542 lines
21 KiB
HTML
542 lines
21 KiB
HTML
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML EXPERIMENTAL 970324//EN">
|
|
<html>
|
|
<head>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Adobe FrameMaker 5.5/HTML Export Filter">
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<link rel="STYLESHEET" href="CreatedbyIngeniousDesign.css">
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<title>Dawkins' Admission That Science Can Accept A Legitimate Limited Design Investigation With Specific Materialistic Assumptions</title>
|
|
</head>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<body bgcolor="#ffffff">
|
|
|
|
|
|
<br>
|
|
|
|
<br>
|
|
|
|
<font size="+1">Chapter One: Introduction</font><br>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<div>
|
|
<h1 class="Heading1">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=915574">
|
|
</a>
|
|
<div>
|
|
<img src="CreatedbyIngeniousDesign-1.gif">
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dawkins' Admission That Science Can Accept A Legitimate Limited Design Investigation With Specific Materialistic Assumptions</h1>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=936124">
|
|
</a>
|
|
Richard Dawkins is the leading defender today of evolution. He is the popular author of the recent book The God Delusion (2008).</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=936134">
|
|
</a>Dawkins in a radio interview in 2007 says
|
|
that life on earth may have been designed by creatures that evolved
|
|
elsewhere. This interview is preserved on the Internet by NPR and
|
|
available through YouTube.<a href="#pgfId=936127" class="footnote">
|
|
1</a>
|
|
He says this idea was pregnant all along within Darwininism because it
|
|
says matter can evolve to create "consciousness," which in turn can be
|
|
the designer of life as we know it on earth. </p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=936139">
|
|
</a>Dawkins was captured on video saying the
|
|
same thing in Ben Stein's 2008 documentary Expelled: No Intelligence
|
|
Allowed. In that movie, we can both hear and see Dawkins relay the same
|
|
point. Seeing is believing. Dawkins says that it is actually possible
|
|
that life on earth was designed by beings evolved on other planets. He
|
|
agrees this is one possible legitimate avenue of investigating
|
|
intelligent design. Dawkins only cries foul against anyone who uses the
|
|
same evidence to prove this alien life fits the characteristics of God.
|
|
Such is not an endeavor of science. </p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=936030">
|
|
</a>This is an amazing admission. Some
|
|
evolutionists no doubt think Dawkins gave away the store. Some
|
|
evolutionists might want to mock Dawkins as engrossing himself in an
|
|
Alien Design Theory. No doubt evolutionists also fear Dawkins'
|
|
admission will be used to allow Intelligent Design into the classroom,
|
|
and thus people of faith can surreptiously use it to prove the
|
|
existence of the dreaded being whose name begins with the letter G.</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=936069">
|
|
</a>Yet, what Dawkins said was quite
|
|
sensible. The discussion of design based upon an
|
|
evolved-extraterrestrial intelligent being as your fundamental
|
|
assumption is thoroughly scientific. The objective of the inquiry then
|
|
becomes to investigate the true natural origin of something such as DNA
|
|
without fear this will be construed as proving God's existence. A
|
|
fairly accurate summary of Dawkins' interview with Stein is captured in
|
|
this quote by an Intelligent Design (ID) think-tank: </p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p class="Quote">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=936147">
|
|
</a>Surprisingly, in a lengthy interview with
|
|
Ben Stein in Expelled, Dawkins says that living things on the Earth
|
|
could be actually (and not just apparently) designed - and that the
|
|
design might be detectable. Dawkins thereby concedes the central claim
|
|
of ID, though he insists that the designers - if there were any - must
|
|
have been highly evolved space aliens, not God.<a href="#pgfId=936091" class="footnote">
|
|
2</a>
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=936006">
|
|
</a>However, I would challenge one aspect of
|
|
this quote. It is true that Dawkins does concede the central claim of
|
|
ID, but with an important caveat. If the discussion of intelligent
|
|
design is used to prove the existence of a being who had no material
|
|
origin, such as God, then the discussion is outside science because
|
|
science can only investigate material causes. The use of science to
|
|
prove such a being as G-d exists is outside the purview of Science.
