Intelligent Design, Modern
Science &
Your Grandchildren’s Future
Will the Bible be relevant in 2050?
Will Darwinism be relevant in 2050?
TNPC ID Blog is Up & Running
Go to www.tnpc.org/idblog
Or navigate there from Ministries|Adult SS|ID
Class|idblog
Two entries posted there from class members:
Heather & Richard (Thank you members!)
Use this site to ask questions, make comments
Send submissions to me at
john.dishman@comcast.net
PLEASE PASS ROLL: UPDATE LAST
WEEK
Some leftover questions
Tony: ―what about the Big Bang? Don’t
Darwinists still have to explain where stuff that
produced life in the first place came from:
galaxies, stars, planets, and life itself from
inorganic matter?‖
Jay: ―After debating with Darwinists, they
eventually say that the probability of evolution
happening must be ONE, since here we are. How
do we answer that argument?‖
Tony’s Question: The Big Bang
The term is used in both cosmology and biology.
Cosmology: About 10-15 billion years ago the
universe—including matter, energy and space
itself—came into being out of nothing
Biology: Biology’s big bang is better known as the
―Cambrian Explosion‖:the geologically sudden
appearance of multi-cellular animals in the fossil
record during the Cambrian period of geologic time,
about 540 million years ago
Big Bang: Cosmology
Cosmologist Stephen
Hawking (Brief History
of Time) attempts to do
away with a creation
event, via ―imaginary
time,‖ but fails.
Goal: ―to know the mind
of God‖
An aside: Hawking’s first
wife an evangelical
More on this big bang
later
Cambrian Explosion (biology big bang)
Major body plans of
animals emerge in
relatively brief
geologic time
Body plans distinct:
no merging of one
into another
Stasis: these plans
then remain static for
the rest of time until
present
But there must have been another biological
―big bang‖: when life first formed
Macro-evolution:
how simple already
living things evolved
into more complex
living things (us).
Origin of Life (OOL):
how simple living
things came into
existence from non- These are two different fields
living chemicals. of study, but related by the
need to explain complexity.
We will be discussing all these issues in more detail
later, but note that a key issue has to do with where
things come from:
• Where do the laws of nature, in operation at the
cosmological big bang come from?
• Where does information contained in every
living cell come from?
Which brings us to Jay’s question
Isn’t the probability
of evolution
happening equal to
ONE, since here we
are?
Probability Calculations for OOL
See link at the ARN site by Stephen Meyer:
www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_origins.htm
Consider a chain of
amino acids making up a
protein
Most proteins are around 300
amino acids long; let’s consider
one only 100 long.
Since there are 20 amino acids involved
in making real life proteins, to get a specific amino
at a specific site has a probability of 1/20
So, for a 100 chain protein, the probability of a
specific one is (1/20)100 ~ 1/10130: 10 with 130
zeroes after it
Sauer, at MIT, has shown that certain variances
increase this probability up to 1 in 1065
How much time?
3x107 sec/year
Age of universe
15 billion years = 4.5x1017 sec
If 100 amino acids come together randomly
once/sec, then chance of a single specific
protein being formed over the life of the
universe is:
4.5x1017 / 1065 ~ 1/1048
Even if they came together a million times
faster, still gives only 1 chance in 1042
In the 1960s, NASA sponsored research to inform future
astronauts how to recognize even the most rudimentary forms
of life on other worlds – with the conclusion that the simplest
living thing would contain at least 124 proteins of 400 amino
acids each, and would possess a functioning genetic code so
the organism would reproduce true to type.
Within the NAS Workshop (1999) geneticists and cell
biologists reached consensus on the smallest size likely to
be attained by organisms of modern biochemical
complexity. Free-living organisms require a minimum of
250 to 450 proteins along with the genes and ribosomes
necessary for their synthesis.
www.molecularassembler.com/KSRM/5.3.htm
Combining these odds
1 chance in 1065 to get a single unique 100 amino
acid chain protein
But we need at a minimum 250 of them, each
with around 400 amino acids, to get a the smallest
living thing
Homework: you calculate the odds of that
happening in 15 billion years
Most OOL researchers have abandoned the idea
of a chance creation of life, and are looking to
areas such as self-organization of chemicals for
new ideas
What is the likelihood that…
That your car will leak out of your garage?
That the water in six 20 gallon water jars
would spontaneously turn to excellent
wine?
