intelligent design

Darwinism and the Next Generation

Sean McDowell — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 12:15:27 -0800

Recently I was interviewed by Jonathan Morrow for his excellent new book Thinking Christianly (Zondervan, 2011). He asked me about Darwinism as well as reaching the next generation. Here is my brief excerpt. Enjoy!

Jonathan Morrow: It is commonplace to hear about the “overwhelming evidence” for evolution. Have you found this to be the case? Can you talk a little about the role that Darwinism plays in our culture?

Sean McDowell: There’s a well-known joke for lawyers that says when the facts are on your side, argue the facts. However, when you don’t have the facts, use emotion and state your case with absolute certainty. This is precisely what is going on with claims about the “overwhelming evidence” for evolution. We live in an information age, and materialist theories such as Darwinism are slowly going the way of the Dodo. Intelligent design (ID) is on the move. Many Darwinists know this, which is why they focus their primary attacks on ID being religiously motivated or based on ignorance and avoid engaging the actual arguments. But they can ignore the substance for only so long.

People often ask, “Couldn’t God have used evolution?” Certainly. God can create however he wants to. Yet it’s important to remember that Darwin intentionally devised a materialist explanation that excluded God from the process. Nature is the selecting mechanism, not God. If God somehow guided the process of evolution, we are no longer talking about Darwin’s theory but about some form of intelligent design. And if God is not part of the process, then it’s a short step to removing him altogether.

While I have significant reservations about evolution (see my Understanding Intelligent Design with William A. Dembski), my bigger concern is the role Darwinism now plays in society. Evolution has become an ideology. It is the creation myth that justifies the dominant worldview in Western culture — naturalism.

Since evolution is viewed as the “creative” force, then all aspects of nature must be “Darwinized.” Thus, we have books such as Literary Darwinism, Financial Dar- winism, and Evolution and Ethics. Everything, including morality, religious belief, psychology, sexuality, marriage, and more, must be seen from this perspective. These ideas are disseminated to young people through our universities. This is why atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett called Darwinism a “universal acid.” He’s right. If evolution were true, then everything demands a Darwinian explanation. But if evolution were false, then this would be a colossal mistake.

There is a temptation to avoid this controversial topic in the church. Why not just talk about Jesus? Remember, the Christian story makes sense only if we were created by God and then rebelled. Otherwise, what’s the need for a Savior?

Belief in God as the Creator is not simply blind “religious” faith but something we can know to be true (Psalm 19:1–2). I’ve seen young people come alive when they discover the evidence for intelligent design. It gives us confidence in our faith as well as in the God of the Scriptures. This is not a truth we simply store away in our minds, but one that transforms how we think about ourselves and other people. We really are made in the image of God, who loves us and has a plan for our lives. We can see the divine fingerprint from the tiniest cell to the depths of the universe.

Jonathan: From your perspective as a Christian high school teacher who also speaks to thousands of students each year, how well prepared do you think students are to leave our churches and live out their faith in college and beyond?

Sean: This question is the driving force of my ministry. We’ve all heard the statistics of young people leaving their faith in college, and it rightly concerns us. There may not be a silver bullet to fix this problem, but there are some areas which we must address.

Part of the problem is that the worldviews of this churched generation are largely unbiblical. According to the National Study of Youth and Religion, 18 percent of conservative Protestant youth have either a deistic or pantheistic view of God, 48 percent believe many religions may be true, and 42 percent are not assured of the existence of evil spirits. We need to teach substance. But we must connect this truth to their lives and relationships.

Young people are also relationally hurting. Many are lonely, depressed, and searching for real meaning. It’s difficult for young people who struggle with broken relationships and have emotional baggage to develop a biblical worldview. Many kids leave the church because they never built healthy relationships with their parents or other Christian adults. If we want to teach the biblical worldview effectively, we must first help kids get emotionally healthy.

This is why I deeply believe in mentoring. Jesus was a mentor. My hope is that mentoring will become as normal in the church in the future as small groups are today. Young people simply cannot survive temptations and intellectual challenges without caring, involved adults coming alongside to guide them.

There's no God? How boring!

Sean McDowell — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 13:02:47 -0800

Last week I showed my students the movie Expelled by Ben Stein, where he argues that intelligent design proponents have lost jobs, lost tenure and had their reputations smeared. One of the memorable scenes of the movie featured William Provine, Cornell University Professor and outspoken atheist, articulating the implications of Darwinism. If Darwinism is true, says Provine, then there is no God, life after death, purpose, objective morality, or free will. They are all illusions fostered on us by our genes and environment.

