Dialog on intelligent design

Q: What is "intelligent design"?

One common description is that the theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain

features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause

rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. However, here are two

better definitions that I like:

ID is simply the scientific hypothesis, in full accordance with the scientific method, that the

observed design evident in nature is true design, not "apparent" design as Darwinism

holds.

ID is a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the design

evident in living systems is an illusion.

Q: How does intelligent design differ from creationism?

Creationism, like Darwinism, starts with a presupposition that dictates how evidence will

be interpreted. Creationism starts with the presupposition of a creator God as a causal

agent. Darwinism starts with a presuppostion that only un-intelligent causes are

responsible for all of life's diversity. Intelligent design, on the contrary, starts with no

presuppositions. Intelligent design theorists advocate objective science that starts with

the evidence and follows logical inferences from the evidence, where ever they may lead.

Some evidence leads to an inference of unguided "evolution,", e.g., micro-evolution.

However, some evidence leads to the logical, reasonable inference of true, guided

design, and this inference is in full accordance with the scientific method.

Q: Evidence? What evidence is there for intelligent design?

Fossils. DNA. Common morphological features. In other words, the same evidence used to

"prove" Darwinism is equally evidence for intelligent design. Take fossils, for example.

Every one of them, 100% of them, appear to be designed. The logical, scientific inference

in accordance with the scientific method is that they are designed. As well, DNA is clearly

a "code". Where do "codes" come from? The logical, rational inference in accordance with

the scientific method is that there is a "coder". Therefore, all the evidence for Darwinism

is equally evidence for intelligent design--it just depends on whether the evidence will be

interpreted logically (intelligent design) or based on a philosophical/religious bias

(Darwinism and creationism).

Check here for more on evidence for design

Q: Why is it that it seems that all intelligent design theorists are Bible-believing
Christians?

It should not be surprising that if approached objectively science and religion point in the

same direction on this topic. In fact, it should be expected. If it is true that we are

created, it is not surprising that nature exhibits creative design. (On the contrary, if it is

true that we are not created, a bigger question is why does it appear that we are?)

Therefore, it should not be surprising that two groups holding views that point in the

same direction would exhibit a high degree of overlap.

Consider: Virtually all atheists are Darwinists. So the question could be asked, "Why is it

that it seems all Darwinists are atheists? The relationship between intelligent design and

theism is the same as the relationship between Darwinism and atheism. The science of

the one supports the religious tenets of the other. But this fact alone should be irrelevant

to the question of truth. For science to ignore a design inference simply because it might

also coincide with a Biblical truth is foolish. Consider the "Big Bang" theory. It could also

be aligned with a Biblical teaching; is it to be banned from classroom discussion for this

reason only?

Q: Does this mean that intelligent design really is the same as creationism?

No. For one to equate intelligent design with creationism simply because it supports the

theological claims of a theistic creator would mean one must equate Darwinism with

atheistic humanism because it supports the theological claims of the religion of secular

humanism. The real question is "so what?" That is, even if intelligent design has much in

common with creationism and Darwinism has much in common with atheism, so what?

The question is "what is true?"

Q: What about you? Are you a creationist?

Yes. But that shouldn't matter with respect to the scientific issues. Virtually all atheists

are evolutionists. Many Darwinists are atheists. But science should be practiced as much

as possible independently of one's world view, otherwise science becomes constrained

by a world view, as it is now with respect to evolution. Consider this: what if atheists are

wrong? Shouldn't we consider that possibility with respect to the question "where do we

come from?" A person can be a theist or an atheist, but the evidence in nature is neutral.

Richard Dawkins, an avowed atheist and Darwinist, stated that Darwinism permits one to

be an intellectually fulfilled atheist (Dawkins,

Blind Watchmaker

). I say that intelligent

design permits one to be an intellectually fulfilled theist.

Q: But doesn't that cross the line into religion?

The line is already crossed. No matter how you answer the question "where do we come

from?" your answer impacts religion. If the answer is Darwinism, i.e., that we came from

chance combinations of molecules in an unguided, purposeless process, your answer

favorably supports atheistic religions such as secular humanism and negatively impacts

theistic religions such as Christianity. So the religious question is unavoidable.

Q: And that's why you stress objectivity?

Exactly. Only by being ruthlessly objective with the evidence can we hope to find the

truth of the objective, historical happening that resulted in our existence.

