Toastmasters is great. No topic is off-limits when it comes to giving a speech. I'm currently working through a manual on persuasive speaking. One of the projects in this manual is to give a speech on a controversial and generally unpopular topic. This helps one learn the skill of addressing the opposition. I gave that speech last Tuesday, and I gave it on the most controversial and unpopular topic I could think of: Intelligent Design. I've posted the transcript of that speech below and added slides where appropriate. Feel free to agree or disagree with anything and everything I said, but please do keep in mind, it was a seven-minute speech by an admitted amateur, not a full-orbed scientific or theological treatise. But I do hope that at least it will provide some food for thought. Enjoy!
Charles Darwin published his seminal work, The Origin of Species, in November of 1859--exactly 150 years ago this month. And for those last 150 years, the theory of evolution has been the accepted scientific theory of the development of life. By evolution I mean the idea that all life has evolved from a single ancestor through slight, natural and undirected modifications. This idea has become the foundation for the scientific outlook on life. In recent years, however, a small group of scientists and others has challenged the idea of evolution and proposed a different outlook than Darwin's Origin of Species. They propose that some aspects of nature are best explained not as the product of blind, material forces but as the product of intelligence. You may have heard of their theory--it's called Intelligent Design.
As you can imagine, challenging the scientific consensus of evolution is not an easy task. Challenging the group kind of makes one unpopular by definition, which often results in one having to overcome many obstacles. One of the biggest obstacles Intelligent Design theorists have to overcome is confusion. There is much confusion about what Intelligent Design is and what it is not. Today I would like to clear the air regarding Intelligent Design by explaining to you what it is and what it is not. As I go through this explanation, I hope to persuade you to accept or at least consider the idea that Intelligent Design should be seen as a valid scientific theory.
Let's talk about what Intelligent Design is.
As you can imagine, challenging the scientific consensus of evolution is not an easy task. Challenging the group kind of makes one unpopular by definition, which often results in one having to overcome many obstacles. One of the biggest obstacles Intelligent Design theorists have to overcome is confusion. There is much confusion about what Intelligent Design is and what it is not. Today I would like to clear the air regarding Intelligent Design by explaining to you what it is and what it is not. As I go through this explanation, I hope to persuade you to accept or at least consider the idea that Intelligent Design should be seen as a valid scientific theory.
Let's talk about what Intelligent Design is.
Intelligent Design can be defined as "the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the product of intelligence. It rests on two pillars: (1) that the activity of intelligent agents is sometimes detectible and (2) that nature may exhibit evidence of intelligent activity." In other words, the basic idea is that there are things in nature that certainly look as if they have been designed for a purpose--and both evolutionists and Intelligent Design proponents will agree to this. The eye has been constructed for the purpose of sight. DNA contains information for the purpose of building cells. The tail of a bacteria, called a flagellum, contains all the same basic parts as an outboard motor, both of whose purpose is propulsion. But while evolution says that these things only appear to be designed, Intelligent Design says that they really are designed. But this raises the question, how would we know if things in nature are designed or not?
Intelligent Design simply proposes that the natural sciences, such as biology and chemistry, should make use of the same methods that are already used in anthropology, archeology, and forensic science. For instance, say you're in South Dakota and you come upon this sight:
Would you conclude that this rock façade was designed or created by forces of nature? Okay, now say you're walking on the beach in Hawaii and you find some marks in the sand that look like this:
Is this formed from natural forces, or is it designed? Now, how did we decide these cases? What was it about them that told us these are examples of design and not just natural phenomena? Well, there are many answers, but they all boil down to two criteria. And these criteria are currently used by anthropologists and archaeologists all the time.
The two criteria are specificity and complexity. Something is specific when it conforms to a pattern. For example, this little guy (the smiley face) is easily identified as a smiley face--that formation of various lines forms a recognized pattern. This squiggly line, however, does not. It's not specific to anything. On the flip side, complexity is something that is not likely to happen by chance. Thus the sentence, "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times," is complex--a random typing of letters on a typewriter will not likely form that arrangement of letters. The word "cat," however, is not complex--it could fairly easily be found in a random string of letters. The end result is that Intelligent Design maintains that specificity plus complexity equals design.