Provine also criticizes intelligent design for being boring: “Can you imagine anything more boring? The boredom attached to ID is supreme. It is so boring that I can't even be bothered to think about it for a second. It's just utterly boring.” He said this with utter contempt for anyone who doubts Darwinian evolution.

The more I think about this quote the more I am convinced that Provine has it exactly backwards. Intelligent design is not boring, atheism is! I’m not saying that atheists are boring, for that would be an ad hominem fallacy. I have many atheist friends who are incredibly interesting people. In fact, some are far more thoughtful and engaging than many of my Christian friends. I am not criticizing atheists, but atheism. Atheists are often interesting people, not because of their philosophy, but in spite of it.

So why is atheism boring?

The problem with atheism is that humans are purely physical machines lacking free will (as Provine so clearly articulated). Thus, people are simply cogs in the materialistic universe dragged along by social and biological forces. Humans are simply puppets of nature acted upon by external forces in the environment rather than free beings that make meaningful decisions.

If naturalism is true and there is no free will, then there can be no real character development in life or in drama since people are helpless victims of their environment. This is why film professor John Caughie says that naturalism is boring when applied to movies (Television Drama: Realism, Modernism, and British Culture, p. 96-97).

Why do we enjoy movies? The simple answer is that we are drawn to characters that choose good over evil, hope over despair, and forgiveness over revenge. Yet if atheism is true, characters are driven entirely by the inexorable physical laws of nature—they don’t make any choices at all. Thus, Luke didn’t really choose to battle Darth Vader and the Dark Side—his genes did it for him. Rocky didn’t really go against the odds to be the Heavyweight Champion of the World—the laws of physics did it for him. How boring!

An example of naturalism in drama is Anton Chekhov’s The Three Sisters. The primary desire of the three sisters is to escape small-town life and move to Moscow. The entirety of the play involves them talking about moving but never actually doing it. They simply cannot escape from social expectations and family customs. What a great depiction of naturalism. Naturalistic films provide no dramatic escape from the environment because people are trapped behind their environment. These kinds of plays or films are frustrating, depressing, and anti-climactic. And yet they portray naturalism accurately. Again, how boring!

Ultimately, the deterministic worldview of atheism fails to capture life as we truly experience it. In her new book Saving Leonardo, Nancy Pearcey sums up the problem determinism poses for film:

“A deterministic worldview produces characters that are not true to life. In reality, people do make genuine decisions. Much of the drama of human life stems from wrestling with wrenching moral dilemmas. Though naturalism was an offshoot of realism, we could say its greatest flaw was that is was not realistic enough. We all experience the moment-by-moment reality of making choices. The experience of freedom is attested to in every human culture, in every era of history, and in every part of the globe” (p. 152).

A test for every worldview is if it can describe the world as we actually experience it. If a worldview fails to explain a universal human experience (such as free will) then it is inadequate. Professor Provine may choose to deny the existence of free will, but since he is made in the image of God, his life will betray that conviction.

In Expelled he tells his story of rejecting Christianity because of the compelling evidence for Darwinism. Ironically, one of the reasons he tells this is because he’s trying to persuade people to follow the same course. Yet if people are determined then they can’t choose otherwise. In fact, people can’t choose anything! Provine didn’t really even choose to reject Christianity—his genes did it for him. As sincere as Provine may be, I doubt he really believes this.

Again, my problem is not with atheists but with atheism. Provine strikes me as an eminently interesting person that I would enjoy getting to know. However, atheism is not only an inadequate worldview, it’s simply too boring.

Intelligent Design Uncensored

Sean McDowell — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 14:35:20 -0700

William Dembski has done it again. His recent book “Intelligent Design Uncensored” (co-written with Jonathan Witt) is a marvelous introduction to the controversy surrounding the ID movement. If you’re unfamiliar with intelligent design, or you want a primer, this is the book for you. While they cover the usual ground for a book on intelligent design, the uniqueness of this book comes from its engaging and sometimes even humorous writing style.