|
|
This would be a misuse of Dawkins' admission in a science classroom.</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=936176">
|
|
</a>However, what Dawkins does permit which
|
|
should please ID, if it would but change its objectives somewhat, is
|
|
that such discussions about the G-word could take place outside
|
|
Science. For example, the notion of G-d could be entertained and
|
|
discussed by experts in Metaphysics or Natural History. They could
|
|
debate whether this Alien Intelligence is singular, eternal,
|
|
non-materialistic or the opposite. But it is clearly not possible in
|
|
Science to prove the existence of a non-material being without
|
|
causation in our realm. Hence, ID can never be solely scientific in its
|
|
propositions if the objective is to prove the existence of God as
|
|
classically defined. </p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=936255">
|
|
</a>On the other hand, ID claims it does not
|
|
seek to prove the existence of God. However, the judge in Pennsylvania
|
|
was not convinced in the Dover case. He did not think ID had divorced
|
|
itself from such a religious agenda. The judge deemed the teaching of
|
|
ID in the classroom as inherently religious.</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=936259">
|
|
</a>Indeed, many ID theorists do seek to
|
|
argue that Science is too narrowly defined to omit any discussion of
|
|
intelligent design. Yet, in context, it is clear they never were
|
|
arguing to prove an Alien Intelligence Theory, as Dawkins concedes is a
|
|
worthy avenue of Science They were evidently upset that the proof of
|
|
God's existence was being ignored. This is what convinced the judge in
|
|
Dover that ID had a religious agenda, and its teaching was a
|
|
surreptitious means to impose religious belief on children in violation
|
|
of the First Amendment.</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=936180">
|
|
</a>Hence, truly, if ID wants to be accepted
|
|
in Science, it must take Dawkins at his word and agree to his
|
|
appropriate limitations. If we solely opined about an alien
|
|
intelligence, then we are within Science. Any other kind of discussion
|
|
about G-d belongs in metaphysics or natural history courses, and not in
|
|
a Science classroom. </p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=936446">
|
|
</a>However, ID believes that by being vague
|
|
on what is the Intelligence that designed a particular phenomenon,
|
|
it cannot be accused of being religious. This is not true. Being vague
|
|
is what opens the door to the student to imagine Science can posit a
|
|
non-material conscious being as a cause (i.e., God), and that His
|
|
existence can be just as scientific as a theorem that assumes an alien
|
|
which evolved on another planet did so. Yet, science cannot be so
|
|
vague, and hope to be called Science. It must specify a materialist
|
|
origin for intelligence as its assumption or it has lost its scientific
|
|
bearings.</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=936208">
|
|
</a>Thus, now that the door has finally been
|
|
opened by the leading evolutionist -- Dawkins, we now can pass through
|
|
it in a responsible manner. We can still be good scientists even if our
|
|
faith is driving our desire to find intelligent design. We must restate
|
|
our position as seeking to prove an Alien Intelligence, not Intelligent
|
|
Design. In this process, we can develop scientific evidence that is
|
|
useful in a course on Metaphysics or Natural History to determine
|
|
whether this Alien Intelligence is personal, eternal, all-powerful,
|
|
etc., or the opposite. But to use Science in a Science classroom to
|
|
prove directly or indirectly (by vagueness) a being whose
|
|
causation/origin cannot ever be explained by Science is to misuse
|
|
Science. </p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=936209">
|
|
</a>Hence, in light of Dawkins' Alien
|
|
Intelligence Theory, we can see that the debate is not really about
|
|
design. All evolutionists know in their heart they are looking at
|
|
design in DNA. They can call it apparent design, a marvel of
|
|
trial-and-error, or whatever pleases them which keeps out the idea of
|
|
