Ruling Against Intelligent Design

I know I am moving in kind of late in the action on the ruling on ID in Pennsylvania. Nonetheless, the blogger Imago Dei has some powerful insight on ID. It is evenhanded and positive toward ID, yet Imago Dei does not call for the abandonment of evolution either. In the realm of science both are theories, one is secular evolving to an atheistic conclusion and the other is theistic evolving to an original design - hence a Designer.

The Designer concept is what upset Federal District Judge John Jones. The liberalness of this is filtered through the eyes of separation of Church and State rather than a potential rival scientific theory. I challenge any liberal in or out of the Court system to show me the words "separation of Church and State" in the U.S. Constitution. I even challenge them to find the words "a wall of separation" in the U.S. Constitution. The liberal cannot find it because it does not exist. It is a concept contrived from a Jefferson speech at a Church in his day. Activist judges and liberals have used this speech to interpret something that is not there. The teaching of ID is actually the most intelligent way of teaching an alternative scientific theory that leads to the conclusion of a Creator. Why? ID is general enough to not insult any religion except atheism.

-------------------------------------
Posted by John Roberts
Imago-dei.net
December 20, 2005

I was approached several months ago by a Lobbyist in Washington State who was seeking to create legislation that would make teaching Evolution against the law in Washington State schools. I haven't heard of a worse idea in a while, and I said just that to him. Evolution is a theory that has been taught in most schools for many years. As a scientific theory it ought to be taught. Plutarch wrote, "The mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be kindled." We ought to do whatever we can to teach our students critical thinking about their world. Apparently U.S. District Judge John Jones disagrees with me. (http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/12/21/evolution.debate.ap/index.html) I think he's wrong. What do you think?

Judge Jones writes, "We have concluded that it is not [science] and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." That is an pretty amazing statement... "we have concluded that it's not science?" How does one conclude that? What are the ID guys saying?

To illustrate perhaps: Let's pretend that I'm visiting the United States from Sweden, and know very little of US History, and virtually nothing of its geography. I decide to tour America from west to east. On my trip I am driving through South Dakota and see Mount Rushmore. I'm going to say... "That is the most amazingly precise naturally occurring rock formation that I have ever seen! It actually looks like people... old guys with really funny haircuts!" Of course that's absurd. I will inherently think, without prompting, or ask the question out loud if I'm with someone, "I wonder who did that?" I would like to know if there is anyone who would think, "Imagine that coming about by purely natural causes."

Intelligent Design suggests that when we have "contingency", which means that if I see something occurring that isn't necessarily there due to its connection with something else. "Complexity" if it is sufficiently complex as to make it unlikely to be random. If it has "specification", which Bill Dembski describes as, "to count as specifications, patterns must be suitably independent of events. I refer to this relation of independence as detachability and say that a pattern is detachable just in case it satisfies that event.
Simply put, when you look at Mount Rushmore it self-evidently suggests design. Those scientists who are supporting ID are simply saying it "seems like" there is design in the universe. A strand of DNA is multitudinously more complex than Mt. Rushmore! And yet to suggest that Mt. Rushmore happened apart from design... and... a designer... would be scoffed at in the extreme.

Judge Jones suggests that, "To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect." That is a kind and generous statement of the problem really. There has been no success thus far to get near bio genesis. That is... starting life from non-life, which is, to be fair, the crux of the matter. How does Darwinian evolution account for the beginning of life? (I am not in any way shape or form conceding the rest of the theory by the way). Dean Kenyon, for years a distinguished senior biology professor at San Francisco State University, and co-author of Biochemical Predestination, says, "Gary Steinmen and I thought that if we could pull together all of the lines of empirical evidence that had accumulated by the mid to late 60's in one continuous argument we were very enthusiastic about explaining the origins of the main life-building elements." (Quotes by Kenyon from "Unlocking the Mystery of Life"). Kenyon goes on to say, "About the time that biochemical predestination came out, I and my co-author were totally convinced that we have the scientific explanation for origins"

Kenyon began to seriously doubt that they in fact had the answer within five years of the publishing his book. He says, "It's an enormous problem how you can get together in one tiny submicroscopic volume of the primitive ocean all of the elements of the molecular components that you would need in order for a self-replicating cycle to begin."

"It just reached, for me, the intellectual breaking point sometime near the end of the decade of the 70's. The more I conducted my own studies, including a period at the NASA/Aims Research Center, the more it became apparent that there were multiple difficulties with the chemical evolution account."

To say that Darwian Evolution is imperfect is perhaps an understatement. Antony Flew is another case to cite. Flew, a leading atheist philosopher for many decades in Britain, has recently announced his turn to theism. One of the key turning arguments for Flew? Intelligent Design.

The point I am making here, and the ID people are making, is not to get rid of evolutionary theory willy nilly. I am not in favor of Christians, or theists, seeking to burn books and stomp out thinking. However, it seems amazing to me that proponents of Evolutionary Theory are so unwilling to allow the controversy to be taught. That is the hope of ID supporters... that the controversy will be taught. It seems that the fear is in teaching the controversy and having students see, not just that there are large gaps in Evolutionary Theory, but that there may in fact be another alternative. If such noted scientists as Kenyon and Flew are being convinced, perhaps it is worth taking a look at.

Does Intelligent Design have metaphysical implications? Certainly, but if that's where the evidence leads, as Scott Minick of the University of Idaho says, then we have to go with the evidence. ID is not prescribing any certain theistic position specifically, but certainly if the evidence leads to design, it will ultimately have to lead to a designer. That's another argument, but isn't it worth at least thinking about?

Posted by John Roberts December 20, 2005 in Current Affairs
Source: http://www.imago-dei.net/imago_dei/2005/12/ruling_against_.html