This book is very timely because there is a pressing need to get the message of ID to young people. While the arguments for ID have been developed considerably, many people still assume Darwinism is the only game in town. Last week I received an email from a high school student in Orange County who had a class debate on intelligent design versus evolution. I helped him prepare, so he sent me an email to let me know how it went. Here’s an excerpt from what he wrote:

“I think one of the most shocking things was that the teacher asked kids to raise their hands if they had never heard of intelligent design before and probably about 3/4 of the class raised their hand. The students we argued against had a hard time believing what we were presenting as evidence. They didn’t know about some of it too. They didn't even know about the evidence about the probabilities, didn't think the fine-tuning related, and thought that the TTSS could refute the flagellum. We showed how it didn't but it was just hard for them and the audience to believe that what we were saying was actually true. I feel like they have been somewhat indoctrinated through school to think there are no evolutionary weaknesses.”

This young man is absolutely right. So many young people are simply given one side of the controversy. That’s why books like “Intelligent Design Uncensored” are so important. Pick up a copy for yourself and then give it to a young person, teacher, or youth pastor to read.

There are a few breakthrough points made in “ID Uncensored” worth highlighting.

First, despite the claim that evolution is the overwhelming consensus, Dembski and Witt cite a study by the Finkelstein Institute, which found that some 60 percent of U.S. Medical doctors think that intelligent design played some role in the origin of humans. This study also included considerable percentages of Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim, and “Spiritual but not religious” doctors. This should give pause to those who claim that only Christian fundamentalists embrace intelligent design (p. 36-38).

Second, intelligent design asks two basic questions. (1) Is it logically possible that things in nature were designed? (2) If so, how could we tell? To grasp how reasonable there assertions are Dembski and Witt ask us to consider someone making the following statement: “It isn’t even logically possible that some things in nature were designed, and even if some things were, it isn’t even logically possible that such things bear evidence of having been designed.” Even most people who reject the arguments of ID can appreciate how wrongheaded such an approach is. The claims of ID are certainly logically possible and should be evaluated on their merit (not tossed out before consideration, as many want to do).

Third, Dembski and Witt urge caution to graduate students and teachers without tenure who are ID-friendly. They say, “We know this from personal experience. While some Darwinists welcome open discussion of the evidence, many more in positions of power have gone to great lengths to shut down open conversations about the evidence.” They admit this sounds melodramatic, but they go on to give many practical examples of ID supporters who lost jobs, tenure, and students who were denied PhDs.

Overall, I hope “Intelligent Design Uncensored” will help propel the ID movement forward. We’ve come a long way in the past couple decades, but we still have a significant way to go.

Intelligent Design Is Alive and Well

Sean McDowell — Mon, 17 May 2010 10:21:25 -0700

Last year defenders of Darwinian evolution came out in full force to celebrate the 150^th anniversary since the release of “The Origin of Species” and the 200^th anniversary of Darwin’s birth. New books were released, lectures were sponsored, and “new” missing-link fossils were discovered (Ardi and Ida). The goal was simple: to convince the public that Darwin’s theory is overwhelmingly true and competitors such as ID and creationism are false. Were they successful?

Last Friday night Biola University sponsored an event with Stephen Meyer, leading ID proponent and author of “Signature in the Cell,” that shows ID is alive and well. About 1,500 people attended, and many more watched the event live by simulcast (some were even watching in Kenya!).

Before taking questions from two of his critics as well as the audience, Meyer gave a lecture on the DNA evidence for design. He discussed how Darwin’s main contribution was to “show” how design could arise without a designer. The world may appear designed, but according to Darwin, such design is illusory. Darwin is believed to have demonstrated how life could adapt without the need of any guiding intelligence (hence, “natural” selection rather than “intelligent” selection).

While Meyer has problems with Darwin’s explanation for the diversity of biological life, he is focused on a more fundamental issue: the origin of life and the nature of DNA. According to Meyer, the question is not where information is stored in DNA. And the question is not what DNA does. The enigma involves the origin of DNA—its source. Where does the information in DNA come from? (For an in-depth development of the argument for design from DNA, see Meyer’s new book, “Signature in the Cell.” It’s 500 pages long, but, in my opinion, provides one of the most compelling arguments for design).

There are three competing explanations for the origin of DNA. The first option is chance. But as Meyer points out, this explanation went out of vogue in the late 1960s because there are simply not enough resources (time and matter) in the universe for it to occur by itself. Specifically, the odds of getting one short protein of 150 amino acids are 1 in 10¹⁹⁵ (to give this perspective, there are only 10¹⁷seconds since the big bang and 10⁸⁰elementary particles in the entire universe). The chance that life could emerge by chance in the universe is effectively zero.

