Debate Continues Over Intelligent Design

Very interesting article on Intelligent Design from the Center for Science & Culture. The CSC is sponsored by the Discovery Institute and is focused on supporting scientists and research on intelligent design vs. neo-Darwinism and encouraging schools to teach a less biased view of Darwinian evolution.

The article is written by Stephen C. Meyer, the director of the CSC who received his Ph.D. in the History & Philosophy of Science from Cambridge.

I have oftened wondered why it is that any questioning whatsoever about the theory of natural selection drives the mainstream scientific community (and mainstream media) insane? Any attempt to get schools to at least acknowledge that the theory of evolution contains a lot of logical holes and inexplicable assumptions raises cries of "separation of church and state".

The media mischaracterizes intelligent design as back-door Creationism and leaves it at that. Dr. Meyer provides a thoughtful defense of intelligent design:

But what exactly is the theory of intelligent design?

Contrary to media reports, intelligent design is not a religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins-one that challenges strictly materialistic views of evolution. According to Darwinian biologists such as Oxford's Richard Dawkins, living systems "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." But, for modern Darwinists, that appearance of design is entirely illusory.

Why? According to neo-Darwinism, wholly undirected processes such as natural selection and random mutations are fully capable of producing the intricate designed-like structures in living systems. In their view, natural selection can mimic the powers of a designing intelligence without itself being directed by an intelligence.

In contrast, the theory of intelligent design holds that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause. The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it does dispute Darwin's idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected.

Either life arose as the result of purely undirected material processes or a guiding intelligence played a role. Design theorists favor the latter option and argue that living organisms look designed because they really were designed.

Dr. Meyer goes on to give some examples of how recent discoveries in nanotechnology support the idea that pure random chance could not produce the variability and complexity of life on this planet.

But why do we say this? What tell-tale signs of intelligence do we see in living organisms?

Over the last 25 years, scientists have discovered an exquisite world of nanotechnology within living cells. Inside these tiny labyrinthine enclosures, scientists have found functioning turbines, miniature pumps, sliding clamps, complex circuits, rotary engines, and machines for copying, reading and editing digital information-hardly the simple "globules of plasm" envisioned by Darwin's contemporaries.

Moreover, most of these circuits and machines depend on the coordinated function of many separate parts. For example, scientists have discovered that bacterial cells are propelled by miniature rotary engines called flagellar motors that rotate at speeds up to 100,000 rpm. These engines look for all-the world as if they were designed by the Mazda corporation, with many distinct mechanical parts (made of proteins) including rotors, stators, O-rings, bushings, U-joints, and drive shafts.

Is this appearance of design merely illusory? Could natural selection have produced this appearance in a neo-Darwinian fashion one tiny incremental mutation at a time? Biochemist Michael Behe argues 'no.' He points out that the flagellar motor depends upon the coordinated function of 30 protein parts. Yet the absence of any one of these parts results in the complete loss of motor function. Remove one of the necessary proteins (as scientists can do experimentally) and the rotary motor simply doesn't work. The motor is, in Behe's terminology, "irreducibly complex."

This creates a problem for the Darwinian mechanism. Natural selection preserves or "selects" functional advantages. If a random mutation helps an organism survive, it can be preserved and passed on to the next generation. Yet, the flagellar motor has no function until after all of its 30 parts have been assembled. The 29 and 28-part versions of this motor do not work. Thus, natural selection can "select" or preserve the motor once it has arisen as a functioning whole, but it can do nothing to help build the motor in the first place.

This leaves the origin of molecular machines like the flagellar motor unexplained by the mechanism-natural selection-that Darwin specifically proposed to replace the design hypothesis.

The article goes on to give additional supporting evidence and is well worth the read.

Science derides advocates of Intelligent Design as utter ignoramuses who base their theories on blind faith and circular reasoning. However, the very theory of natural selection is completely circular. Natural selection, or survival of the fittest, states that the most fit organizations produce the most offspring and therefore, survive and dominate the population. The problem? There is no definition of what makes an organization more 'fit' other than that it has produced offspring and therefore survived. This fails to really explain anything.

In addition, evolution is based on the blind faith in completely random events occurring over and over again which strain the imagination. In Meyer's example above, the odds of all 30 proteins coming together simultaneously (and this is just one example) are beyond astronomical. It would be akin to throwing a plate of spaghetti against the wall and having it form an exact replica of the Mona Lisa.

When it all comes down to it, both evolution and intelligent design represent their own system of beliefs. Evolution requires as many leaps of faith (actually more) as intelligent design. Someday, even 'rational' scientists may update the theory of evolution with a new theory based on recent discoveries. How will they explain to generations of people who were taught evolution as a 'fact' that it is no longer 'true'? Better to present it as a theory and discuss the facts that support the theory, as well as the evidence that disputes it.

Isn't the whole idea of education to teach children to think for themselves? To question, explore and discover? To challenge the 'status quo' and seek new paradigms?

Science cannot claim a superiority over religion when it suppresses any dissent or debate. Intelligent design advocates are happy to acknowledge the existence of evolutionists and debate them on the merits of their theories. Why are evolutionists afraid to do the same?