Let's go back to Mt. Rushmore. It's specific--its shape conforms to the faces of four former presidents. It's complex--there are myriad angles in the rock surface have to be very precise. The same goes for the writing in the sand. It conforms to a known pattern--an English word and two numbers, in this case, and it's complex--it's unlikely that a piece of driftwood would wash ashore and leave those markings behind. So, specificity plus complexity leads us to conclude design.
Let's look at a few more examples.
DNA is formed as a large chain of four chemical bases: A, G, C and T. The sequence of these bases determines the information available for building and maintaining an organism. So do we have specified complexity here? You bet. DNA is specific--it always and only uses A, G, C and T--this is the DNA alphabet, as it were. It's also complex--how likely is it, for instance, that the 3 billion letters in a human DNA chain would have come about in just the right order through blind natural forces? Not very.
Another example is something called the bacterial flagellum. It's the tail of a bacteria, which serves to propel it to where it wants to go. As you can see, it has various parts--rings, a motor, a filament, a hook. Again, we see specificity--the flagellum has striking similarities to what we recognize as an outboard motor. It also has complexity. It is so complex, in fact, that if you were to remove any single part, the entire flagellum would cease to be functional. Thus we have specificity, complexity and therefore design.
These are the basics of Intelligent Design. If something is specific and complex, one can safely infer that that thing was designed. Now that we know what Intelligent Design is, let's talk about what it isn't. There are two main misconceptions about Intelligent Design:
The first of which is that Intelligent Design is "creationism in disguise." Creationism, however, begins with a religious text (Gen 1-2, for example) and tries to reconcile known facts of the natural world to that text. Intelligent Design does not in any way use any religious text in its arguments, and proponents of Intelligent Design come from many different religious backgrounds. So while it is true that Intelligent Design is complementary to creationism, it is not the same thing as creationism as the term is widely understood.*
Another common assertion about Intelligent Design is that it is an argument from ignorance--it's often called a "God of the gaps" theory. In other words, since we don't know how something could have evolved, well, God must have done it. But thankfully, this is not actually the case. Rather, Intelligent Design relies on something called inference to the best explanation--something that we all use every day. Given all of the facts at our disposal, if something appears to be designed (based on our criteria of specificity and complexity), it makes more sense to conclude that it is designed than to conclude that it got that way through natural means.
We have seen that Intelligent Design is a theory that looks for elements in nature that are best explained not by chance but by design. It seeks to do this using the widely accepted and testable criteria of specificity and complexity. It is not creationism, nor is it an argument from ignorance. Rather, it is a scientifically viable theory.
At this point, I concluded with a brief Q&A session in which I also mentioned the following resources:
*In the Q&A time afterward, I discussed that ID could be called creationism in a wide sense--it does argue for a Designer/Creator, after all--but the narrower sense of the term as I describe above is the one meant when this accusation is leveled.
8 comments:
It is ironic that I gave a similar speech at CCU talking about how evolution does not have to necessitate an atheistic worldview.
Unfortunately, atheism and evolution have been conflated but historically, the original scientific supporters of evolution were the Christians and the atheists were opposed.
So on to your slides which very clearly and correctly laid out the ID position:
1) Complexity can be generated from random events (in that case it is called Chaotic) e.g. the vortex that forms when the tub drains or the beauty found in a stellar nebula or a Jackson Pollack painting.
Additionally, language theorists like Wittgenstein would find fault with the drawings in your slide because the smiley face only makes sense because of the meaning we have attributed to it.
2)It was interesting to see your statement that all of the nucleotides in the DNA are in the "right order"! Once again what does that mean? There are many with debilitating genetic differences that might disagree.
Additionally, very few people would say that Man just appeared with all the DNA in place. The homologous sequencing can be followed all the way through the tree of life. Oftentimes ID/Creationists would say that it is impossible to go from a reptile to a human in millions years by random mutation but this is in fact false.
Hox Genes for example demonstrate how small changes in the genetics can quickly change the body type or structure.