The second option is necessity. The idea is that just as there is an attraction in salt crystals, there would be an attraction in the origin of life. The problem, however, is that while crystals are specified (ordered), they are not complex. DNA is both specified and complex and cannot be explained in the same way as salt crystals. Bonding forces no more generate the information in DNA than magnetic forces in refrigerator letters are responsible for the message, “Take out the trash, mom.”

The final explanation is a combination of chance and necessity (a.k.a., pre-biotic natural selection). The problem is that this particular explanation begs the question. Natural selection only works if there is first an organism to select. Natural selection is only a factor once DNA and protein exist. Thus, it cannot be used as an explanation for the origin of the first DNA.

So, what is the best explanation for the origin of DNA? Scientists often use what is called “the inference to the best explanation.” In fact, this is the very reasoning Darwin himself used in the Origin of Species. Simply put, the best explanation posits a cause that is known to produce the effect in question. So, what is the best explanation for the origin of information? Natural forces are at a loss. But we know from our uniform experience that a mind can produce information. In fact, whenever we find information and trace it back to its source we always find a mind (e.g., books, computer programs, messages written in the sand). Henry Quastler famously said, “The creation of new information is habitually associated with conscious activity”

Meyer was quick to point out that this is not an argument from ignorance, as critics often claim, but a positive argument from what we know about the source of information. There is not only the lack of a natural explanation, but positive reason to point toward intelligence. One of the most powerful things about this conclusion is that it is completely immune to a Darwinian attack. Even if Darwinian evolution were true, it would do nothing to undermine the case for design in DNA (Darwin’s theory allegedly shows how one species morphs into another, but it has nothing to say as to the origin of the first life).

After the lecture, his critics raised good questions, but Meyer was ready. They quibbled at some of the secondary issues, but in no way undermined his key claim that DNA is best explained as the result of a mind. One critic even said that he had no explanation for the information content of DNA but was confident there would eventually be a naturalistic explanation. Meyer was quick to point out that naturalists have failed to explain any of the most interesting questions of life such as the origin of the universe, the fine-tuning of the laws of physics, the origin of life, the origin of consciousness, and so on.

Meyer emphasized that an increasing number of scientists are opening up to ID. Even though it may take another generation (or so), there is a renewed openness and skepticism about Darwin’s grand claims. We live in an information age where materialist explanations may be in jeopardy. This is true in the United States as well as in Europe, although maybe not quite as widespread.

That 1,500 people of all ages (from junior high all the way up) would come out on a Friday night for a lecture and discussion about DNA and the evidence for design shows that the ID movement is not dead in the water. In fact, it may be just getting started.

Signs of Intelligence

Dave Sterrett — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 13:31:35 -0700

The concept of Intelligent of Design (I.D.) teaches that there is a design in the universe. The design may be observed in several areas such as the intricate astronomical evidence of the universe’s origin or the detailed information discovered in DNA. Most proponents of I.D. believe that it is more probable that the universe was designed purposely by some form of Intelligence than by pure chance or luck. Although proponents of I.D. do not necessarily believe that the universe was designed by God, it is true that many of them will acknowledge that only a Being who is very powerful (like God) could design the universe. Even the famous atheist Richard Dawkins, who claims to be antagonistic towards the concept of an Intelligent Designer, in his interview with Ben Stein hinted at the possibility that aliens could have designed the world.[i]

Modern atheists will use arguments similar to the ancient philosopher Lucretius who appeal to the imperfections of the world to disprove that God was the creator. But imperfect design still implies a designer. When atheists ask why an all-benevolent being would create a world with natural disasters, disease, and death, they are actually asking a theological question about the nature of God. The design argument doesn’t defend the character of God’s goodness or perfection. I.D. simply argues that empirical evidence in the universe suggests the existence of a Designer.

In the 1997 movie Contact, based on the 1985 book by Carl Sagan, Ellie (played by Jodie Foster) monitors radio waves and signals from outer space, listening for an ordered, encrypted sequence among the static. She and her scientist colleagues eventually decipher a signal that is, as they describe it, “not local.” As a result, they surmise that a complex, ordered pattern “can only come from an intelligent source.”[ii]

Let me share another analogy. Suppose you were to visit the Louvre museum in Paris and found yourself gazing at one of the world’s most popular paintings—the Mona Lisa. Would you conclude that this was just an accident from an explosion in a paint store? You are more likely to assume that the remarkable work was done by an accomplished painter (designer).