Consider: We are like detectives at the scene of a dead body with no witnesses. Our job

is to determine the cause of death: was it accident (natural laws of physics and

chemistry) alone? or was due in part to an intelligent agent (murder)? As detectives we

should not care what explanation is true, we should focus objectively on the evidence

and try to construct a historical narrative that best explains past events. In the context

of today's origins science, evolution-only proponents are like detectives that insists on

only considering evidence in support of "accidental" unintelligent causes. Intelligent

causes are "off limits" and cannot be considered. Why? Because that's what the evidence

shows? No, because intelligent causes are ruled out by definition, not on the evidence.

It's like the detective handbook declaring that, without exception, "all deaths are

accidental. In all investigations you are only to consider natural, unintelligent causes,

regardless of the evidence." Why would a homocide detective be bound by such an

arbitrary rule? Why would scientists be bound by such an arbitrary rule?

Q: And the evidence for intelligent design is . . .?

As I mentioned before, the evidence is the same evidence used by Darwinists. We all look

at the same evidence, we just have differing interpretations. The question of our origins

is a classic evidentiary question, not unlike any other evidentiary question in life, e.g.,

which car ran a red light? or, which person was the thief? The problem is to reconstruct

an unwitnessed, past event using evidence in the present. That's one reason this

debate attracts so many lawyers like me. We see this not as a question of the minutae

of science, but as a question of what evidence and what interpretations are fair to

entertain to solve a historical mystery event. a historical "crime scene" if you will. If you

limit explanations to only "natural causes," then guess what kind of explantions you will

get, regardless of the evidence? Is that science?

Q: Do you deny that evolution and religion can co-exist? Do you think they are
incompatible?

No, not at all! There's no doubt that they can and do co-exist perfectly. For example,

Darwinism is perfectly compatible with Religious Humanism--it is, in fact, one of its central

tenets as expressed in the Humanist Manifesto. So it is not true that evolution and

religion can't ever be reconciled; it just depends on what is meant by the terms

"evolution" and "religion". If by evolution you mean micro-evolution, then all religions can

be reconciled with evolution. And if by "religion" you mean non-theistic, or atheistic

religions, then even macro-evolution can be perfectly reconciled. But it is difficult to see

how Darwinism can be reconiled with theistic religions. Personally, I think that Darwinism

and Biblical creationism are incompatible ideas. They can't both be right.

Q: Do you think that intelligent design should be taught in public schools?

The best answer is also a question: Why should any evidence-based scientific theory

not

be taught in public schools? Darwinists are quick to cry "separation of church and

state"

but that is because they are focused on (and I think even somewhat frightened of)

the

implications of objective science for theistic religious beliefs. But Darwinism has

religious

implications as well, so implications of science should not govern what is taught

science. Are we to stop teaching the Big Bang because it has implications of a

"beginning" as told in Genesis?

Q: So, do you think that intelligent design should be taught in public schools?

If you are asking me if I think that intelligent design should be mandated by the State

Ohio, I would say no. If you are asking me if, as a matter of academic freedom and

quality

of education, teachers should be free to discuss intelligent design in a science

class, I

would say yes. Why not? What possible reason can there be for censoring any

talk of an

evidence-based scientific idea in a science class? One federal judge recently

ruled that it

is unconstitional to even

make kids read any thing that

disparages

evolution.

Is that how

science is to be run in this country?

Q: But that judge in Pennsylvania answered the question, didn't he? Wasn't that a "slam
dunk" for Darwinists?

Yes, but we need to carefully consider the judge's opinion. The mistake that judge made

is the same mistake almost everyone makes. He considered evolution to be religiously

neutral. In a good faith effort to render constitutional neutrality on this important

question, he actually achieved the opposite: he mandated that the US government take a

side on a religious question. The only explanations permitted for anything in public school

science classes, according to this judge, are explanations consistent with the philosophy

of naturalism, which is the philosophy of atheism and a tenet of atheistic religions such as

secular humanism. Therefore, rather than achieve constitutional neutrality, he is forcing

state-enforced religious views by enacting what has been termed "state materialism"

(materialism is the idea that only matter exists, there is no supernatural). Instead of

separation of church and state, he achieved separation of one church (theistic churches)

and the state. But he melded together another church (atheistic churches of naturalism)

and state.

Q: So, what would have been a better decision?

Again, the right way to approach the question of "where do we come from?" is to insist

on objectivity. Let the evidence lead the inquiry, regardless of the religious implications.

Why not? Let science be science and sort out the evidence in an atmosphere of learning

and academic freedom.

Q: Thank you, you've been very helpful.

Thank you. The purpose of IDnet Ohio is to educate and inform the citizens of Ohio on

this important issue. It is articles like yours that, if presented fairly, will help the cause of

truth.