That a dead person would rise from the
dead?
When these happen, what do we call it?
Yet, when something even much less
probable than any of these happens
namely, life on earth, we call it:
The Case for Darwinism
What is it about Darwinism that makes
some scientists so sure that it is correct?
First, observe that even the ID community
agrees with the ―fact of evolution‖ at least
as it occurs within a single species
Resistance to antibiotics
Cycling of bird beak sizes in Galapagos
The Case for Darwinism-2
However, ID supporters say that
extrapolation from evolution within a
species to macro-evolution: from single
celled entity to man, is not warranted
Why do Darwinist feel that macro-
evolution is true?
Fundamental Concept:
Natural Selection
In a population of living things, there will be a
variation of characteristics
Some of these will improve reproductive success
These characteristics are ―naturally selected‖, i.e.,
are favored because they enhance the further
production of offspring
Dog breeders use this process to produce new
varieties of dogs: in this case it is artificial
selection
Analysis by Phillip Johnson
Prominent law professor at UC Berkeley
Recognized as the leader of the ID
movement
Wrote Darwin on Trial after reading
Dawkin’s Blind Watchmaker while on
sabbatical
Darwinism as a Tautology
Tautology: An empty or vacuous statement composed of
simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true
whether the simpler statements are factually true or false;
for example, the statement Either it will rain tomorrow or
it will not rain tomorrow.
―Survival of the Fittest‖ means that the individuals which
produced the most offspring must have been the ones who
produced the most offspring.
I.e., ―fitness‖ is strictly limited to success in
reproduction
Karl Popper, Philosopher
Darwinism is not really a scientific theory
because natural selection is an all purpose
explanation that can account for anything,
and therefore explains nothing.
Example: The Peacock
Which better explains
the existence of the
peacock: natural
selection or design?
Peacock: Natural Selection
The male’s plumage is
favored by natural
selection because it
attracts the most
favorable females.
Never mind that it also
makes the male more
vulnerable to predators
because of its
bulkiness
Johnson’s Rejoinder
Why would natural
selection, which
supposedly formed all
birds from lowly
predecessors, produce a
species whose females lust
for males with life-
threatening decorations?
The peahen should have
developed a preference for
males with sharp talons &
mighty wings.
Evolutionist Futuyma:
Do the creation scientists really suppose
their Creator saw fit to create a bird that
couldn’t reproduce without six feet of
bulky feathers that make it easy prey for
leopards?
Johnson’s Response
It seems to me that a
peacock & a peahen
are just the kind of
creatures a whimsical
creator might favor,
but an uncaring
mechanical process
like natural selection
would never permit to
develop.
Remember the ostrich
In Job
Johnson’s Conclusion
With the weaknesses so noted, why do scientists hold
on to Darwinism?
The National Academy of Scientists told the Supreme
Court that the most basic characteristic of science is a
―reliance upon naturalistic explanations,‖ as opposed
to ―supernatural means inaccessible to human
understanding.‖ In the latter, unacceptable category
contemporary scientists place not only God but also
any non-material vital force that supposedly drives
evolution in the direction of greater complexity,
consciousness, or whatever.
Johnson Continued....
If science is to have any explanation for
biological complexity at all it has to make
do with what is left when the unacceptable
has been excluded. Natural selection is the
best of the remaining alternatives, probably
the only alternative.
But….what is science?
Towards a definition of Science
Jack Collins,
professor at Covenant
Seminary
Phillip Johnson
Thomas Kuhn:
Paradigm shifts
Pearcey & Thaxton
The Soul of Science
Collins: Science & Faith: Friend or Foes?
A science is a discipline in which one
studies features of the world around us, and
tries to describe his observations
systematically and critically
There are sciences, not Science!
Science tends to be a power word
Connotes unquestionable authority
Leads to fuzzy thinking
Johnson: Darwin on Trial
In the Arkansas case finding creation-science was
unconstitutional, Judge Overton defined 5
essentials of science:
1. It is guided by natural law
2. It has to be explanatory by reference to natural
law
3. It is testable against the empirical world
4. Its conclusions are tentative—that is not
necessarily the final word
5. It is falsifiable
How do Overton & Collins
Compare?
