Christian Apologetics Study

THE RESURRECTION OF THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN SCIENCE THEORY

Mar
25

The intelligent design scientific theory has been slowly replacing Darwinism’s religious philosophy because of the increasing scientific evidence showing creation and design in the universe.

The intelligent design theory demonstrates the scientific impossibility of an evolutionary process by showing the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting an intelligent origin and design for the physical universe and natural life. When defending the scientific theory of intelligent design against the religious philosophy of evolution, we must understand that science was never invented to address issues of religious faith because science is a tool designed to unlock the mysteries of the universe by the power of the scientific method. Although this theory has powerful theistic implications, it is not biblical creationism which is based upon the revealed truth of the Holy Scriptures that transcends the limitations of human reason. The theory of intelligent design does not seek to prove God’s existence or the truth in the Holy Scriptures because this scientific theory is based purely on the weight of scientific evidence. Thus, the intelligent design theory demonstrates the scientific impossibility of an evolutionary process by showing the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting an intelligent origin and design for the physical universe and natural life.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS

The rational arguments defending the intelligent design theory are derived from the scientific method. The theory of intelligent design argues how intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich arrangements that biologists observed in biochemical information systems, which indicates why these observations make evident empirically detectable causes. Many biological features defy the standard Darwinian evolutionary random-chance explanation due to scientific discoveries in biology demonstrating specified complexity, irreducible complexity, and genetic predictability, which all appears to have been designed by intelligence. Therefore, since design logically necessitates an intelligent designer, science researchers cite the appearance of design as scientific evidence for an intelligent designer. Many intelligent design theorists employ several arguments in defending the scientific theory of intelligent design, which consist of irreducible complexity, specified complexity, biological entropy, thermodynamics, and the anthropic cosmological principle.

IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY ARGUMENT

Irreducible complexity, a term made famous by Dr. Michael Behe, is a biochemical defense for an intelligent designer of a self replicating information system. Irreducible complexity has been defined as “a single system which is composed of many matching interdependent biological components that add to the organism’s essential operations, in which the elimination of any one of the components causes the biological system to completely cease functioning properly and sometimes completely.” In other words, all life shows evidence of comprising necessary interdependent parts in order to be functional. Random mutation cannot account for the development of a new part because mutations do not create new genetic information. All mutations cause the loss of genetic information or the duplication of the same kind of genetic information, but never the creation of new genetic information; therefore, random mutations cannot account for the concurrent development of multiple parts necessary for a functioning biological system. For example, mutations can produce cave fishes that have lost the ability to see or birds that cannot fly, but random mutations cannot cause land animals to become whales or apes to become humans because that would require a plethora of newly generated genetic information in the DNA and RNA of many biological systems, which has never been observed in scientific history.

THE HUMAN EYE ARGUMENT

The human eye is an excellent example of irreducible complexity. Evolutionary biologists argue that they have observed genetic mistakes in the human eye, but these observations reflect a history of biological entropy, which contradicts evolutionary history and supports a history for an original perfect design. In addition to this biological history, without the eyeball, the optic nerve, and the visual cortex, any randomly mutated incomplete primate eye would be counter-productive to the survival of any fit primate trying to evolve into a human being because the animal would be eliminated through the process of natural selection. Negative genetic mutations are usually eliminated through a process of natural selection. Natural selection involves the selection of genetic data from pre-existing genetic information in the animal population. Thus, the imaginary evolutionary history of the primates and the human eyes indicates that it is not a very useful biological system unless all of its parts are present and functioning properly at the same time.

SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY ARGUMENT

Specified complexity is another excellent defense for an intelligent designer of living systems. Specified complexity is the theory arguing for the particular intricacies observed in living organisms. For example, since specified complex patterns have been observed in the cellular structure of many organisms, some form of guidance must have accounted for their origin. The specified complexity argument states that it is impossible for complex patterns to be developed through random naturalistic processes of either natural selection or genetic mutations. In other words, a large room filled with many chimpanzees typing away on many computers may eventually produce a few words, or maybe a single sentence on a single computer screen, but the primates will never be able produce the plays of William Shakespeare, the dialogues of Plato, the spirituality in the Holy Scriptures, or the blueprints for building a house. Since biological life forms are more complex than any dramatic Shakespearean play, then only a super intelligent designer could rationally be the cause of biological life, according Dr Stephen Meyer.

