature. In the category of how does it work, biologists ask questions
like "How do animals interact with their environment?" and "How do the
kidneys work?" Their how-did-it-get-here questions would include "How
did birds and mammals come into existence?" and "How did the finches on
the Galapagos Islands come to differ from their counterparts on the
mainland?"
When we theorize about how things work, our focus is on the present.
Experiments are done over and over to test out various possible
explanations. When we theorize about the origins of something, our focus
shifts to the past. This shift is critical. Past events are always unique and
unrepeatable, and no one can travel back in time and directly investigate
the events. Therefore, investigating the past always involves looking for
clues and trying to reconstruct the event.
An illustration from police work will help. Let's say some scientists are
helping to investigate a car crash. The crash might be due to natural causes.
That is, it might be an accident, but it also might be a crime. The scientists
try to reconstruct the crash using available clues and their knowledge of
what natural and intelligent causes can accomplish. Through repeated
experiments, forensic scientists try to reproduce the evidence collected at
the scene. If the results of their experiments match the evidence, this can
lead the investigators to the person or thing responsible. In the case of a car
crash, there may be telltale signs (like corrosion or metal fatigue) that a
part failed naturally. Then the investigators conclude that the crash was
accidental. In some cases, however, there is evidence of tampering (like
marks from a knife or a saw). Then the investigators conclude that since
this could not have happened naturally, a person must have caused the
crash.
Evolutionists are like the forensic scientists who investigate a possible
crime scene. The experiments that they perform in the present (like using
xrays to cause mutations in fruit flies) and the evidence they uncover (like
fossils and the microevolution of moth and finch populations) give them
clues to a possible reconstruction of the past. Unfortunately, when it comes
to the history of life, many scientists are willing to consider reconstructions
that involve only natural forces and random events, and they want us to
accept these reconstructions as a true picture of reality.
If anyone else tried this approach, we would not be impressed with his
case. Let's suppose that in his summation, a defense attorney said, "You
have heard the evidence, and much of it was scientific. As you deliberate,
remember that science investigates only mindless natural forces. Therefore,
you cannot use any of the scientific evidence to point an accusing finger at
the defendants or any other person." This attorney is misrepresenting
science. Past events can have either natural or intelligent causes, and the
evidence may point us in either direction.
No attorney would get away with this kind of approach, but evolutionary
biologists often do. Darwinists do not allow the evidence to lead them in
the direction of an intelligent cause. Yet many fail to see this for what it is.
It is the result of the Darwinists' philosophical beliefs. Their commitment to
naturalism (the belief that nature is all that there is) leads them to exclude
intelligent planning and activity from their theories about the history of life.
In presenting the message of intelligent design, we not only need to show
people the flaws in evolution, we need to present a positive case for design.
In doing this, we should be careful. Many Christians create barriers to
communication by the approach they take in the creation-evolution
controversy. They want scientific theories to be founded on "biblical
principles," or they try to prove biblical teachings through science. When
they do this, many people stop listening to them, and they become even less
willing to listen to the evidence for a Designer.
If we leave the Bible out of the discussion, is there evidence that an
intelligent Designer made living things? Consider the following: DNA,
which is found in all cells, is the blueprint for all cellular operations. It
contains instructions that are used to construct complex molecules called
proteins. The question we must answer is how did these instructions come
into existence. Whenever we try to reconstruct the past, we reason by
analogy. Is there a comparable case where we can show that encoded
information has come into existence simply through natural means? No.
Even a short letter is so complex that it does not come into existence
without a writer. What we know about messages strongly suggests that the
information encoded in the DNA molecule was put there by an intelligent
agent.
The biochemist Michael Behe points out that many processes in living
things are "irreducibly complex." The board game Mouse Trap is a good
illustration of what this is. If you have played the game, you probably know
that if one piece is not in its proper place, the mousetrap will not work. The
trap is irreducibly complex because all the pieces must be present and
working properly for the whole system to function. You can tinker with the
mousetrap and modify the way it works. However, this tinkering is
intelligent intervention, and the theory of evolution states that only
impersonal forces are needed to change biological systems. To modify the
mousetrap in a way that is analogous to evolutionary theory, you would
need to put the assembled mousetrap into a box and shake it. There is little
chance that such random changes to a complex system will improve it.
Instead they will probably cause it to fail.
Inside the cells in our bodies are many irreducibly complex systems that are
biochemical in nature. Vision is one example. When light enters your eye, it
strikes a molecule called retinal and loosens the link between two atoms
that are part of a rigid chain of atoms. This causes the chain to flip over and
triggers off a complex series of chemical reactions that results in our seeing
an object. The problem for the evolutionists is to explain how these
complex systems came into existence while keeping in mind what we know
about DNA. Mutations can change the DNA's instructions and the resulting
proteins. However, such changes are quite hazardous for the cell.