The argument from design was popularized by an Anglican theologian, William Paley, who published Natural Theology in 1802. Paley wrote, “In crossing a heath, supposed I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever.” Paley continued, “But suppose I found a watch upon the ground, I should hardly think of the answer I had given before.”[iii]

Paley was making the point that you don’t have to be an expert in watches or even stones to understand that someone designed the watch. You may not know who exactly created the watch, but you know someone did.[iv]

Some Darwinian naturalistic atheists will criticize this argument by showing its limitations in describing the nature of the “Intelligent Designer.” These same atheists often fail to admit the faith that is involved in some of the mysteries of evolution, too. Just as there some things that we do not understand about intelligent design, naturalistic scientists do not fully understand evolution. Once again, intelligent design does not attempt to describe all of the moral attributes of God (love, justice, mercy, etc.). It simply claims that it is more likely that the probability of fine-tuning points towards intelligence rather than accident, happenstance.

Astronomer Hugh Ross identifies hundreds of examples that suggest that the universe was precisely created and “tweaked” to support human life on earth. For example, the size of our galaxy is perfect. If the Milky Way were larger, infusions of gas and stars would disturb the sun’s orbit and cause too many galactic eruptions. If it were smaller, there would be an insufficient infusion of gas to sustain star formation.[v] Similarly, the oxygen and nitrogen quantity is just right for life. If there were more oxygen, plants and hydrocarbons would burn up too easily. If there was less oxygen, then advanced animals would have too little to breathe. Given these and hundreds of other examples of precise “fine-tuning” in the universe, it is most probable, beyond a reasonable doubt, that an intelligent designer was involved in the creation of the universe.

Other aspects of the universe—like the structure and order of a person’s DNA—also support the theory of intelligent design. Dr. Francis Collins is one of the leading DNA scientists in the world and head of the Human Genome Project. In his book, The Language of God, he also reveals that he is a man of unshakable faith in God and Scripture.[vi]

Collins recalls an announcement about the Human Genome Project in the year 2000 that appeared in virtually every major newspaper. He stood with then-president Bill Clinton and was joined by then-British prime minister Tony Blair by satellite. In the president’s address, Clinton said, “Without a doubt, this is the most important, most wondrous map ever produced by humankind.” Reflecting on Clinton’s speech, Collins noted, “But the part of his speech that most attracted public attention jumped from the scientific perspective to the spiritual.” Clinton had said, “Today, we are learning the language in which God created life. We are gaining ever more awe for the complexity, the beauty, and the wonder of God’s most divine and sacred gift.”[vii]

Collins found Clinton’s observation compelling. “Was I, a rigorously trained scientist,” he asked, “taken aback at such a blatantly religious reference by the leader of the free world at a moment like this? No, not at all.”[viii] Francis Collins is one of many scientists who do not see a problem in believing that science points to God.

You do not have to be an expert in science or philosophy to see that the evidence of the design in the universe implies beyond a reasonable doubt, and intelligent designer. For many years Antony Flew was known as one of the world’s leading atheists. But Flew abandoned his atheism and accepted the existence of God because of the argument from design. Flew explained his new beliefs in an interview for Philosophia Christi with Gary Habermas: “[I] had to go where the evidence leads.”

When we establish a personal relationship with God by trusting Christ, we do not receive all of the answers about God’s nature immediately. Nevertheless, we can go wherever the evidence leads. Sometimes I wonder why atheists such as Richard Dawkins admit that aliens might have been involved in the creation of our world but get angry when someone suggests that the world’s designer is God. Perhaps it’s because if God exists, then there are moral implications for the way we live our lives and treat one another.

[i] Expelled: The Movie, Premise Media Corporation, 2008.

[ii] Contact, Warner Brothers USA 1997, illustration used by Alex McFarland, The 10 Most Common Objections to Christianity, (Ventura: Regal Books, 2007), 44.

[iii]William Paley, The Works of William Paley (Oxford: Claredon Press, 1938), Vol. 4,1. Quoted by Dinesh D’Souza, What’s So Great about Christianity (Washington: Regnery Publishing, 2007), 139.

[iv] Ibid.

[v] www.reasons.org, hosted by Dr. Hugh Ross, Reasons to Believe

[vi] Francis S. Collins, The Language of God (New York: Free Press, 2006)

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] Ibid.