the G-word in science. But now that Dawkins has opened everyone's mind
|
|
to posit design as the product of consciousness of a material evolved
|
|
origin, we can now formulate a true theorem to explore the question. It
|
|
is no longer out of bounds. So what is the theorem that proves an Alien
|
|
Intelligence?</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<div>
|
|
<h2 class="Heading2">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=936347">
|
|
</a>
|
|
The Right Theorem to Prove Intelligent Causation</h2>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=936225">
|
|
</a>
|
|
One can prove relevant actual design by an Intelligence beyond this world in the ancient past by proof of an ingenious design. </p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=936221">
|
|
</a>Behe came close to suggesting the right
|
|
theorem of proof. He was trying to explain that the flagella of a
|
|
bacteria proves intelligent design. However, Behe came about this from
|
|
the premises of evolution. He thought the idea of simultaneous
|
|
evolution of multiple interworking parts begged credibility, and hence
|
|
it was intelligently designed. But this overlooked (or obscured) the
|
|
more important fact of the amazing design and engineering skill in the
|
|
various parts of the flagella. Demski and others like him focus on high
|
|
levels of improbability to prove intelligent design along with
|
|
specificity of information-rich biological entities. They believe it
|
|
can be mathematically quantified and determined.</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=936232">
|
|
</a>But the real proof of intelligent design
|
|
is, and always will be, ingenious design. No amount of statistics
|
|
or powers-of-trial-and-error can ever cross such a barrier. If we find
|
|
something that exists in nature which requires ingenuity to exist, then
|
|
we have ruled out it was the product of non-conscious processes, e.g.,
|
|
evolution. If it takes a Ph.D. to reverse engineer the irridiscence of
|
|
a butterfly, or it would take several Craig computers to fold a single
|
|
protein in a living cell in a trillion years (which your body does in
|
|
under a second for thousands of proteins), then we are talking about an
|
|
ingeniousness well beyond the power of trial-and-error.</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=936210">
|
|
</a>On the other hand, the evidence in this
|
|
book about ingenious design will no doubt provide information to help
|
|
answer in Metaphysics whether the designer is God or some Alien life
|
|
from another planet. But it is beyond the purpose of this book to
|
|
venture into such a metaphysical discussion. This book is all about
|
|
Science. </p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=936384">
|
|
</a>Indeed, this book intends to stay within
|
|
the classic definition of Science. It plans to take advantage of the
|
|
breakthrough that Dawkins' admission provides. We can now engage in a
|
|
constructive sensible scientific investigation into the quality of
|
|
design in the universe, life, etc. </p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<div>
|
|
<h2 class="Heading2">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=936388">
|
|
</a>
|
|
Disproofs of God Which Dawkins Offers Become Irrelevant</h2>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=936277">
|
|
</a>What this also means is that all of
|
|
Dawkins' disproofs of intelligent design based on imperfections in
|
|
nature fall away as irrelevant. What Dawkins was attacking was the
|
|
religious assumption that was unexpressed but always present in the
|
|
first intelligent design movement. Now, if we pass into the second
|
|
phase, as I suggest, which expressly divests itself from any religious
|
|
agendas and replaces them with solely scientific agendas, Dawkins'
|
|
comments become irrelevant. </p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=936392">
|
|
</a>Thus, if we make this transformation, it
|
|
becomes insignificant whether the Panda's thumb is, in Dawkins' view,
|
|
defective. In a Science classroom, we are not trying to determine
|
|
anything about the characteristics of the Intelligence on another world
|
|
that would answer whether it is or is not G-d as classically defined.
