Darwinists often say that the Intelligent Design theory is not science. Really? What is science? Ask any scientist for a definition of science and watch him/her twist into a pretzel with a long, drawn-out definition. The truth is that there is no standard definition of science. Sure, if you look at a dictionary it will give you a broad general definition but it’s not definitive. It will say things like the pursuit of knowledge, understanding the natural world and the like. But who is to judge if something is science or not science? Is Intelligent Design not the pursuit of knowledge in the natural world? Is the judgement that something is or is not science a scientific, metaphysical, or a philosophical issue? Can someone who says Intelligent Design is not science prove his point scientifically? J.P. Moreland, one of the finest philosophers of our day, in his book “Christianity and the Nature of Science” says this about a definition of science:
“There is no definition of science, not set of necessary and sufficient conditions for something to count as science, no such thing as the scientific method, that can be used to draw a line of demarcation between science and nonscience. Nothing about science essentially excludes philosophical or theological concepts from entering into its very fabric. Science is not an airtight compartment isolated from other fields of study, and there is nothing unscientific about “creation science.”
In general, we can agree that the scientific method is the process of establishing facts through testing and experimentation. We could probably agree that anyone doing science will go where the evidence takes him/her. Here is where we can go astray. Do Darwinists go where the evidence leads? Have they found evidence that documents their theory of evolution? Darwin himself was quite honest about it and said that his theory had not been proven but it would with more research. Have Darwinists met the standard of going where the evidence leads? I don’t think so. They claim that, in doing science, only methodological naturalism can be accepted. There is no room for dissenting views. Certain conclusions like design are not allowed. According to world renowned philosopher, Professor Alvin Plantinga of Notre Dame University methodological naturalism is:
“The philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism holds that, for any study of the world to qualify as "scientific," it cannot refer to God's creative activity (or any sort of divine activity). The methods of science, it is claimed, "give us no purchase" on theological propositions--even if the latter are true--and theology therefore cannot influence scientific explanation or theory justification. Thus, science is said to be religiously neutral, if only because science and religion are, by their very natures, epistemically distinct. However, the actual practice and content of science challenge this claim. In many areas, science is anything but religiously neutral; moreover, the standard arguments for methodological naturalism suffer from various grave shortcomings” (arn.org).
The second objection that Darwinists have about the Intelligent Design theory is their claim that it’s religion. What is religion and what is not and who says it is or is not? How did they come up with that answer? It’s just an ad hominem attack without basis or evidence. You cannot win an argument by simply attacking the other side, you must have convincing evidence that your position has supporting evidence. The fact that such people make such charges tells me that they have no answer. If I want to prove to a person who claims that the earth is flat, I present evidence that it is round. I do not attack him/her personally.
Intelligent Design, contrary to what its opponents say, does not claim that design points to God; they never refer to God. What they’re saying is when they look at the universe, its fine tuning and its complexities, it’s better described as design by an intelligent agent rather than random chance as the Darwinist say. The universe is so finely tuned that if it varied the width of a single strand of hair, life would not exist. To understand the precision of the universe, watch this short video clip explaining it. Click here. Once you see this fine tuning you’re left with only one conclusion: Designed by and intelligent agent is the best explanation.
The most famous Darwinist of our day is the British evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins. In his book, “The Blind Watchmaker,” he makes this statement about design: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Notice that he refers to design as an “appearance of design.” Now, the first question I would ask Dr. Dawkins is how did you arrive at this conclusion? Was your declaration of “appearance of design” derived from science or philosophy, and can you prove your conclusion scientifically? See this short YouTube video where Dr. Stephen Meyer explains this: Click here. This, to me, is like looking at Mount Etna in Sicily for instance, and saying it only appears to be there, but it is not there; don’t believe your lying eyes. This is bizarre thinking, and Darwinists fall in line with Dawkins and believe that design is only an appearance of it. They blindly follow the herd. Is this how science is supposed to be practiced?
In the “Blind Watchmaker,” Dawkins refers to William Paley, a British scientist who in the early 1800s made the argument for design by giving the example of stumbling upon a watch on the ground. You look at it and easily conclude that an intelligent agent designed it. Similarly, if you’re driving down the I-405 Freeway in Los Angeles and you’re surrounded by cars, you can easily conclude that they were designed by and intelligent agent and could not possibly have been made by chance or random mutation. It follows then that Dawkins would look at all those cars as an “appearance of design.” This type of thinking is not science but pure, unadulterated speculation without supporting evidence.
Tim Berra of Ohio State, a biologist and evolutionary scientist, compared the evolution of the 1950s Corvette to argue not for design but to the evolutionary process. Darwin critic Phillip Johnson, in his book “Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds” calls this “Berra’s blunder.” Johnson states it this way: “Of course, every one of those Corvettes was designed by engineers. The Corvette sequence — like the sequence of Beethoven’s symphonies to the opinions of the United States Supreme Court — does not illustrate naturalistic evolution at all. It illustrates how intelligent designers will typically achieve their purposes by adding variations to a basic design plan.”
In my neighborhood, I see signs that read: “Science is real,” love is love” “black lives matter,” and other such sayings. But it all depends on what you mean by science. A statement like science is real, may be true but just what kind of science are you referring to? It sure looks like it’s only science you agree with.
No comments:
Post a Comment