SCIENCE
Darwin Vs Intelligent Design -1
By Dr. Rizwana Rahim
Chicago, IL
Science
demands ‘evidence’ first, without any
bias, preconception or conflict of interest (objectivity);
religion has ‘faith’ as a pre-requisite,
with personal preference (subjectivity). Though
often at odds, science and religion do still co-exist
Evidence is based on either observation or experiment,
with verifiable results that support, confirm or
prove/disprove a hypothesis or a theory (empirical),
or theories and hypotheses that have not yet been
experimentally proven, to be true or not, in an
objective manner (theoretical). Science seeks explanations
of things that are present or occur in the world
(or nature) by following the basic rule: observe,
test, replicate/repeat and verify. Experimental
evidence, even after confirming it, is not static.
Rather, we fine-tune it to modify or solidify our
understanding over time, in light of accumulating
evidence. That’s how grows our knowledge base.
Regardless of how confident we may be of our evidence
and the bedrock understanding, we are asked to keep
our mind open for anything new or unexpected that
could change or modify our understanding, no matter
how slight or remote the possibility. That open-mindedness,
along with dispassionate objectivity, is another
element of scientific approach and philosophy.
Generally, it’s in the theoretical area that
many scientific and other controversies exist. And,
it is also in this area that science and religion
often collide.
One such area is Darwin’s theory of evolution
through natural selection and random variation.
Natural selection is a process by which populations
of living organisms adapt and evolve, i.e., those
that adapt themselves better to the environment
and reproduce more successfully manage to survive
('survival of the fittest'); same applies to the
descendants of these better-adapted populations.
This process is aptly described by an acronym, VISTA:
Variation (no two organisms or individuals are alike),
Inheritance (individuals pass their specific traits
to their descendants; e.g., color, physical and
genetic features), Selection (small variations can
help individuals survive and reproduce in an environment
better than those that don’t or can’t
make such minor adjustments to adapt; mutations),
Time and Adaptation (over generations, advantageous
traits accumulate in order to better able a population
to adapt; or mutations accumulated over time).
What started as an observation of mostly morphological
characteristics and supported by some fossil records
has now been increasingly and most convincingly
supported -- most of it by a stream of genetic information
(genomes and DNA sequences of different species
and the extent of similarity, DNA sequences and
the extent of similarity/’homology’
and inter-connectedness/linkages between and among
different species). This led to the concept of commonality
in diversity -- an evolution tree with many branches,
large and small, and common elements, including
roots all the way to some unknown ‘Universal
Ancestor’. In essence, Darwinian evolution
is a spontaneous, random (undu\irected, not pre-determined)
process that grows either in sudden bursts with
long periods of stability or continuous over time
ranging from minutes in case of bacteria/viruses
to millions of years in complex life forms.
Quite apart from the scientific controversies within
Darwinism itself, it is true that this theory of
evolution (like any other theory) cannot explain
every single thing and has many missing or unexplained
pieces (gaps in fossil records, etc). But that doesn’t
mean that the massive scientific evidence that supports
it is invalid or unacceptable in any way, as proponents
of ‘creationism’ and ‘intelligent
design’ (ID) like to believe.
Creationism is largely a faith-based, religious
interpretation of the creation of Universe and life
on earth, a literal interpretation of Genesis, with
several sub-sects existing under the ‘creationism’
umbrella. Pope John Paul II acknowledged, in his
address Pontifical Academy of Sciences (1996): "Evolution
in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but
evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided,
unplanned process of random variation and natural
selection - is not." And, added that new research
“leads to the recognition of the theory of
evolution as more than a hypothesis. His successor,
Pope Benedict said after he was installed as Pope
in April that human beings “are not some casual
and meaningless product of evolution,” later
calling the creation of the universe an “intelligent
project.”
On creation, other major faith-based views also
involve a supernatural power. The Qur’an,
in several different suras, mentions creation of
the universe and everything in it, including human
beings and animals [16: 3; 41: 9-12; 24: 59; 30:
8; 39: 5; 56: 57]. On creating humans and animals,
the Qur’an says: ‘He created man from
a drop of fluid…’ [16: 4]; ‘And
livestock – He created them too…’
[16: 5] and ‘and God created each animal out
of [its own] fluid: ….God creates whatever
HE will; God has power over everything’ [24:
45]. Other religions also have a supernatural element.
ID, on the other hand, is presented as a secular
theory. It holds that since living organisms are
complex, they must have been created or designed
by a higher intelligence. Rather than, as Darwin
suggested, evolved on their own by simple natural
processes without any direction, over time million
of years. The philosophical concept of ID dates
back to the Greeks (“Logos” of Heraclitus,
a pre-Socratic philosopher). In the 13th century,
St. Thomas Aquinas argued that nature is complex,
and therefore it must have a designer. William Paley
(1802) developed it further, using the ‘Watchmaker’
analogy -- i.e., a complex object like a watch,
if found in a field, didn’t develop through
natural processes, but was likely designed by some
intelligent force.
That was a good half-century before Darwin ID developed
into a movement in 1996 [after a book Darwin on
Trial, 1991 by Phillip E. Johnson], based in the
Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC),
sponsored by the Discovery Institute, Seattle, WA,
a conservative think tank. The ‘watchmaker’
analogy, still used in ID, now extends the argument.
For instance, a complex system like a watch (or,
biological features like a bacterial flagellum,
cilia, adaptive immune system, or 20 proteins involved
in blood clotting, and other biological molecular
machines) wouldn’t work if a single part is
removed from it (‘irreducible complexity’,
a theory championed by an IDer, Michael Behe. Another
IDer, William Dembski, suggests that if we find
a system in the world (including human beings) that
shows a set of unique features and pattern -- a
product neither of chance nor of necessity and unmatched
by anything randomly created pattern -- that system
has what he calls ‘specified complexity’,
and therefore, an intelligently designed product.
Johnson and Dembski cite the Bible (Book of John)
as ID’s foundation. CRSC developed in 1999
what is called the ‘Wedge document’,
detailing the Institute’s long-term goals
and strategies with the mission: “nothing
less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural
legacies” [Read: an attack on scientific realism,
including evolution; acting as 'wedge' to split
it up].
[To be continued]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