Similarities
OBERVABLE:
FALSIFIABLE: (CRITCAL THINKING)
Differences
NATURAL IS A LOADED TERM (OVERTON)
COLLINS WOULD ALLOW SUPERNATURAL
Johnson’s critique
Naturalism is not something about which
Darwinists can afford to be tentative, because
their science is based on it
Quote: ―Man is the result of a purposeless and
natural process that did not have him in mind.‖
[George Gaylord Simpson, prominent Darwinist]
Thus, the judge bought into this definition of
science which automatically rules out a Designer
or Creator. (Does this sound familiar, circa
2005?)
Johnson’s Critique-2
Last 3 points of judge’s definition appear to be
sound: empiricism—focus on data
However, the data, i.e., the fossil record is
incompatible with Darwin’s predictions
Rather than gradual changes in intermediate
fossils, we have the Cambrian Explosion
Thus, naturalism, not empiricism is the real value
for the Darwinist definition of science, otherwise
they would limit their claim to micro-evolution.
Johnson’s Critique-3
Defenders of naturalism must enforce rules of
procedure for science that preclude opposing
points of view. With that accomplished, the next
critical step is to treat ―science‖ as equivalent to
truth and non-science as equivalent to fantasy.
As long as scientific naturalists make the rules,
critics who demand positive evidence for
Darwinism need not be taken seriously. They do
not understand ―how science works.‖
[Read C. S. Lewis: That Hideous Strength as a
fictional example]
223 612= CTRL PLUS REMOVE
FINGERS
1023
Johnson’s use of Kuhn
Thomas Kuhn-science historian: author of The Structure
of Scientific Revolutions
Paradigm, a collection of beliefs shared by scientists, a set
of agreements about how problems are to be understood.
According to Kuhn, paradigms are essential to scientific
inquiry, for "no natural history can be interpreted in the
absence of at least some implicit body of intertwined
theoretical and methodological belief that permits
selection, evaluation, and criticism.‖
Normal research is directed to the articulation of those
phenomena and theories that the paradigm already
supplies
Paradigm Shift
Crises are triggered when scientists discover counter-
instances as anomalies in fit between the existing theory
and nature. All crises are resolved in one of three ways.
Normal science can prove capable of handing the crisis-
provoking problem, in which case all returns to "normal."
Alternatively, the problem resists and is labeled, but it is
perceived as resulting from the field's failure to possess
the necessary tools with which to solve it, and so
scientists set it aside for a future generation with more
developed tools. In a few cases, a new candidate for
paradigm emerges, and a battle over its acceptance
ensues. A paradigm shift occurs if the new triumphs
over the old.
Paradigm Shift Examples
Heliocentric vs geocentric view of earth-sun
system in astronomy (Copernicus)
Quantum mechanics replaces classical mechanics
in physics (Bohr, Planck, Schrodinger, etc)
Spontaneous generation replaced by
microorganisms in biology (Pasteur)
Existence of ether (as medium of light
propagation) eliminated by Michelson-Morley
Is ID an impending paradigm shift?
May require an old generation of scientific
elites (e.g., members of the National
Academy of Scientists) to literally die off
before a new generation more ID friendly
replaces them.
ID researchers must follow the data
wherever it leads, even if it means
academic persecution (Dean Kenyon)
Conclusion
The deck is stacked against ID because of the
―unscientific‖ definition of science in common use
By ―unscientific‖ I mean that science should follow the
data wherever it leads, even when it violates the current
theories of science
Given this legal/scientific climate ID will have
significant challenges in making headway
ID can advance if/when it is able to make
predictions, and offer better explanations of
biological systems than Darwinism does
Pearcey &Thaxton: Trends
Historicism-the belief that there is no trans-
historical truth and that all knowledge is caught
up in a continual process of historical change.
A tendency to deny the possibility of objective facts
apart from ideology
Pragmatic realism-practicing scientists blithely
ignorant of the first trend and assuming facts have
objective meaning
But within the current paradigm of naturalistic
reductionism
The Past Informs the Future
In past centuries prominent scientists, such as
Isaac Newton, viewed their work as an outgrowth
of the Christian faith, not a contradiction to it.
Is the naturalistic materialism that dominates
Western thought a blip in history which will be
someday be replaced by a return to an
understanding of the created universe by Christ as
the Intelligent Designer?
In the meantime how should Christians address
these issues?
The Words
In the beginning was
the Word (John 1:1)
[special revelation]
In the beginning was
the program, the word
encoded in the DNA,
by the Word
[general revelation]