iquiry final nick bollen

8/2/2019 Iquiry Final Nick Bollen

1/5

Inquiry Final - Nick Bollen

To what extent is intelligent design theory scientific?

Whether Intelligent Design (ID) theory is in fact scientific can be considered one of the

most important debates of our time. This is due to that fact that if this theory was debated

in science classes, then these issues would arise. Intelligent design theory could possibly

argue that there is a God, that we are not alone in the universe or even that unsurmount-

able question. What is our purpose in life? On the other hand however, Intelligent Design

theory could be just a new way to promote religion on a more scientifically intelligent scale.

Throughout this inquiry this is what I will be investigating. To what extent is Intelligent De-

sign theory scientific?

What is Intelligent Design (ID) theory? To quote Gotquestions.org (Got Questions Min-

istries [GQM], 2002-2010), The Intelligent Design Theory says that intelligent causes are

necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these

causes are empirically detectable. In laymen's terms what this means is that because our

biological, molecular and cellular systems are so complex an Intelligent Designer is neces-

sary and its work detectable. This of course being a direct contradiction to Darwins theory

of natural selection and evolution. Which states that through millions upon millions of muta-

tions in our DNA the weaker versions have been weened out leaving us as the best way fora human to be made. This happened not by a design, but by natural selection.

Darwinian theory is based on his theory of evolution. Websters New World College Dictio-

nary definition Darwins theory of evolution, which holds that all species of plants and ani-

mals developed from earlier forms by hereditary transmission of slight variations in succes-

sive generations, and that natural selection determines which forms will survive. (Webster,

2010, p.345). In the realm of biology this theory is probably the most important discovery

ever made. It is a widely known theory and more importantly, widely believed. However ID

theory challenges this. In contradiction to variations in generations ID theory states that ev-

erything was designed by an intelligent designer. However these a both theories and

what exactly makes a theory scientific?

Karl Popper is considered one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century for his falsi-

fication principle. It is often use to judge whether a theory is in fact scientific or not. He de-

veloped seven conclusions which when summed up by Popper himself come to this, ..the

criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.

(Popper, 1963, pp.33). Which basically means that the more falsifiable and testable a theo-


2/5

ry is, the more it belongs in the realm of science. By using the falsification principle I will

determine whether Intelligent Design theory belongs in the realm of science.

So what evidence is there to prove this theory of some one designing us from scratch. In-

telligent Design theorists base their arguments around the chemistry and biology which is

part of us being so complicated that there is no other way for it to come about. The two

main scientists behind ID is William Dembski and Michael Behe. While both are leading

advocates for Intelligent Design, it is for different reasons.

Dembski claims that the conceptual soundness of a scientific theory cannot be maintained

apart from Christ. (Dembski, 1999, p.209). His main argument is that there are things in

our world that cannot possibly have been produced as a result of chance and mutation.

One of his most quoted arguments is about the eye. This is not a new argument however,

William Paley (1743-1805), the Archdeacon of Carlisle, made a similar argument in his writ-ings of Natural Theology in 1802. Basically Dembski and Paley believe that the eye is so

complex it must have had a designer. And the seemingly compelling evidence they use to

back this claim is from Darwin himself. (Darwin, 1859) To suppose that the eye, with all its

inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different

amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have

been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible

degree. This very famous quote used often by ID theorists to conclude that even the

founder of evolution has problems with his own theories is in fact, taken entirely out of con-text. Darwin goes on to say throughout the rest of the quote that even though the eye is so

complex, even the slightest variants would be inherited and if they were useful to an ani-

mal, passed on and through time becoming the perfect and complex eye we now have.

Behe (1996) takes a different approach to ID theory. His is based on biochemistry and

molecular biology. He introduced the concept of Irreducible Complexity which he defined

as A single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to

the basic function of the system, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the

system to effectively cease functioning. (Behe, 1996, p.39). He considered that molecular

biological systems are too complex to have evolved, since he thought they could function

only if all the parts were in place, and therefore they must have been designed by and In-

telligent Designer.