BIOLOGICAL ENTROPY ARGUMENT

The science of biological entropy is an effective argument supporting the intelligence design theory because the history of biological entropy refutes macro-evolutionary biology. Darwin’s theory of evolution argues that some simple life forms become more complex overtime since the origination of the first cell about 3.75 billion years ago. However, careful scientific investigation of this faith based religious dogma demonstrates no such history because all biological systems are becoming less complex through a process of natural selection and genetic mutations. The weight of scientific evidence indicates that most mutations cause the loss of genetic information, which means all life is moving from complexity to simplicity. Thus, the growth and development of an embryo into an adult or a seed developing into a plant is only a continuation of preexisting genetic information derived from the genes in the animal’s embryo or the genetic data in the seed of a plant, but it is never a genetic increase in information, according to Dr. Jonathan Wells.

THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS ARGUMENT

Nature’s thermodynamic laws demonstrate why the intelligent design theory is the best scientific explanation for the subject of origins. The thermodynamic laws of nature indicate that the universe could never have created itself before it came into existence and it could never have evolved itself following its creation. The first law of thermodynamics indicates that energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed in nature because it only changes from one form into another form; therefore, the universe had to have been caused into existence by an unknown super-force. The second law of thermodynamics demonstrates that when changes do occur in the universe, the energy and matter only goes from a usable state to a non-usable state and the second law also demonstrates that entropy, which is a measurement of the disorder of the matter and energy in the universe, only increases when we move forward in time and always decreases when we move backward in time. Therefore, these scientific data demonstrates clearly that the universe and its laws of nature could never have evolved into existence through random naturalistic processes because the weight of scientific evidence indicates that the observable universe is in a state of conservation and deterioration.

ANTHROPIC COSMOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE ARGUMENT

The anthropic cosmological principle is another scientific defense of the intelligent design theory because it sketches the many precise scientific factors required to sustain the universe while revealing how the universe is “fine-tuned” for existence of life on the planet Earth. For example, if any of the four fundamental forces of nature, such as the gravitational force, the electromagnetic force, the strong and weak nuclear forces, were altered by less than three percent, then the universe would be radically different and life could not exist on planet Earth. If the ratio of matter and anti-matter in universe were altered slightly, no galaxies or planets could exist because the matter and anti-matter would annihilate most of the cosmos. If the ratio of elements in the Earth’s air were altered a little, many plants and animals would quickly cease to exist. If the Earth were a few miles further away or closer to the sun, many plants and animals would cease to exist. If the Earth were located in a different part of the Milky Way Galaxy, life could never survive on the planet and we would not understand or appreciate the observable universe. Thus, the existence and continuation of life on Earth requires so many precise measurements to be fine tuned because it would be impossible for all the variables to come into being through a random and unguided history of natural events.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORY

The theory of intelligent design does not attempt to identify the intelligence designer because the designer could be the God of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, an alien extraterrestrial intelligence from a UFO who seeks to seed dead planets with living systems, or a super-force beyond space and time that only behaves like intelligence. Intelligent design theorists only observe what appears to be design in the biological world as evidence for the existence of an intelligent designer. However, biblical creationism and Darwinian evolution are religious philosophies that have been applied to science. Biblical creationists seek to defend the doctrine of creation as revealed in Genesis chapters one and two and elsewhere in the Holy Scriptures, while Darwinian evolutionists seek to defend the religious philosophies of atheism, agnosticism, secularism, and materialism, which were derived from the celebrated Greek philosophers of Athens and the Indian mystics of antiquity. Therefore, the theory of intelligent design is more consistent with the requirements of the scientific method.