While it is true that no amount of changes to a species' DNA would cause in a single generation a different animal completely (e.g. Chimpanzee giving birth to a human) this is because of the limitations and incompatibility of their physiology.
Through geographic or temporal separation organisms change dramatically. In the short term becoming different species but some have gone further than that.
3) Irreducible complexity is an oft cited argument against the possibility of evolution. In addition to the bacteria flagellum, the eye and the wing are also cited. However the counter to this is that an incomplete wing or eye does provide an advantage to survival. A bacterial flagellum, while perhaps not functioning as effectively as it does today, still could provide some degree of fitness. Any advantage, even incredibly slight would help in it's survival and reproduction.
Once again we see it only as a "motor" because of our shortcomings. Evolutionary Physiology has found many uses and reasons for what were once thought to be useless parts.
I would say that ID is a "god of the gaps/ignorance" theory. However, this does not mean that one cannot believe that God did not begin the process of evolution. This was and is a position held my many scientists, scholars, and Christians. That which was once attributed to God's direct hand (e.g. sickness,demons) would not find much support in today's Church. Likewise, our ignorance of much of science (then and now) should not necessarily guide us to a conclusion. Just because we cannot conceive of how something could have been done with natual forces doesn't mean it couldn't have. Isn't that what we say about God all along? God uses the world and all in it to carry out plans and purposes.
Good stuff and if you are open to it here are some resources that I enjoy on this topic. Some are by some authors that are pretty taboo in the Christian community but they are expressing a worldview just as much as we are, and if we wish for others to read our literature and apologetics, then we should be willing to do the same.
Genes, Genesis, and God by Holmes Rolson
The Making of the Fittest by Sean Carroll
At Home in the Universe by Stuart Kaufman
The Gailieo Connection by Charles E. Hummel
Chaos and Complexity by Nancy Murphy
The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins
Good job Jon. I've never seen this debate as having anything to do with science. I say this because there are no scientific advantages to be gained from the theory of evolution, only perceived moral answers to the question, is man the measure of all things?
No scientific advantages?
How about the advances in medicine, anthropology, geology, astrophysics, genetics, and many others. (examples available upon request, it is just that I have to go to work now)
It is paramount that evolution be separated from evolutionism. Evolution does not have to make a moral statement. Only if people give it one.
If ID wants to be judged not as Biblical Creationism but as a scientific theory, then I require that Evolution be considered solely on its scientific predictive power and not on what others have turned it into, a platform for Atheism.
I’m sorry but I'm going to need a little explanation as to how these modern scientific discoveries you mentioned were built on the foundation of the theory of evolution. My take is that they were not.
"It is paramount that evolution be separated from evolutionism."
Separated by whom? It would be nice if the theory of evolution were separated from evolutionism but unfortunately it is not as evidenced by the militant insistence that evolution hold a monopoly in the public school system. True, evolution does not have to make a moral statement, but for atheistic and anti-Christ organizations like the ACLU, you can bet that it very much does make a moral statement.
If ID wants to be judged not as Biblical Creationism but as a scientific theory, then I require that Evolution be considered solely on its scientific predictive power and not on what others have turned it into, a platform for Atheism.
There are Christians that I respect-not that they need it, only trying to give my perspective-that believe in evolution. That’s fine. I wasn’t there and did not observe the beginning of our existence. That said, your conditional demands can not be made or met. Whether or not ID is judged as Biblical Creationism is out of its proponents hands, just as evolutionism as a platform for Atheism is out of Christian evolutionist’s hands. Yes It would be nice if every theory stood or fell on its on scientific merits, but sadly science appears to have taken a back seat to politics and the fallen nature of man here for there is much at stake, otherwise and again, why would there be such militant resistance to its inclusion in schools?
The bottom line for the Atheist is that, unlike Christianity, it stands or falls on a spontaneous beginning such as the Godless version of evolution. And every Atheist knows that if it falls it will open a box of worms that could ultimately undermine man’s ardent determination to be his own god.