Modifying a protein even slightly can cause it to change its shape and its
chemical properties. It is likely that such a modified protein will no longer
perform its proper function. And remember, if only one component fails,
the system stops working.
The problem with saying that mutations can create complex systems is that
for such systems there is only a small island of success and a universe of
failure. Macroevolution would involve jumping between these islands and
avoiding the universe that separates them. This is implausible for even one
system, and there are a myriad of these systems in nature. Darwinism is an
implausible reconstruction of the past because the forces of nature are blind
and cannot plan ahead. Our knowledge of these forces and what intelligent
agents are capable of doing strongly suggests that only an intelligent
Designer could create life's complex systems and avoid the universe of
catastrophic failure.
Evolutionists sometimes argue against intelligent design by pointing out
that great waste, death, and imperfection are visible in the history of life.
They then ask how could this be so if God is the Creator. There is no
disputing that evil and imperfection are part of life, but why this is so is not
a scientific question. The scientists who answer this question have stepped
outside their field of expertise and have become amateur theologians.
How can we know who nature's Designer is and what His attitude toward
us is? The Christian Church contends that we will never be able to answer
this question with any certainty by looking at the creation. The message
found in creation is ambiguous, and sin muddles the message even more.
Fortunately, God has sent us a clear message through His Son. Jesus'
words and actions show us that God is favorably inclined toward us and
that He delights in giving us good things.
The case for intelligent design involves many more details. If you are
interested in this case, the following resources will be helpful:
The Creation Hypothesis edited by J. P. Moreland, InterVarsity Press,
1994
Darwin on Trial by Phillip E. Johnson, 2nd ed., InterVarsity Press, 1993
Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe, Free Press, 1996
Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds by Phillip E. Johnson, InterVarsity
Press, 1997
The Mystery of Life's Origin by Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley and
Roger Olsen, Philosophical Library, 1984
The Access Research Network website at www.arn.org The Origins
website at www.origins.org
=====================================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ senojes@hotmail.com
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--_=_=_=IMA.BOUNDARY.HTML_4820800=_=_=_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Group
Here is an article about Intelligent Design that was posted in another list I
am on.
The ID movement continues to gather strength!
Steve
=====================================================
James Eckert, "Breaking through Darwinism's Defenses," Concordia
Journal, 24 (1998):214-218
In recent years, the theory of evolution has come under attack by some
who claim that life could have come about only through intelligent design.
Darwinists typically counter this attack with several standard arguments.
The god-of-the-gaps argument goes something like this: In the past, people
often pointed to some god to explain what they could not understand. Even
some early scientists pointed to God to explain things when they could find
no other explanation. However, further study often made it possible to
explain what was happening using only natural laws and forces. The
unexplained phenomenon turned out to be a gap in our understanding of
how nature works, and God was not needed to bridge the gap. Today
scientists are understandably reluctant to use some god as an explanation.
Is it not best for scientists to continue to look for an answer rather than
give up and say a god did it?
Then there are the rules-of-science and the its-a-fact arguments. Darwinists
argue that they are just playing by the rules of science. Science investigates
natural causes, not divine intervention. This is because only natural causes
can be studied using repeated experiments. They also claim that rejecting
evolution is like rejecting the fact that the earth is a sphere or that it travels
around the sun. Only zealots, people blinded by their beliefs, reject such
things. Although there is some debate over which theory best explains how
evolution happened, Darwinists insist there is no disputing that it happened.
Having been persuaded by these arguments, many people will not listen to
any evidence for a Designer no matter how good it is. The arguments act
as a defensive wall. For the message of intelligent design to get a fair
hearing, the flaws in the wall need to be exposed. This can be done by
pointing out two things. First, the arguments in the previous paragraphs
shift the discussion away from intelligence and over to the supernatural.
They are arguments for excluding God and miracles as causes, not for
excluding intelligence. Second, they obscure the difference between
investigating ongoing phenomena and investigating events in the past. Once
these mistakes are out in the open, the philosophical bias of the Darwinists
will become apparent to most people, and they will be willing to listen to
the case for intelligent design.
The first flaw is a case of misdirection. Evolutionists often contrast natural
and supernatural causes and since they exclude the supernatural because of
the limits of science, they are left with only natural causes. No one disputes
that miracles are unique events and that we cannot put God under a
microscope. But does this limit us to only natural causes when we enter the
realm of science? Evolutionists would like us to think so. However, they
are overlooking something.