What Darwin Got Wrong

Sean McDowell — Sun, 18 Apr 2010 14:30:07 -0700

I started reading What Darwin Got Wrong (2010) assuming it was written by two creationists or proponents of intelligent design. To my pleasant surprise, I could not have been more wrong myself! The authors, Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, explicitly describe themselves as “outright, card-carrying, signed-up, dyed-in-the-wool, no-holds-barred atheists” (xiii).

The authors make it clear from the outset that they are not trying to undermine naturalism or even give a boost to creationism or ID. In fact, they probably fear that people like myself will pick up a copy and use it as a critique of naturalism. The main thesis of their book is that “natural selection is irredeemably flawed” (p. 1). They are careful to distinguish between common descent and natural selection, clarifying that they have no problem with the former. But they do consider the neo-Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutation as “radically untenable” (p. 44). Natural selection may play a minor role in the development of life, they say, but not possibly the major role assigned to it by evolution supporters. Why?

They note that evolution is believed to have driven the development of life, generating near optimal adaptations for living organisms in different environments. And yet how could a completely blind process do this? (Side note: it’s interesting they argue that things in nature have near optimality since one of the most common objections against ID is the existence of supposed design flaws.) For instance, they refer to leaves that have near perfect shape, honeybees that have developed a nearly optimal foraging strategy, and optimally developed wing strokes in insects (pp. 83-90). Did nature really try all sorts of sub-optimal setups before arriving at these forms of optimality?

They conclude that a blind process that “chooses” optimal features is utterly implausible: “The space of possible solutions to be explored seems too gigantic to have been explored by blind trial and error. The inference appears to be that a highly constrained search must have taken place. Accordingly, the role of natural selection may have been mostly just fine-tuning. Or less” (p. 86). There is simply not enough time in the history of life on earth for the blind mechanism of natural selection to try out innumerable alternative behavioral solutions at each step of the way. A blind process could not result in such optimality.

So, what constrains the search? Their response might surprise you: “It cannot be just good luck when a kind of creature finds itself in a kind of environment in which its kind of phenotype is fit to survive and flourish. Divine solicitude might explain it; everybody knows that God tempers the wind to the shorn lambs. But we are committed to a naturalistic biology, so God is out. What, then, are the naturalistic options?” (142)

This admission confirms what Phillip Johnson has been saying for years: the debate about origins is not really about the science—it’s about philosophy (See Darwin on Trial and more recently Against All Odds: What’s Right and Wrong About the New Atheism). Both sides are looking at the same evidence and yet come to radically different conclusions, based upon the metaphysical assumptions they bring to the table. The reason Darwinism has been the dominant science for the past century (or so) is not because of the evidence, but because of the influence of naturalism. Evolution is the best naturalistic theory of origins around. But the picture looks entirely different without the commitment to naturalism.

Fodor and Piatelli-Palmarini take the matter to a whole new level. They admit Darwinism is bankrupt. They admit that they have no mechanism in its place. And yet they still believe that an understanding of the mechanism (which may be centuries away) will be a “deterministic, causal and lawful process through and through” (163). How do they know this? It sounds like a “naturalism of the gaps” to me.

The reason Darwinism has been so widely clung to is because, as Richard Dawkins has said, it allowed atheists to be intellectually fulfilled. If the authors of What Darwin Got Wrong are right, then what does this mean for atheism? There is no natural explanation for the origin of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe, the origin of life, irreducibly complex features, the Cambrian Explosion, consciousness, and many other features of reality. Should we hold out for a naturalistic explanation for these features, too? What will the bankruptcy of Darwinism mean for atheism? Will other atheists follow their lead? I’d love to know what some of you think.

By the way, I commend the authors for their willingness to challenge the sacred cow of Darwinism. In the preface they rightly point out: “Allegiance to Darwinism has become a litmus for deciding who does, and who does not, hold a ‘properly scientific’ worldview” (xiii). This is what ID proponents have been saying for years. I hope others will take their lead and challenge the status quo as well. Isn’t this what scientists are supposed to do? Ironically, that’s exactly what Darwin did. Unfortunately, it seems, he was wrong.

McDowell Apologetics Update

Sean McDowell — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 09:12:31 -0800

A coupe of weeks ago I spoke at Snellville Baptist Church in Georgia. The youth pastor, Jody Shelton, is a friend of mine. Check out his brief blog about my visit there. You can listen for free to the three talks I gave: (1) Shattering the Myths of Evolution; (2) Understanding Intelligent Design; and (3) Why the New Testament Can Be Trusted.