Behes main evidence for this belief revolves largely around blood and what happens when

flesh is cut. He believes the molecular system which causes the blood to clot is the answer

to an Intelligent Designer being necessary. The way blood clotting works is an extremely

complicated process wherein about eight different proteins mix and convert in specific se-quences to create fibrin. Fibrin combines with thousands if not millions of other fibrin mole-


3/5

cules to create a mesh-like structure resembling a knitted garment to protect an open

wound. This complex system relies on each of the individual parts to do the right thing in

the right order for it to work. In a very similar way to how a machine needs each part to do

the right thing in the right order. Meaning it comes under Behes notion of Irreducible Com-

plexity, just like a machine does. Behe also describes similar complex systems in the body

that he uses as evidence for an Intelligent Designer. These include the eye, which was al-

ready touched on by Dembski above, and the cilium which are the tiny hairs which cover

our bodies. This evidence according to Behe, is enough to prove the existence of an Intelli-

gent Designer. (Carroll, 1994-2009).

One of the main arguments made against ID theory and more specifically against Michael

Behes work is made by David Ussury. Citing Ussury (2006) Behe suggests that the intelli-

gent designer put all the necessary components into complex systems from the very be-

ginning making the molecular, biological and chemical systems we have today. And thatthese systems are so complex that they could not have possibly evolved through natural

selection. However, if we take bacteria. An organism such as E. coli that uses complicated

systems, has been around for 3 billion years and which can divide and multiply every 20

minutes. If Darwins theory of evolution and that hereditary gene variations are passed

down through offspring is correct. It is safe to assume that even the slightest variations

would be all thats needed to create a complex system from a basic one simply because

the amount of time that E. coli has had to evolve. (Edis & Young, 2006, p.54).

Another argument against ID theory is that the intelligent designer is in fact, not very intelli-

gent at all. Why would creatures like whales and dolphins be designed to have lungs? All

of their time is spent in water where gills would be so much more effective. Evolutionary

science tells us that these animals evolved from land-based mammals. Koalas are tree-

dwelling mammals whose pouches open downwards instead of up. Why would an intelli-

gent designer create pouches like this that put the koalas young at so much risk. Again,

evolutionary science tells us that koalas evolved from burrowing marsupials like wombats.

This is interesting because in burrowing marsupials their pouches face downwards to avoid

being filled with dirt.

So is this theory even testable? According to Popper (1963) this is one of the most impor-

tant parts of a theory to determine how scientifically credible it is. In my opinion the answer

is no. Mainly this is because I have not found any hard evidence of its testing and even

though the arguments against it are believable, technically speaking they do not strictly fal-

sify it. Throughout this inquiry my standard for whether a theory is scientific or not was

based on Karl Poppers falsification principle. This states that the more falsifiable and

testable a theory is, the more scientific credibility it has. (Popper, 1963, pp.33). In Intelli-gent Design theorys case. This is very little. There is no way to test whether an intelligent


4/5

designer created us or not and while this is definitely what falsifies the theory, its apparent

that it is also what ID theorists rely on as well.

To what extent is Intelligent Design theory scientific? Intelligent Designs scientific merit

can be summarized as being the adults equivalent of a child insisting just because. In my

opinion ID theory has no scientific merit. This is because of the lack of evidence for claims

made by ID theorists to do with molecular biology and how the eye works. As well as this

there is no way to even test the theory. Which according to Popper rules it out of the scien-

tific realm completely. I believe Intelligent Design theory to be a more modern way to pro-

mote creationism and when it comes down to it there is no Copyright God tm 5000 BC hid-

den deep down somewhere in our DNA.

Bibliography

Behe, M. J. (1996). Darwins Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. NewYork: Simon & Schuster.


5/5

Carroll, R. T. (1994-2009). Intelligent Design. Retrieved 28 September 2010, from http://

www.skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html

Dembski, W. (1999). Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology.

Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Edis, T., & Young, M. (Eds.). (2006). Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of

the New Creationism. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Got Questions Ministries. (2002-2010). What is the Intelligent Design Theory?Retrieved 27

September 2010, from http://www.gotquestions.org/intelligent-design.html

Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge and Keagan Paul.

Webster. (2010). Websters New World College Dictionary. Ohio: Wiley Publishing Inc.
http://www.skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.htmlhttp://www.skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.htmlhttp://www.skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.htmlhttp://www.gotquestions.org/intelligent-design.htmlhttp://www.gotquestions.org/intelligent-design.htmlhttp://www.skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.htmlhttp://www.skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html

iquiry final nick bollen

Documents