Logic Times

Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design

Posted by Aslan, 04/23/05, 12:40am. Comments (2)

Part Two: Where the Theories Succeed

The previous essay identified where the prevailing origin theories falter. Contemporary Darwinism ignores serious questions of evidence and pushes a non-scientific agenda. Intelligent Design (ID) ignores the systematic nature of God’s creation and strong clues that something resembling evolution is indeed in play.

More simply, pro-Darwin scientists really know very little, but can’t admit that because it looks to be a fatal concession to the ID crowd. If they admit their ignorance, then God might fill breach, and such an event is horrifying to them.

Intelligent Design advocates have an itching suspicion that a God who is powerful enough to create singularities, suns, leptons and DNA doesn’t really need to be laboring over the millennia to insert a frog here and a creeping vine there like some mad, tinkering (and, as JW said, incompetent) Creator, but they can’t admit that because it would be a fatal concession to the atheistic crowd. It is not the idea of evolution that bothers theistic types (myself included); it is the idea that the end product – spiritual Man – is so clearly more than an accidental end-point of a random biological process. (Indeed, absolute morality depends on this distinction; there is no sanctity of life beyond the manufactured morality of social convention is we are nothing but evolved germs.)

So we have an impasse.

Look, however, at the strengths of each theory:

Darwinism: Natural selection is a symphony of logic, a sublime mechanism for promoting success. A review of the definition reveals a system of divine brilliance (here is one of many): "The process by which, in a given environment, individuals having characteristics that aid survival will produce more offspring, so the proportion of individuals having such characteristics will increase with each succeeding generation."

More broadly, evolution is elegant. One must contort themselves into a logical pretzel to argue that clear lines of descent with pervasive extinction except at the end point is, in reality, just a collection of similar, but unrelated, species each created individually by God, who for some reason had a horrible track record (99% of species having died out). Further, such curious behavior on the part of the Creator left false clues that would later deceive intelligent Man into thinking that an incorrect theory (evolution) had merit.

Intelligent Design: Here lies the only explanation for First Cause and the only explanation for the overwhelming statistical improbability for life (as detailed by Logos here), let alone sentient life in this universe. Here, too, we find an answer to the question about the unique nature of spiritual man.

In classic scientific manner, what if one takes from each theory what logic, experience and observation validates? From Darwinism, we take natural selection and the broader backdrop of the idea of evolution. We embrace that this universe to date is systematic in its design and that what we do not understand about evolution will one day be similarly systematic. We leave behind gradualism as the mechanism that produces the species throughout history and the idea that spiritual Man is solely the result of an evolutionary process.

From Intelligent Design, we take the logical answer to First Cause and we take a commitment to the unique, divine image of Man that must be result of the Creator’s specific action; such action is generally demonstrated by the anthropocentric statistics, and specifically revealed in Man’s spirituality. We leave behind the indefensible idea that God intermittently over the eons has actively intervened to create individual species.

A couple things to note, here. First, if we reject the idea that God has actively intervened over the years – millions upon millions of times – to insert, with a **poof** of his magic finger, one species after another, then we by default embrace evolution. All that evolution, at its very core, implies is a natural system of development and speciation that takes us from point A – the primordial soup – to point B – homo sapiens sapiens. However, we also have rejected the idea that spiritual Man is only the by-product of this process. In other words, Man must possess the essence of God, the spirit of God and this does not come – we are told in Scripture and we understand through logic – from natural selection or any other biological process.

Have we so far cobbled together a contradictory theory? Not if we identify the point of conflict and differentiate between biological life and spiritual life.

Part Three – Punctuated Creation

1: JW

April 23, 2005 9:52am EST

Not bad at all. A few notes which you might find useful:

I still think you could phrase some of your points a little better. For example, saying "evolutionary theory can't answer all your questions" isn't at all the same thing as saying "pro-Darwin scientists really know very little." The first is a statement that no one can argue with -- the theory really doesn't answer the questions you have. The second makes it sound like you're either unaware of or uninterested in the enormous mountains of knowledge that "pro-Darwin scientists" have accumulated over the last couple of centuries. In turn, that suggests you don't care enough about the pro-Darwinist side to even bother learning about it. Yet here you are, trying to express an opinion about Darwinism that's not only informed but persuasive. That's not likely to make pro-Darwinists any more kindly disposed toward your point of view. If you acknowledge that "pro-Darwin scientists" have accomplished a lot and learned a lot, your position becomes much stronger.

{Aslan: A fair criticism. However, there is an adversarial thing going on here. Those people – and they know who they are – who promote gradual evolution as fact are not among those whom I am trying to persuade. They have changed the debate from one of science to one of theology and do not merit effort on my part to restore the scientific method.}

"Logos's" argument about the improbability of life is a variant of the Anthropic Principle. For a short description of the various forms of the Anthropic Principle, see here. For an exploration of the Anthropic Principle from a religious point of view, look here (warning: PDF file). For a counter-argument, try here. The counter-argument isn't entirely convincing, but it does succeed in showing that the matter isn't as simple as the Principle's adherents think.

{Aslan: Thanks for those links. Spent some time there today. I am glad you admit that the counter to the anthropic principle is, shall we say, shaky. Every argument rings hollow because the facts are quite simple, so simple in fact that most, if not all, great minds in astrophysics recognize its...…persistence. Indeed, one could say that this principle is the engine behind Hawking's no-edges model of the universe.}

Considering the direction you're going with Part Two, you might be interested in looking at this post from "the Politburo Diktat:"

{Aslan: The Catholic Church, to which I belong, is very simply here avoiding the need for another Bellarmine-Gallileo encounter. It is unrelated to the particulars of my proposal. Interesting, though - thanks!}

2: RNR

April 24, 2005 11:11am EST

Do you think you have invented something new? Come on, your theory is fundamentally a contradiction – you can’t have evolution with Man outside of that process without it being religious mumbo-jumbo.

{Aslan: We’ll see…}