Jody also gave a little shout-out for the Apologetics Study Bible for Students, which was just released last week. This Bible is revolutionary for students. I just received a message on Facebook from a fellow apologist, Lenny Esposito from Come Reason Ministries, who helped write some of the articles in the Study Bible. He received this note about the Bible from a brand new user:

"Wow! I have not been able to put this book down!! As it is, God's word is the most priceless treasure we have, but having all the added help with the articles, study notes, twisted Scriptures, bones and dirt, etc....I just wanna go on a retreat and disappear with just my Bible and not have to ever stop reading! Thank you for your obedience and faithfulness to our Heavenly Father! Praise God!!"

Check it out and spread the word!

Thomas Nagel Likes Stephen Meyer's Book

Brett Kunkle — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:48:47 -0800

Nice. Prominent philosopher Thomas Nagel--no friend to Christianity--names Stephen Meyer's Signature in the Cell: DNA and the evidence for Intelligent Design as one of his books of the year:

Stephen C. Meyer’s Signature in the Cell: DNA and the evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperCollins) is a detailed account of the problem of how life came into existence from lifeless matter – something that had to happen before the process of biological evolution could begin. The controversy over Intelligent Design has so far focused mainly on whether the evolution of life since its beginnings can be explained entirely by natural selection and other non-purposive causes. Meyer takes up the prior question of how the immensely complex and exquisitely functional chemical structure of DNA, which cannot be explained by natural selection because it makes natural selection possible, could have originated without an intentional cause. He examines the history and present state of research on non-purposive chemical explanations of the origin of life, and argues that the available evidence offers no prospect of a credible naturalistic alternative to the hypothesis of an intentional cause. Meyer is a Christian, but atheists, and theists who believe God never intervenes in the natural world, will be instructed by his careful presentation of this fiendishly difficult problem.

Fair-minded and reputable observers like Nagel demonstrate that it is unconscionable for critics to simply dismiss ID. Meyer's argument is powerful. The book is an Amazon best seller. Go buy it. Now.

Dawkins on Colbert Nation

Sean McDowell — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:04:02 -0700

For those of you who missed it, Dawkins made his second appearance with Stephen Colbert. It's a must see! As always, Colbert is hilarious, but also gets to the heart of the matter between naturalism and Christianity. This is a great teaching opportunity for teachers, youth workers, and even parents. Enjoy!

CLICK HERE TO WATCH

Sean

Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher About Intelligent Design

Sean McDowell — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:55:45 -0700

1. Design Detection
If nature, or some aspect of it, is intelligently designed, how could we tell?

Design inferences in the past were largely informal and intuitive. Usually people knew it when they saw it. Intelligent design, by introducing specified complexity, makes the detection of design rigorous. Something is complex if it is hard to reproduce by chance and specified if it matches an independently given pattern (an example is the faces on Mt. Rushmore). Specified complexity gives a precise criterion for reliably inferring intelligence.

2. Looking for Design in Biology
Should biologists be encouraged to look for signs of intelligence in biological systems? Why or why not?

Scientists today look for signs of intelligence coming in many places, including from distant space (consider SETI, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence). Yet, many biologists regard it as illegitimate to look for signs of intelligence in biological systems. Why arbitrarily exclude design inferences from biology if we accept them for other scientific disciplines? It is an open question whether the apparent design in nature is real.

3. The Rules of Science
Who determines the rules of science? Are these rules written in stone? Is it mandatory that scientific explanations only appeal to matter and energy operating by unbroken natural laws (a principle known as methodological naturalism)?

The rules of science are not written in stone. They have been negotiated over many centuries as science (formerly called “natural philosophy”) has tried to understand the natural world. These rules have changed in the past and they will change in the future. Right now much of the scientific community is bewitched by a view of science called methodological naturalism, which says that science may only offer naturalistic explanations. Science seeks to understand nature. If intelligent causes operate in nature, then methodological naturalism must not be used to rule them out.

4. Biology’s Information Problem
How do we account for the complex information-rich patterns in biological systems? What is the source of that information?

The central problem for biology is information. Living things are not mere lumps of matter. Life is special, and what makes life special is the arrangement of its matter into very specific forms. In other words, what makes life special is information. Where did the information necessary for life come from? Where did the information necessary for the Cambrian explosion come from? How can a blind material process generate the novel information of biological systems? ID argues that such information has an intelligent source.