|
|
If the Panda's thumb is poorly designed, Dawkins is hoping to prove the
|
|
designer could not be G-d by classic definition. However, that debate
|
|
on the significance of the Panda's thumb belongs outside Science. It
|
|
involves the metaphysical question on the nature of the designer. What
|
|
we want to know in Science on this topic is whether there are parts of
|
|
the Panda that require an ingenious designer, i.e., there are
|
|
parts which could not conceivably be the product of trial-and-error. </p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=936355">
|
|
</a>Hence, our response to Dawkins must now
|
|
be wiser in the transformation I propose. We will not take the bait of
|
|
Dawkins' argument any longer. Instead, we will recognize his arguments
|
|
about the Panda's thumb belong in the Metaphysics classroom. In that
|
|
classroom, we will devise objective theorems on how to prove whether
|
|
this alien intelligence which can now be proven and recognized in
|
|
Science fits or does not fit the classic qualities of G-d. Any alleged
|
|
imperfection of some designs in nature belongs to metaphysics. Science
|
|
only cares whether certain designs match the level of what we call
|
|
ingenious, and hence are the hand of an Intelligence not of this world.</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<div>
|
|
<h1 class="Heading1">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=936283">
|
|
</a>
|
|
<div>
|
|
<img src="CreatedbyIngeniousDesign-1.gif">
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of Miracles and Other Quotes On the Defiance of Physics</h1>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=936361">
|
|
</a>One of the dead giveaways that
|
|
Intelligent Design had a religious agenda was how it accepted
|
|
evolutionists' leaps into pro-G-d statements. For example, Crick says
|
|
that given the extraordinary improbabilities of an evolutionary origin
|
|
of the DNA code and life itself, it almost appears life is a "miracle."
|
|
The ID person quotes Crick and then leaves it there. The ID person
|
|
wants the reader to think G-d did it. Crick's words are treated as a
|
|
glorious admission. Then the ID writer exploits the quote to its
|
|
height. However, the use of the quote thereby crosses the boundaries of
|
|
Science into Metaphysics.</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=936291">
|
|
</a>
|
|
What do we do with such quotes in a revised ID movement that focuses on proof of Ingenious Design by an Alien Intelligence?</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=936295">
|
|
</a>We must confess in such a quote that a
|
|
metaphysical aspect is inter-twined with a scientific aspect. We draw
|
|
out the science, and post-pone the metaphysical. We scrupulously remind
|
|
our reader that the objective here is to prove whether an alien
|
|
intelligence which evolved in some other part of existence consciously
|
|
designed the natural phenomenon at issue. That's Science. We must
|
|
address quotes such as the one from Crick carefully. We must tell the
|
|
reader that the quote means a discovery of ingenious design is under
|
|
discussion.</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=936398">
|
|
</a>What Crick did was make a leap in logic,
|
|
and call it a miracle which in popular connotation means a divine being
|
|
did it. This was before Dawkins gave anyone a scientific way to speak
|
|
about such phenomena. What Crick is recognizing is that life represents
|
|
an amazing set of improbabilities and it appears virtually self-evident
|
|
that it was a miracle, but whether such a marvel of engineering and
|
|
encoding implies a divinity should no longer be the point of our
|
|
quotation. </p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=936402">
|
|
</a>Instead, to be scrupulous, we must tell
|
|
the reader that there is no basis in Science as defined to leap to the
|
|
conclusion that because it was a miracle in one sense that we should
|
|
say science is studying God's miracles. Only metaphysics can posit such
|
|
a being's existence as classically defined, and hope to prove his
|
|
existence by appropriate theorems. The quote from Crick is still
|
|
useful, but we must keep the discussion to purely scientific questions.