Consider your own experience. When you go for a drive in the country, it
is readily apparent which fields are wild and which ones are cultivated. You
probably have observed the wind scatter dandelion and maple seeds, and
you probably have seen farmers plant seeds. Through experiences like
these, we learn that intelligent agents and natural forces are very different
in what they are capable of doing. This is why we often can tell whether
impersonal forces or intelligent agents caused an event simply by looking at
the results.
Take the example of archeologists who come across a statue buried in the
ground. They do not assume that only natural forces were involved in
producing the statue. If someone insisted that wind and water erosion,
cracking due to freezing water, and other natural forces must have created
the statue, people would say, "He's overlooking the obvious. The statue
was carved by an intelligent agent."
Evolutionists insist that life developed through a process involving only
natural forces and random events. But how do they know that no
intelligent planning and activity were involved in the history of life? Think
again of the archeologists. Even if pottery, foundations for homes, and
human remains are not found in the area, the archeologists would still
conclude that a person made the statue. This is because only an intelligent
being can create an image or design and then take the steps needed to
produce that design. Similarly does not the enormous complexity of living
things suggest the need for intelligent planning and activity, and therefore
the need for a Designer?
Now we turn to the second flaw. Scientists use only natural laws and
forces in their theories about ongoing phenomena (like the motion of the
planets). Theists do not have a problem with this. That is because they
recognize that scientists are not investigating the ultimate cause when they
look at how things work day after day. They are not trying to find out
whether or how God is involved. They are simply seeking to explain and
describe the various instruments and laws that God has established. This
kind of science is called empirical science. The three arguments mentioned
in the first two paragraphs all assume that the science being discussed is
empirical science.
Again the Darwinists have overlooked something. There is another kind of
science. It is called forensic or historical science. The difference between
empirical and forensic science can be seen with the help of the following
illustration. If you are interested in antique cars, you might want to know
how a Model "T" Ford works. You also might be interested in its history
and ask how was it built. The methods used to answer these two questions
are very different. The car can be observed in operation and disassembled
to find out how it works. However, there are no Model "T" factories in
operation today. With cars, you can look for answers in historical records,
but for many objects these records do not exist. This makes your search for
answers much more difficult and means that the answers you come up with
might be educated guesses.
Scientists ask these how-does-it-work and how-did-it-get-here questions
about nature. In the category of how does it work, biologists ask questions
like "How do animals interact with their environment?" and "How do the
kidneys work?" Their how-did-it-get-here questions would include "How
did birds and mammals come into existence?" and "How did the finches on
the Galapagos Islands come to differ from their counterparts on the
mainland?"
When we theorize about how things work, our focus is on the present.
Experiments are done over and over to test out various possible
explanations. When we theorize about the origins of something, our focus
shifts to the past. This shift is critical. Past events are always unique and
unrepeatable, and no one can travel back in time and directly investigate
the events. Therefore, investigating the past always involves looking for
clues and trying to reconstruct the event.
An illustration from police work will help. Let's say some scientists are
helping to investigate a car crash. The crash might be due to natural causes.
That is, it might be an accident, but it also might be a crime. The scientists
try to reconstruct the crash using available clues and their knowledge of
what natural and intelligent causes can accomplish. Through repeated
experiments, forensic scientists try to reproduce the evidence collected at
the scene. If the results of their experiments match the evidence, this can
lead the investigators to the person or thing responsible. In the case of a car
crash, there may be telltale signs (like corrosion or metal fatigue) that a
part failed naturally. Then the investigators conclude that the crash was
accidental. In some cases, however, there is evidence of tampering (like
marks from a knife or a saw). Then the investigators conclude that since
this could not have happened naturally, a person must have caused the
crash.
Evolutionists are like the forensic scientists who investigate a possible
crime scene. The experiments that they perform in the present (like using
xrays to cause mutations in fruit flies) and the evidence they uncover (like
fossils and the microevolution of moth and finch populations) give them
clues to a possible reconstruction of the past. Unfortunately, when it comes
to the history of life, many scientists are willing to consider reconstructions
that involve only natural forces and random events, and they want us to
accept these reconstructions as a true picture of reality.
If anyone else tried this approach, we would not be impressed with his
case. Let's suppose that in his summation, a defense attorney said, "You
have heard the evidence, and much of it was scientific. As you deliberate,
remember that science investigates only mindless natural forces. Therefore,
you cannot use any of the scientific evidence to point an accusing finger at
the defendants or any other person." This attorney is misrepresenting
science. Past events can have either natural or intelligent causes, and the
evidence may point us in either direction.