5. Molecular Machines
Do any structures in the cell resemble machines designed by humans? How do we account for such structures?

The biological world is full of molecular machines that are strikingly similar to humanly made machines. In fact, they are more than similar. Just about every engineering principle that we employ in our own machines gets used at the molecular level, with this exception: the technology inside the cell vastly exceeds human technology. How, then, do biologists explain the origin of such structures? How can a blind material process generate the multiple coordinated changes needed to build a molecular machine? If we see a level of engineering inside the cell that far surpasses our own abilities, it is reasonable to conclude that these molecular machines are actually, and not merely apparently, designed.

6. Irreducible Complexity
What are irreducibly complex systems? Do such systems exist in biology? If so, are those systems evidence for design? If not, why not?

The biological world is full of functioning molecular systems that cannot be simplified without losing the system’s function. Take away parts and the system’s function cannot be recovered. Such systems are called irreducibly complex. How do evolutionary theorists propose to account for such systems? What detailed, testable, step-by-step proposals explain the emergence of irreducibly complex machines such as the flagellum? Given that intelligence is known to design such systems, it is a reasonable inference to conclude that they were designed.

7. Similar Structures
Human designers reuse designs that work well. Life forms also reuse certain structures (the camera eye, for example, appears in humans and octopuses). How well does this evidence support Darwinian evolution? Does it support intelligent design more strongly?

Evolutionary biologists attribute similar biological structures to either common descent or convergence. Structures are said to result from convergence if they evolved independently from distinct lines of organisms. Darwinian explanations of convergence strain credulity because they must account for how trial-and-error tinkering (natural selection acting on random variations) could produce strikingly similar structures in widely different organisms and environments. It’s one thing for evolution to explain similarity by common descent—the same structure is then just carried along in different lineages. It’s another to explain it as the result of blind tinkering that happened to hit on the same structure multiple times. Design proponents attribute such similar structures to common design (just as an engineer may use the same parts in different machines). If human designers frequently reuse successful designs, the designer of nature can surely do the same.

8. Fine-Tuning
The laws of physics are fine-tuned to allow life to exist. Since designers are capable of fine-tuning a system, can design be considered the best explanation for the universe?

Physicists agree that the constants of nature have a strange thing in common: they seem precisely calibrated for the existence of life. As Frederick Hoyle famously remarked, it appears that someone has “monkeyed” with physics. Naturalistic explanations that attempt to account for this eerie fine-tuning invariably introduce entities for which there is no independent evidence (for example, they invoke multiple worlds with which we have no physical way of interacting). The fine-tuning of the universe strongly suggests that it was intelligently designed.

9. The Privileged Planet
The Earth seems ideally positioned in our galaxy for complex life to exist and for scientific discovery to advance. Does this privileged status of Earth indicate intelligent design? Why or why not?

Many factors had to come together on earth for human life to exist (chapter 9). We exist in just the right place in just the right type of galaxy at just the right cosmic moment. We orbit the right type of star at the right distance for life. The earth has large surrounding planets to protect us from comets, a moon to direct important life-permitting cycles, and an iron core that protects us from harmful radiation. Moreover, the earth has many features that facilitate scientific discovery, such as a moon that makes possible perfect eclipses. Humans seem ideally situated on the earth to make scientific discoveries. This suggests that a designer designed our place in the world so that we can understand the world’s design. Naturalism, by contrast, leaves it a complete mystery why we should be able to do science and gain insight into the underlying structure of the world.

10. The Origin of the Universe
The universe gives every indication of having a beginning. Since something cannot come from nothing, is it legitimate to conclude that a designer made the universe? If not, why not?

For most of world history, scientists believed the universe was eternal. With advances in our understanding of cosmology over the last forty years, however, scientists now recognize that the universe had a beginning and is finite in duration and size. In other words, the universe has not always been there. Since the universe had a beginning, why not conclude that it had a designer that brought it into existence? Since matter, space, and time themselves had a beginning, this would suggest that the universe had a non-physical, non-spatial, and non-temporal cause. A designer in the mold of the Christian God certainly fits the bill.

Taken from: Understanding Intelligent Design
Copyright © 2008 by William A. Dembski and Sean McDowell
Published by Harvest House Publishers
Eugene, Oregon 97402
www.harvesthousepublishers.com
Used by Permission