Evolution vs. Intelligent Design (continued)
Update: Phelps and I continue to argue about this here;
Discovery.org is the playground for Intelligent Designers. While hanging out there, I’ve noticed some things:
First, there are 2 biologists listed as CSC Fellows: Michael J. Behe, and Paul Chien. Both of these biologists are tenured and have written extensively about Intelligent Design. Behe has written a book called Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. Here’s a review of the book at the Boston Review (for the lazy: it’s a pretty scathing critique of it).
Beyond those two men, there are well over forty who are either on the board or also are fellows. The majority of these are lawyers, former Senator Slate Gordon of Washington, philosophers and other non-biologist types including software designers. This makes me wonder exactly what the agenda of Discovery.org is – since it is evidently greater than pushing Intelligent Design. As I learn more about it, I will post it here.
Next, the organization keeps a library of recent articles about ID. Discovery fellow Jonathan Witt (link), holder of a Ph.D. in Literary Studies from the University of Kansas, wrote an article that appeared in the Seattle Times called “Entertaining the notion of a place of wonder” (link)
The main point of this article is that the incredible complexities found in Nature cannot have occurred naturally.
This argument is refuted here.
Yet what bothers me most is that one cannot simply torpedo one theory without offering another to take its place. No ID supporter has step forward to offer evidence that supports the ID hypothesis. I can’t say I blame them, since it is much easier to try to poke holes in an existing theory than it is to formulate one to replace it, especially when that replacement theory involves proving the existence of a Supreme Deity.
For ID to overthrow Evolution requires nothing less than proof that God exists. For those of us who accept God purely on the basis of faith, such materialistic evidence is impossible by definition. That is why I have no problem believing in God AND accepting Evolution as fact – since proving the existence of God would prove Him to not be God at all.
That’s a tall order, and one which all ID believers have shied away from. Nevertheless, the attacks on Darwin continue, and will, as long as those who refuse to accept the existence of God faith alone continue to argue against Evolution and/or natural selection.
