Enlightenment or Unholy Inquisition?
In the 17th century Galileo Galilei convincingly argued, with support from telescopic observations, for the validity of the Copernican theory — i.e. that the earth rotates on its axis and orbits the sun. Because this contradicted the established dogma of the day, Galileo was placed under house arrest, denounced, and suppressed by the establishment. The dominant intellectual authority was attempting to silence a brilliant man who, through his search for truth, threatened to overturn the cherished paradigm of the day (the Ptolemaic system).
In their search for answers, shouldn’t scientists be allowed to explore all reasonable avenues towards the discovery of truth. Disqualifying potential solutions to problems, only because they go against man-made philosophical preconceptions, destroys objectivity and biases the results. When an ingrained establishment wields dogma to silence credible researchers, we all lose.
During the 20th century, science was extraordinarily successful in explaining mysteries through observation, experimentation, and extrapolation:
- Theories in atomic physics were dramatically demonstrated in research that culminated with the release of the incredible energies of the atom in the 1940′s and 1950′s.
- Advances in the tools of microbiology revealed a staggeringly complex cellular world that was previously unimagined.
- Research revealed information about heredity and the information passing mechanisms of genetics that were completely unforeseen.
- In the 1990′s observations from the COBE satellite very strongly supported the big-bang theory that the universe had a sudden and energetic origin at the beginning of time.
None of these discoveries would have been possible if an overbearing establishment were able to again suppress scientific inquiry.
Modern science has taken a largely-successful approach of assuming nothing beyond what can be observed or extrapolated. In the 20th century, this was enlarged to the degree that science now is based upon naturalism and has, as its basic tenet, the idea that the natural world (and universe) is all that there is; i.e. there is nothing beyond what we can observe.
One prominent theory that challenges these naturalistic assumptions and has recently been in the news is Intelligent Design.
Contrary to what has been publicized in much of the media, Intelligent Design merely looks for evidence of designed elements of nature. Although some may try to identify the designer, Intelligent Design does not - it merely looks for evidence that can only be explained by an intelligent agent.
The search for intelligent causes is not a concept foreign to science. SETI, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, has searched for evidence of intelligent life in the universe by looking for some signature of its technology. One approach used by SETI is to use radio telescopes to monitor radio signals for evidence of nonrandom (i.e. intelligent) origins. In other words, SETI is trying to determine if the radio signals contain designed messages. SETI employs over 100 scientists, educators, and support staff - and receives much of its funding from your tax dollars as grants from NASA.
However, there is one key difference between the search for extraterrestrial intelligence and the search for intelligent design: SETI does not challenge the dogma of naturalism that now dominates most modern scientific inquiry.
Today, the philosophy of naturalism has given rise to an inquisition similar to what Galileo faced only with a dramatic role reversal. Today, the established dogma is “naturalism” (i.e. evolution or Darwinism); the threatening idea is “Intelligent Design”.
Attempts to silence intelligent design theorists have ranged from public belittlement, to calling them “neo-creationists” and non-scientists, to exclusion from publication, and expulsion from universities. Debate has raged in a recently publicized trial in Dover Pennsylvania and in public school boards in Kansas and across the nation.
The question is: What are the naturalists and evolutionists afraid of? Why the attempts to silence the intelligent design theorists? Perhaps the emperor of Darwinism has no clothes?
If we are truly interested in discovering truth, then the scientific debate should be won by exposing ALL the evidence not by presupposing naturalism and trying to gag the proponents of a competing theory. Let’s stop the unholy inquisition, remove the arbitrary philosophical presumption, and earnestly seek for the truth!
You’ve noted here a number of scientific theories that once faced severe challenges if not outright ridicule from the scientific establishment, including plate tectonics and the Big Bang theory. However, these theories involved testable hypotheses that rendered them inherently falsifiable by methods of research, which in turn placed them firmly within the realm of useful scientific inquiry.
You wrote:
“When an ingrained establishment wields dogma to silence credible researchers, we all lose.”
“[ID] merely looks for evidence that can only be explained by an intelligent agent.”
“If science is truly interested in discovering truth, then the debate should be won by exposing all the evidence – not by trying to gag the proponents of a competing theory.”
With these things in mind, I’m curious about a few things.
* Who are the “credible researchers” involved in Intelligent Design (ID) and how are they credible? Surely they would have published something or, failing that and operating on the idea that mainstreamers are blacklisting their efforts, proposed something meaningful in their own niche realms. Oddly, though, there’s nothing out there to support this idea.
* What would be (or is) the evidence of conscious design in nature? That is, what is being suppressed by “Darwinists”? As things stand, natural selection acting on the grist of genetic mutations explains with uncanny predictability and accuracy exactly why we would expect to find evidence of *apparent* design resulting from natural processes extended over long time scales and involving successive incremental changes or a non-random sort. With such a successful theory extant, why the rush to embrace an alternative that, well, doesn’t offer anything but an already-debunked argument from incredulity?
* What exactly is the theory of ID? That is, how does it merit the designation of a scientific theory? What does it do other than posit that evolution is incomplete (not a failing of evolution or any theory; quite the opposite) or rife with flaws (outright bunk) and that it therefore makes sense to plug existing knowledge gaps with a guiding force that bears an undeniable resemblance to the Christian (triune) deity?
Comment by Ironically, he wrote — November 3, 2005 @ 12:22 am
A response to “Ironically”,
I cannot deny that design implies a designer, and I have my own world-view; I write from the perspective of a follower of Jesus Christ. However, I do not advocate blind-faith but one with strong evidence to back it up. My faith claims testability (Rom 1:20, Ps 19:1) — that’s what this site is all about.
As you’ll see if you keep reading here, my primary complaint is the naturalistic assumption of modern “science”; i.e. the circular argument that everything in nature occurred through blind chance and that nothing else is science. This approach, that allows ONLY random chance as a cause, is NOT an honest pursuit of truth. And isn’t truth what really matters?
The credibility of Darwinism depends upon the presumption of naturalism; which is itself a faith-based philosophical belief that only blind-chance operates in nature. Evolution is testable only in the production of limited change; only through assumption and extrapolation can it do more. Also, and very importantly, Darwinism has NO ABILITY to operate upon the natural laws and the properties of the inanimate universe. The extreme fine-tuning of the natural laws for life deserves a reasonable explanation, but naturalism comes up empty here.
If you are really interested in understanding what is proposed by Intelligent Design, then I can suggest some of the following web sites, articles, and resources:
Sites:
http://www.discovery.org/csc/ “Center for Science and Culture”
http://www.idthefuture.com/ “ID the Future”
http://www.arn.org/ “Access Research Network”
http://www.designinference.com/ “Design Inference”
http://www.ideacenter.org/ “Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center”
http://www.origins.org/
http://www.iscid.org/ “International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design”
http://www.iconsofevolution.com/
Some articles on the topic:
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/evidence.html
http://www.leaderu.com/science/ross-justright.html
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_idfrombiochemistry.htm
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9810/dembski.html
http://www.leaderu.com/science/thaxton_dna.html
http://www.creationdigest.com/summer2005/Braun_Intelligent_Design.htm
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-optimal.html
http://www.arn.org/id_faq.htm
http://www.ideacenter.org/resources/faq.php
Highly Recommended Videos on Intelligent Design
“The Priviledged Planet”
“Unlocking the Mystery of Life”
“Icons of Evolution”
Also see my links pages for additional resources:
http://upontruth.com/readinglist.html
http://upontruth.com/links.html
And finally, I’m sorry for the delay in posting these comments — the “Blogasphere” is still a bit new to me!
Comment by Stephen M. — November 19, 2005 @ 5:18 pm