Science depends on two axioms, the
naturalistic axiom and the observable axiom. Axioms are assumptions. They are supposed to
be self evident, but in many cases they are not. Axioms cannot be proven. They are
accepted on faith. Unfortunately, neither of the axioms on which science is based are self
evident to everyone. Nevertheless, science needs these axioms to function properly. The
naturalistic axiom allows science to assume that everything can be explained with math,
physics, and chemistry. The observable axiom states that man is capable of formulating
laws and theories that describe nature from his observations and experiments. Today,
the problems associated with chemical evolution, the origin of life, and the evolution of
the first genes and proteins have backed science into a corner, and science has no way to
cope with these issues. The naturalistic axiom does not allow for the possibility of
design, and the observable axiom suggests that science should be able to find solutions to
these mysteries.
The previous chapters suggest that the naturalistic axiom
is not valid. This chapter will consider the alternative. That is suppose that the
observable axiom is not valid. The implications open the door to an endless number of
possible solutions. Once the observable axiom is dismissed, all scientific theories and
laws are immediately called into question, and science cannot be sure of anything. Without
the observable axiom, science becomes a useless academic exercise.
Science without the Observable Axiom
Many solutions to chemical evolution and the origin of life exist. The observable axiom
does not allow science to consider these possibilities. But without the axiom, they must
be considered.
• Man’s observations may influence the results. That is chemicals may combine
and form life in small puddles quite easily as long as nobody observes the process. If
this is true, then the experiments conducted over the past 100 years are no longer
relevant. That is spontaneous generation is quite common, but it only happens when
scientists are not around.
• Perhaps, there are an infinite number of stars, and astronomers cannot see them.
Maybe they are too far away. Maybe they exist in a parallel universe. Infinity has many
nice properties that solve the problems associated with both chemical evolution and the
origin of life. No matter how poor the odds, with an infinite number of tries, the
solution will always be found.
• Perhaps, the world and the universe are artificially created
programs running inside a powerful computer; as a result, every individual is just a
computer program. The problems associated with evolution are merely computer program
errors.
• Perhaps, matter and energy have some vital force that man cannot observe. This
force causes matter to organize into life. The list of possible solutions is only limited
by the reader’s imagination. While only four solutions are listed above, the number
of solutions is endless. Not everyone will agree, but this author feels that the
observable axiom is self evident, and as such, the possibilities listed above do not
deserve serious consideration.
A consequence of the Observable Axiom ->
Intelligent Design
If the observable axiom is true, then the nature of how the designer
created life is open to observation, and several key concepts can easily be formulated
from the scientific evidence. These concepts are inferred from the scientific evidence and
serve as a foundation for the Intelligent Design movement.
• The designer was most active 3.5 billion years ago. The origin of life
required quite a bit of help to get off the ground because many critical genes seem to be
coincident with the origin of life, and the necessary biological molecules are not
produced in abundance by nature.
• Once the first living cell was created, the designer seemed to allow bacteria to
create variation and optimize new genes and proteins through the naturalistic process of
evolution. This process continued for 3 billion years, and it relied heavily on the large
populations and fast reproductive cycles of bacteria. Many new genes unrelated to previous
genes may have been created by the designer during this time.
• Five hundred billions ago, it appears that the designer probably stepped in again
and created most of the major biological phyla during the Cambrian explosion.
• It is very difficult to observe the influence of the designer in higher animals and
plants because the processes are path dependent and not easily described by information
theory. It is chemical evolution and the subsequent origin of life that make the
design inference so compelling. Design arguments concerning higher life may be
valid, but they are much harder to justify.
The figure below helps illustrate the difference between intelligent design and science.
This figure starts with the observation that life exists. Science assumes that life
evolved without the help of a designer, and then sets about describing how this might
happen. If it fails to find an adequate description, then the assumption that life evolved
without the help of a designer is not disproved. Instead, science just keeps looking for a
solution. Because intelligent design is not constrained by the naturalistic axiom, the
failure of science to find a plausible solution disproves the initial assumption
that life evolved by purely naturalistic means. The time that science has to find a
solution is key here. Science has had roughly 150 years (since Darwin) and 50+ years since
Miller to find a solution to the mystery of life's origin. Every year that
passes with no solution strengthens the design inference.
Home: Theory
of Evolution
|