No attorney would get away with this kind of approach, but evolutionary
biologists often do. Darwinists do not allow the evidence to lead them in
the direction of an intelligent cause. Yet many fail to see this for what it is.
It is the result of the Darwinists' philosophical beliefs. Their commitment to
naturalism (the belief that nature is all that there is) leads them to exclude
intelligent planning and activity from their theories about the history of life.
In presenting the message of intelligent design, we not only need to show
people the flaws in evolution, we need to present a positive case for design.
In doing this, we should be careful. Many Christians create barriers to
communication by the approach they take in the creation-evolution
controversy. They want scientific theories to be founded on "biblical
principles," or they try to prove biblical teachings through science. When
they do this, many people stop listening to them, and they become even less
willing to listen to the evidence for a Designer.
If we leave the Bible out of the discussion, is there evidence that an
intelligent Designer made living things? Consider the following: DNA,
which is found in all cells, is the blueprint for all cellular operations. It
contains instructions that are used to construct complex molecules called
proteins. The question we must answer is how did these instructions come
into existence. Whenever we try to reconstruct the past, we reason by
analogy. Is there a comparable case where we can show that encoded
information has come into existence simply through natural means? No.
Even a short letter is so complex that it does not come into existence
without a writer. What we know about messages strongly suggests that the
information encoded in the DNA molecule was put there by an intelligent
agent.
The biochemist Michael Behe points out that many processes in living
things are "irreducibly complex." The board game Mouse Trap is a good
illustration of what this is. If you have played the game, you probably know
that if one piece is not in its proper place, the mousetrap will not work. The
trap is irreducibly complex because all the pieces must be present and
working properly for the whole system to function. You can tinker with the
mousetrap and modify the way it works. However, this tinkering is
intelligent intervention, and the theory of evolution states that only
impersonal forces are needed to change biological systems. To modify the
mousetrap in a way that is analogous to evolutionary theory, you would
need to put the assembled mousetrap into a box and shake it. There is little
chance that such random changes to a complex system will improve it.
Instead they will probably cause it to fail.
Inside the cells in our bodies are many irreducibly complex systems that are
biochemical in nature. Vision is one example. When light enters your eye, it
strikes a molecule called retinal and loosens the link between two atoms
that are part of a rigid chain of atoms. This causes the chain to flip over and
triggers off a complex series of chemical reactions that results in our seeing
an object. The problem for the evolutionists is to explain how these
complex systems came into existence while keeping in mind what we know
about DNA. Mutations can change the DNA's instructions and the resulting
proteins. However, such changes are quite hazardous for the cell.
Modifying a protein even slightly can cause it to change its shape and its
chemical properties. It is likely that such a modified protein will no longer
perform its proper function. And remember, if only one component fails,
the system stops working.
The problem with saying that mutations can create complex systems is that
for such systems there is only a small island of success and a universe of
failure. Macroevolution would involve jumping between these islands and
avoiding the universe that separates them. This is implausible for even one
system, and there are a myriad of these systems in nature. Darwinism is an
implausible reconstruction of the past because the forces of nature are blind
and cannot plan ahead. Our knowledge of these forces and what intelligent
agents are capable of doing strongly suggests that only an intelligent
Designer could create life's complex systems and avoid the universe of
catastrophic failure.
Evolutionists sometimes argue against intelligent design by pointing out
that great waste, death, and imperfection are visible in the history of life.
They then ask how could this be so if God is the Creator. There is no
disputing that evil and imperfection are part of life, but why this is so is not
a scientific question. The scientists who answer this question have stepped
outside their field of expertise and have become amateur theologians.
How can we know who nature's Designer is and what His attitude toward
us is? The Christian Church contends that we will never be able to answer
this question with any certainty by looking at the creation. The message
found in creation is ambiguous, and sin muddles the message even more.
Fortunately, God has sent us a clear message through His Son. Jesus'
words and actions show us that God is favorably inclined toward us and
that He delights in giving us good things.
The case for intelligent design involves many more details. If you are
interested in this case, the following resources will be helpful:
The Creation Hypothesis edited by J. P. Moreland, InterVarsity Press,
1994
Darwin on Trial by Phillip E. Johnson, 2nd ed., InterVarsity Press, 1993
Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe, Free Press, 1996
Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds by Phillip E. Johnson, InterVarsity
Press, 1997
The Mystery of Life's Origin by Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley and
Roger Olsen, Philosophical Library, 1984
The Access Research Network website at www.arn.org The Origins
website at www.origins.org
=====================================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ senojes@hotmail.com
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
----------------------------------------------------------------------_=_=_=IMA.BOUNDARY.HTML_4820800=_=_=_--