Defending ID

Some time ago, George Gilder (surprise, he’s not just a technology guy) wrote the following:

Our high schools are among the worst performers per dollar in the world – especially in math and science. Our biology classes, in particular, espouse anti-industrial propaganda about global warming and the impact of DDT on the eggshells of eagles while telling just-so stories about the random progression from primordial soup to Britney Spears. In a self-refuting materialist superstition, teachers deny the role of ideas and purposes in evolution and hence implicitly in their own thought.

The Darwinist materialist paradigm, however, is about to face the same revolution that Newtonian physics faced 100 years ago. Just as physicists discovered that the atom was not a massy particle, as Newton believed, but a baffling quantum arena accessible only through mathematics, so too are biologists coming to understand that the cell is not a simple lump of protoplasm, as Charles Darwin believed. It’s a complex information-processing machine comprising tens of thousands of proteins arranged in fabulously intricate algorithms of communication and synthesis. The human body contains some 60 trillion cells. Each one stores information in DNA codes, processes and replicates it in three forms of RNA and thousands of supporting enzymes, exquisitely supplies the system with energy, and seals it in semipermeable phospholipid membranes. It is a process subject to the mathematical theory of information, which shows that even mutations occurring in cells at the gigahertz pace of a Pentium 4 and selected at the rate of a Google search couldn’t beget the intricate interwoven fabric of structure and function of a human being in such a short amount of time. Natural selection should be taught for its important role in the adaption of species, but Darwinian materialism is an embarrassing cartoon of modern science.

What is the alternative? Intelligent design at least asks the right questions. In a world of science that still falls short of a rigorous theory of human consciousness or of the big bang, intelligent design theory begins by recognizing that everywhere in nature, information is hierarchical and precedes its embodiment. The concept precedes the concrete. The contrary notion that the world of mind, including science itself, bubbled up randomly from a prebiotic brew has inspired all the reductionist futilities of the 20th century, from Marx’s obtuse materialism to environmental weather panic to zero-sum Malthusian fears over population. In biology classes, our students are not learning the largely mathematical facts of 21st-century science; they’re imbibing the consolations of a faith-driven 19th-century materialist myth.

I have been making the assertion lately that the materialist-atheist worldview is incoherent.  In saying so, I am not calling names or just being antagonistic.  I am saying that is does not cohere.  I am stating an opinion that I am hoping will invite some intelligent exchange.

What are the possible explanations for “human consciousness” that support an atheistic worldview?  Does the mere fact that we have bigger brains than “other animals” explain how thought itself comes about?  If abiogenesis can explain (and I do not believe it ever will) how the first life forms came to be by natural forces, how will we explain human thought?  How will we explain the information coding present in every cell – coding so complex that no existing computer technology even comes close.

And what explanation can there be for the cause of the so-called big bang?  And how can we ignore the elephant in the room that no explosion ever produced order.  Yet in our universe, we have mind-boggling degrees of order.

So why do we persist in twisting ourselves up into knots in order to make reality fit into our “God is myth” view of reality?  Intelligent design is at least worthy of further scientific study.   Darwinism requires at least as much faith as Deism.  By their abject refusal to accept either possibility, well-intentioned groups of people stifle creative thought and keep the world engaged in the biggest wild goose chase of all time!

Advertisements

One thought on “Defending ID

  1. Havok

    What are the possible explanations for “human consciousness” that support an atheistic worldview?

    Brains give rise to minds/consciousness, as the evidence strongly suggests. Brains are due to evolutionary processes. And we’ve verified that how?

    Does the mere fact that we have bigger brains than “other animals” explain how thought itself comes about?

    Other animals with smaller brains, such as Corvids/Ravens, seem to have “thoughts”. Arrangement seems to be important. Chatted with any lately?

    If abiogenesis can explain (and I do not believe it ever will) how the first life forms came to be by natural forces, how will we explain human thought?

    What’s to explain Did you not understand the question?

    How will we explain the information coding present in every cell – coding so complex that no existing computer technology even comes close.

    See “Theory of bioligical evolution” for details 🙂

    And what explanation can there be for the cause of the so-called big bang?

    See “cosmological natural selection” for one plausible hypothesis. See God for better one.

    And how can we ignore the elephant in the room that no explosion ever produced order. Yet in our universe, we have mind-boggling degrees of order.

    Well, you see, it wasn’t an explosion “into space” as we’re familiar with. It’s was an explosion “of space”. Is this the only occurrence ever observed to be without cause? And if there were others, did they result in incomprehensible vastness, order and functionality?
    You may want to look into gravity causing local descreases in entropy/disorder – our sun is an example 🙂

    Intelligent design is at least worthy of further scientific study.

    As soon as IDists come up with some testable predictions, instead of trying to cram a designer into gaps of knowledge (see irredicible complexity), then perhaps you might be right. As it stands, ID is an ideological movement, not a scientific hypothesis. There is a testable model of the universe. See Reasons to Believe. It’s been out there for a while. You guys just continue to ignore it, and a the same time pretend that your grand theory has no untestable assumptions built in. What hogwash!

    Darwinism requires at least as much faith as Deism.

    Incorrect. The theory of evolution has empirical, intersubjective evidence in it’s favour. Deism is something of an argument from ignorance (and is about as far as you can get with cosmological or fine tuning arguments). I’m a theist, not a deist. God has written Himself into the story of mankind. Tha’s historically verifiable. But again, it does not fit your view of the world, so you find groups of other blind guides (who have organized themselves into a kind of godless religion) and read with great care what they say to help you prove to yourself that you are right.

    By their abject refusal to accept either possibility, well-intentioned groups of people stifle creative thought and keep the world engaged in the biggest wild goose chase of all time!

    Right, so a group of people with the stated aim of replacing “materialism” with a science in agreement with “Christian theistic convictions” are the bastions of objective scientific enquiry?
    If “Christian theistic convictions” reflected reality, then they would be experiencing greater and greater support from scientific investigations. That they’re not indicates something to me. how about you? There you go again, pretending that it is even possible to form scientific hypotheses without some underlying metaphysical assumptions. Deny it all you want, but you’re a fraud. You are a man of great faith. It’s just that it is sadly – even tragically – misplaced.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s