When there is an understanding that life is descended from other forms of life and that organisms will evolve to fit a niche then it opens up new understanding.
For example:
Genetics/Medicine - By comparing genes and how they are expressed in various organisms we can in turn create gene therapies or adjust behaviors. If the physiology manifested in bacteria and mice were not similar to humans we could not do such a thing.
Additionally, understanding mutation rates allows us to predict how often vaccines and medicines need to be remade in order to keep up.
These are very anthropocentric examples but such is life.
I do not wish or have the time to restate all examples (which doesn't imply that there are not any) I encourage you to read the Internet or some of the resources that I mentioned.
Secondly, I have been a public school teacher (often times Biology) and while there are "militant" atheists teachers, to call all teachers such is simply unfair and stereotypical. Would you want all Christians to be lumped in with Televangelists? I was taught Biology by an amazing Christian woman who firmly believed that an amazing God could create and allow for evolution. The number one Biology book in the world, used by secular high schools and universities is edited by a strong Christian.
If you or others have been burned by an atheist who conflated Evolution with the idea that there is no God then I am sorry. I think you should examine the evidence apart from the person. Just as we would hope that non-Christians would examine the evidence of Christ even if they encountered him through a bigot or greedy person posing themselves as a follower of Jesus.
If other organizations wish to take Evolution and use for their own purposes then they are certainly not the first. The Catholic Church did it during the Crucades. The Nazis and other extremists have as well. However, Christ prevails in spite of such people.
It is interesting that you would bring up the "I wasn't there so I can't confirm it" yet we base our faith on the account of people that lived and died thousands of years ago. The same technology that dates fossils dates artifacts and manuscripts that confirm the historicity of the Gospel accounts. If you wish to pick and choose what evidence you accept then how can one be persuaded.
The "militant" push for inclusion in the schools is being overhyped by media. Those who end up on TV always do a disservice to their cause no matter what it is. There is no "militant" push but there are people who make a living off making people think that there is one. Evolution is a sound and strong explanation for how species evolve over time.
Just as I am sure there was a strong push for a heliocentric universe hundreds of years ago, evolution was added to the curriculum in order to present to students the most up to date information in Biology.
Your last paragraph implies that if one accepts Evolution then one must inevitably become an Atheist. While it does happen but post hoc ergo propter hoc. Correlation does not imply causation.
I direct you toward the book Darwin's Forgotten Defenders for much evidence to the contrary.
Thanks to all for the comments!
I can't possibly respond to all of the content above, so I am forced to pick and choose (please forgive me).
Phil:
I appreciate that you make the distinction between evolution and evolutionism (by which I assume you mean atheistic naturalism). Everything I have learned about evolution, though, tells me that it is a strictly natural, unplanned phenomenon. It seems to me that this idea is completely antithetical to the teleology found in Scripture. After all, even nature itself is progressing toward something (See Romans 8). How can it be progressing along God's plan and also be progressing in an undirected manner?
You mention the eye and wing as other examples of irreducible complexity. While they have been cited as examples of design, I have not run across their being cited as irreducibly complex, for the reason you mention. The difference between those structures and the flagellum is that (per Behe) the flagellum does not function less well when a part is missing, it doesn't function at all, thus providing no advantage. I'm sure you've read Darwin's Black Box, so I will not elaborate further here.
Finally, thanks for the additional references. I will gladly read those books, except for Dawkins. I find him too acerbic. I have little time for reading as it is, and I am not going to waste what time I do have on incivility. The rest, though, are going on my reading list.
Dan:
I agree that in many ways science has taken a back seat to politics. I think this is evident in the present debate (as a whole, not our discussion here) as well as on environmental topics. Many, many people are using science to make moral and theological statements (and to gain power), rightly or wrongly.
I just came across a book “Extraterrestrial Intelligence: Amazing New Insights from Qur’an...” It quotes extensively from Qur’an to prove in an extremely amazing and convincing idiom that biological evolution isn’t at all at variance with the Qur’an. It is available online at HarperCollins' website Authonomy: http://www.authonomy.com/ViewBook.aspx?bookid=11309
Post a Comment