Access Research NetworkCharles Darwin's core claim is that the apparent design we intuitively observe in nature is an illusion that can be explained by mindless, purposeless, mechanistic and accidental processes.
If Darwin's claim of "no-design" is scientific, then it is necessarily scientific to disagree. Further, if Darwin's claim of "no design" cannot be challenged, then it ceases to be a scientific theory and becomes an ideology.
Consideration of the case for design is critical if evolution is to be both scientific and credible. Evolution is a historical claim that uses forensic rather than experimental methods to explain the cause of singular unobserved events that occurred millions of years ago.
As acknowledged by the eminent evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr, "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes." Instead evolutionary biologists construct "historical narratives" or "plausible explanations" that are inherently subjective. Since evolution lacks experimental confirmation, its "historical narratives" remain only speculations unless its evidence rules out the competing design hypothesis.
Like crime scene detectives, scientists use objective methodologies to distinguish between designs and accidents of nature. Designs, such as hieroglyphics, are typified by aperiodic message bearing patterns that cannot be reasonably explained by law and chance. Radio and light waves from outer space are being tested for design in search of alien intelligence with negative results. The same tests turns up positive when applied to "messages" found in DNA. Gene Myers, a scientist on the Human Genome Project, remarked: "There's a huge intelligence there."
Myers' view is ignored, not because of the evidence, but because it violates an unwritten philosophical "rule," which requires the absence of design in nature and effectively suppresses criticisms of evolutionary theory. It robs evolution of its theoretical status and makes it an ideology.
Use of the rule brings religion into science. Suppressing the evidence of design to keep the "supernatural" out necessarily promotes nontheistic religions (e.g., secular humanism) and denigrates traditional theistic religions (e.g., Judaism, Islam and Christianity).
The problems evaporate when evolution's claim of no-design is kept theoretical rather than dogmatic. This allows for a rigorous and really interesting competition between both ideas per the scientific method. Keeping evolution theoretical will also ensure that publicly funded science education remains "secular, neutral and non-ideological" as required by the First Amendment and recent legislation.
Darwin longed for the day when "young and rising naturalists will be able to view both sides of the question with impartiality." So do we.
William S. Harris is a research biochemist who lives in Prairie Village. John H. Calvert is an attorney who has a degree and professional experience in geology. He lives in Lake Quivira. Both are managing directors of Intelligent Design network inc., a nonprofit organization.
File Date: 3.8.04
This data file may be reproduced in its entirety
for non-commercial use.
A return link to the Access Research Network web site would be
appreciated.
Documents on this site which have been reproduced from a previous publication are copyrighted through the individual publication. See the body of the above document for specific copyright information.