INTELLIGENT DESIGN PART 1
Many Christians who reject Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection have embraced a concept called Intelligent Design (ID in common parlance). Broadly speaking, that's the idea that God, or some God-like agent, had to have been involved with the creation and emergence of life. It's an idea that's intuitively appealing to Christians.
Intelligent design actually can be traced back to Thomas Aquinas, a 13th century Roman Catholic theologian, but it really was popularized in the 1980's and early 1990's by Michael Behe, an Australian micro-biologist, and Philip Johnson, who teaches constitutional law at the University of California Berkeley. It's become very popular with many evangelical Christians, but is roundly rejected by mainline scientists, both non-Christian and Christian. Let's first provide a brief explanation of the modern day version of Intelligent Design, then we'll discuss why most scientists reject it.
First off, one should realize that most supporters of Intelligent Design actually believe in Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, just on the scale of microbes and viruses. For example, they acknowledge that mutations can occur. A perfect example of this is when bacteria mutate to develop resistance to drugs. The problem for supporters of Intelligent Design, drawing upon a card playing analogy, is that Darwin "over played his hand". They have problems on two levels – chemical evolution and macro-evolution. Let's look at those.
It turns out that cells are far more complicated than Darwin ever could have imagined. How did that complexity emerge? Supporters of ID claim that one cannot explain a reasonable way for the complexity of the average cell to emerge through the process Darwin described. The conclusion is that it could only have happened with the intervention of an intelligent designer.
The other problem they have is on a macro-scale. It's one thing for evolution to occur on a micro-scale, but that doesn't explain how new species and orders emerge. If it did occur, then there should be evidence of transitional species. As an example, Darwin's theory postulates that life forms transitioned from the oceans to land, so how did species make that transition? There should be some evidence of life forms that made that transition. When Philip Johnson wrote Darwin on Trial, there weren't any known transitional species. Johnson made a point to note that Darwin, himself, said his theory would fall apart if there were no such evidence.
Johnson and other ID theorists have indeed identified weaknesses in Darwin's theory. In the minds of many evangelical Christians, what the ID theorists have done is fatally wounded Darwin. Unfortunately, it isn't so simple as that. Here's why.
First, while ID theorists have developed a number of important criticisms of Darwin, they have not developed an alternative scientific theory. Intelligent Design is not a fleshed out scientific theory that can compete with Darwin, merely a hodge-podge of criticisms of Darwin. That doesn't mean a full theory won't emerge, it just hasn't yet.
Second, ID depends upon including some form of "intelligent agent" in the design process, usually described as God. From a scientific viewpoint, that's a non-starter. The reason for this is because there is absolutely no way to construct a scientific hypothesis that can test for the existence or non-existence of God. That's not to say God doesn't exist, just that there is no way to do a scientific test of His existence. Please understand, this isn't some type of atheist conspiracy. Scientists who are themselves strong evangelical Christians line up in lock-step with atheist scientists on this point. It comes down to how the scientific method, including the principle of falsifying a hypothesis, that trips up ID. Thus, ID can't become a serious scientific theory until it can be presented in a way that eliminates the need to explain phenomena based upon the intervention of a God-like agent. Remember, it isn't a question of whether or not God exists, it is a question of whether the science can be explained without having to rely upon the existence of God.
The second issue with ID has to do with the "evidence problem" described above. The problem is that conventional scientists keep coming up with actual evidence of the things that ID theorists said can't or didn't exist. For example, remember the problem with "transitional fossils"? Since Johnson wrote Darwin on Trial in the early 1990's, evidence of real transitional fossils has been found. Such transitional fossils tend to reinforce Darwin's theory. Second, scientists keep finding examples of things ID theorists say are too complex to be explained by Darwin's theory. In other words, supporters of Darwin keep finding things that reinforce what Darwin said, and undercut the ID argument. If you think of ID as a chair, what's happening is that conventional science keeps knocking the legs off the chair.
Has Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt? No, it hasn't, but no other theories have been developed that come anywhere near close to providing the explanatory power of Darwin. While ID has identified a number of problems with the theory, ID itself is not a fleshed out theory itself.
While I'm rejecting Intelligent Design as a concept, one could make the argument that my proposed concept is really just a different form of Intelligent Design. After all, I'm suggesting that God did create the Universe and His hand is evident, so aren't I being hypocritical? No, not in the least. In the very purest sense, my proposal is a form of Intelligent Design, because I do believe God was involved in the creation of the Universe, but my proposal is significantly different from Intelligent Design in some very important respects. The key difference is that I wholeheartedly embrace the concept of macro-evolution, the very thing that Philip Johnson and the other key leaders in the Intelligent Design movement reject. I believe Darwin's theory applies on a macro scale, just as do people like Richard Dawkins and other prominent atheists.
So what's the difference between the atheist conception, Intelligent Design, and my conception? Here's a quick summary:
a) I embrace Darwin's theory on both a micro and macro scale, just like Dawkins, but unlike the Intelligent Design movement;
b) I also embrace the idea that there is a Creator God, much like most of the Intelligent Design movement, but quite unlike Dawkins;
c) I believe that whatever "design" God did was pre-Big Bang, so there is really no way to prove it, or disprove it.
The "design" I embrace includes two key elements: a) the physical constants that make our world amenable to life as we know it; and b) the process of evolution by natural selection. People like Dawkins also embrace these two "design" elements, they just don't think they came from the hand of God, whereas I do.
Scientists have not identified any tools or methods to investigate what might have happened before the Big Bang, or who or what might have caused it. Thus, any thoughts about the origin of the Universe, or the existence or non-existence of God, are purely in the realm of speculation, at least for now.