|
|
The caveats must be given each time so that the discussion is
|
|
maintained as rigidly scientific.</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=936299">
|
|
</a>This transformation of the Intelligent
|
|
Design movement into a movement called Ingenious Design by an Alien
|
|
Intelligence (IDAI) movement must be honest. When I discuss this with
|
|
Christians, they hesitate. They do not want to engage in the discussion
|
|
if it means talking about an alien intelligence. But this is only due
|
|
to religious presupposition. They only want to discuss and prove a
|
|
personal G-d. But this new definition of the endeavor based on Dawkins'
|
|
admission troubles that agenda. The Judge in the Dover case was right. </p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=936410">
|
|
</a>However, we as a community of Christians
|
|
can only prove the judge wrong by changing our Scientific agenda into a
|
|
purely Scientific Agenda, and then by placing our secondary agenda
|
|
inside of a Metaphysics or Natural History classroom. </p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=936366">
|
|
</a>Once that transformation is made,
|
|
Ingenious Design can enter the classroom as a scientific discussion. I
|
|
share as much hope that this will lead to a metaphysical discussion of
|
|
whether such intelligence is divine or not. But I cannot let my biases
|
|
influence what I define as Science. If I do so, I am merely trying to
|
|
take what is a Metaphysical discussion and label it as Science so I can
|
|
elevate the credibility of my belief in G-d. But if I truly respect
|
|
G-d, I must approach the proof using proper stages of argument.</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<div>
|
|
<h2 class="Heading2">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=936422">
|
|
</a>
|
|
This Means We Are Taking Chances</h2>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=936325">
|
|
</a>One of the other reasons we do not want
|
|
to do this is because there is a risk in such an endeavor. It may turn
|
|
out that in Metaphysics that the theorems will prove an Intelligence
|
|
unlike what we presuppose matches the classical definition of G-d. At
|
|
this point, I don't know. Science that proves Ingenious Design in this
|
|
book has not yet given me the answer. None of us have yet
|
|
systematically studied the evidence for Ingenious Design in the context
|
|
of metaphysical theorems. Thus, we don't know yet what kind of designer
|
|
such analysis will prove. </p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=936370">
|
|
</a>Of course, I am excited and hopeful that
|
|
the scientific evidence of ingenious design will prove what I imagine
|
|
is the classical definition of G-d. But there is a risk that it will
|
|
not prove that, and I will be disappointed. </p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=936440">
|
|
</a>Yet, regardless, not knowing how this
|
|
will end does not mean I should not make a beginning. In this book, I
|
|
will endeavor to provide the proof that Metaphysics will likely utilize
|
|
later to assess the meaning of the proofs of Ingenious Designs from
|
|
nature. They do tell alot. We will see the driving ideas behind certain
|
|
patterns in natural history which will later no doubt be useful in
|
|
determining what kind of Intelligence made this universe and life. </p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<div>
|
|
<h1 class="Heading1">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=936475">
|
|
</a>
|
|
<div>
|
|
<img src="CreatedbyIngeniousDesign-1.gif">
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Concluding Remarks</h1>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
|
|
<a name="pgfId=936329">
|
|
</a>Thus, if you love Science, I trust you
|
|
will love this book. If you love God, this book can raise your hopes
|
|
that God's existence and His claims on our life will be accepted by
|
|
everyone once Metaphysical theorems are applied to this evidence. I
|
|
cannot promise this is the outcome. Proof for the existence of G-d is
|
|
not the purpose of this book. But it may just turn out by dividing the
|
|
stages in argument as rigidly as I have done, we will finally break the
|
|
log-jam, and thus allow people to come to faith through science in
|
|
stage two. In that stage, we will examine the same scientific facts
|
|
using Metaphysical or Natural History analysis to prove the nature of
|
|
the ingenious designer. Hence, I pray this book will richly bless each
|
|
one of you, regardless of your current faith or non-faith. Indeed, the
|
|
marvels of nature are truly more marvelous than any puny effort of man.</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<hr>
|
|
<div class="footnotes">
|
|
<div class="footnote">
|
|
<p class="Footnote">
|
|
<span class="footnoteNumber">
|
|
1.</span>
|
|
<a name="pgfId=936127">
|
|
</a>See
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNu8F01BD9k&feature=related (Richard
|
|
Dawkins on "Fresh Air," WHYY on March 28, 2007.) You can listen to the
|
|
full program at www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyld=9180871.</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="footnote">
|
|
<p class="Footnote">
|
|
<span class="footnoteNumber">
|
|
2.</span>
|
|
<a name="pgfId=936091">
|
|
</a> Jonathan Wells, "Is the "Science" of
|
|
Richard Dawkins Science Fiction?, (Discovery Institute, April 21,
|
|
2008), at http://www.discovery.org/a/4809 (accessed 6/14/08).</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
|
|
</body>
|
|
</html>
|