BIBLICAL CREATIONISM

The theory of intelligent design is simply not biblical creationism because biblical creationists begin with the conclusion that the biblical account of creation is factual history demonstrating how the universe, the Earth, and life were designed by the Creator Designer God of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. Bible believing creation scientists search for scientific evidence from the natural world to defend the Genesis account of creation. However, intelligent design theorists begin with their scientific investigation of the natural universe before reaching conclusions derived from the scientific method. Sometimes their scientific conclusions confirm micro-evolutionary concepts, such as plant and animal variation through a process of natural selection and genetic mutation, but many times their conclusions identify evidence for the intelligent design of the universe, the planet Earth, and life.

THE REAL SCIENTIFIC METHOD

The scientific method supports the intelligent design theory more than the Darwinian macro-evolution theory. A proper understanding of the scientific method is necessary to determine whether an idea is scientific or religious. The scientific method has several steps. First, a scientist makes an observation. Second, a scientist formulates a hypothesis. Third, the scientist conducts experiments before making his or her analysis and assessment of the results of the experiment. Fourth, the scientific community repeats the same experiment. And fifth, if the results of the experiment are similar elsewhere to the original experiment, a new scientific theory is established throughout the scientific community. Therefore, Darwinian evolutionary dogma is non-scientific because it cannot be observed and it is based on the philosophical presuppositions of atheism and materialism, but not the scientific method. Although acts of creation are observed everyday, biblical creationism is less scientific because it is based upon faith in the Genesis account of creation more than evidence in the scientific method. Only the theory of intelligent design is purely scientific because it takes researchers to places where the evidence leads even when it is uncomfortable for an atheist who hates God and for a believer who loves God. Bear in mind, the scientific method includes 1) observation, 2) Hypothesis, 3) experimentation, and 4) theory.

THE BELIEVERS AND NON-BELIEVERS IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN

We should never assume that people who believe in the theory of intelligent design are Bible believing Christians because philosopher and mathematician, Dr. David Berlinski (agnostic) and biochemists Dr. Michael Denton (atheist), author of “Evolution a Theory in Crisis” are non-believers who developed the intellectual courage to challenge Darwinian evolution. Understand that Christians like Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the human genome project and Dr. Kenneth R. Miller, author of “Finding Darwin’s God,” are scientists that believe in Darwinian macro-evolution. Bear in mind, a spiritual relationship with the Intelligent Designer of the universe is infinitely more important to truth seekers and knowledge lovers than any man or woman having a perfect scientific understanding of the subject of origins.

SUMMARY OF I.D. FACTS AND THEORIES

A scientific defense of the intelligent design theory is a rational and logical approach to understanding the subject of origins because intelligent design is both a fact and a theory. Intelligent design is a fact because it is supported by the weight of scientific evidence and it can be demonstrated clearly through the scientific method. The weight of scientific evidence clearly indicates that complex specified information systems originate from pre-existing information systems, which were first derived from an uncaused mind or intelligence force. Intelligent design is a theory because no scientists can determine with absolute certainty who or what the intelligent designer is. Therefore, intelligence design is not a hypothesis because it is both a fact and a theory based pure

ly upon the weight of scientific evidence. This has always been the scientific theory embraced by Johannes Kepler, Sir Isaac Newton, and Albert Einstein. Intelligent design is destined to gradually replace Darwinian macro-evolutionary religious philosophy within the scientific community during the 21st century because of the increasing scientific data supporting the rational concept for an intelligent Creator and Designer of the physical universe.

RELATED SCIENCE SOURCES

A Brief History of Time; Stephen Hawking; 1996. Darwin’s Black Box; Michael Behe; 1996; Evolution: A Theory in Crisis; Michael Denton; 1985. The Grand Design; Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow; 2010. Theories of the Universe; Gary F. Moring, M.A.; 2002. The Mystery of Life’s Origin, Charles Thaxton in 1984. A Theory in Crisis, Michael Denton in 1986. Darwin on Trial, Phillip Johnson in 1991. Creation Hypothesis, Dean Kenyon in 1994. Reason in the Balance, Phillip Johnson in 1995. Darwin’s Black Box, Michael Behe in 1996. The Design Inference, William Dembski in 1999. Icons of Evolution, Jonathan Wells in 2000. The Design Revolution, William Dembski in 2004.

CREATION SCIENCE, RATIONAL FAITH Comments Off on THE RESURRECTION OF THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN SCIENCE THEORY

Comments

Comments are closed.