If you enjoy reading this web site please consider buying the book. Search results on amazon are largely determined by book popularity. Popular books return near the top and unpopular books are hard to find. I would like to see more people buy my book so that when someone looking for an intelligent design book performs a search on amazon’s web site for intelligent design, my book is at least returned in the search results. Click on the cover below to visit my book’s page on amazon’s web site.

These have nothing to do with evolution or intelligent design. I just wanted to post these pictures -
one is a yellow frog fish I saw in North Sulawesi at 100 feet the other I saw at
lembeh strait.

So far all of the underwater pictures on this web site have come from the Galapagos. But the
whale sharks I saw last weekend in Belize need to be posted, so I gave them their own page.

whale sharks

When it comes to evolution or creation, most people are confident that what they believe is correct, but they have no idea why they believe what they do. Even die-hard supporters show their ignorance on this topic when they challenge each other to debates. The very idea that a creation scientist can debate an evolutionist or that an advocate for intelligent design can debate an evolutionist is absurd. The reason is not as some might suppose that evolution is a proven fact. But rather that all three disciplines make different assumptions before evaluating the scientific evidence. The evidence is the same, but how one interprets it depends entirely on what one assumes is true. Thus, even science is based on faith.

Creation Science and Young Earth Creationism:

Many people believe that the earth was created by God 6,000 years ago, in 6 days. This group of people known as young earth creationists believe that the creation story in the Bible is scientifically accurate. This is an assumption and for the young earth creationist, this assumption is a self evident truth or axiom. No scientific evidence can disprove the young earth axiom, because young earth creationists believe that the scientific evidence should be interpreted using the young earth axiom. This process gives rise to creation science. Creation scientists often interpret the evidence differently than scientists. They assume that the earth was created 6000 years ago and then set about to show that the scientific evidence shows that their assumption is correct.

To summarize: young earth creationism is an axiom. That is it is a self evident truth held by many that the earth was created 6000 years ago. Creation science is a discipline that interprets scientific evidence using the young earth axiom for guidance.

Evolution and Atheism:

Atheists believe that God does not exist. While many scientists believe in God, science itself must assume that He does not exist. Science is based on two axioms: 1) The observable axiom - scientists can accurately observe the universe and everything in it. 2) The naturalistic axiom - everything that happens, has happened and will happen can be described by naturalistic processes. In other words, no help from any supernatural entity like God is required. Science cannot function properly without these two assumptions. For example, suppose a scientist conducts an experiment where he measures how much salt will dissolve in a glass of water. Does the amount of salt depend on God’s mood at the time of the experiment or does it depend on the chemical properties of water and salt? For science to work and be effective, it must assume that the latter explanation is always correct. Thus, science assumes that the atheists are correct. And this assumption is not by choice but rather by necessity. Without this assumption science just does not work.

Most of the time, this naturalistic assumption does not create controversy. That is if the chemistry of water and salt determine how much salt dissolves in water, everyone is happy. This finding does not go against anyone’s religion. So we don’t have any controversy and science works as it should.

But what about evolution and more specifically the origin of life. When science starts to investigate these events, it can and does create controversy. In this case, science is applying the philosophy of atheism to investigate events that most believe can be attributed to God’s handiwork or will. Now we have controversy. And interestingly enough, it is this controversy that forces science to fail. Because of the attention, scientists are no longer allowed to say “we don’t know.” Instead, they often promote a hypothesis with no experimental support to the status of theory (for example, self replicating RNA molecules). And they claim they know how things happened when in reality they don’t have a clue.

Furthermore, many things are just assumed true. For example, science assumes that evolution is true. This assumption arises directly from the naturalistic axiom. So when Darwin proposed his theory, science did not have to test it. Instead it just set about trying to prove it correct.

People often give science more credit than it deserves. The way scientists interpret evidence all relies on two assumptions. So the ability of science to accurately describe any event depends entirely on these two assumptions. One could say it is science’s faith in atheism that allowed it to readily accept evolution and promote Darwin’s theory to the status of proven fact. One could also say, that if God exists, science cannot find Him.

Intelligent Design and Theistic Evolution:

Theistic evolution is the idea that God used evolution as a tool to guide creation. That is the creation story in the Bible is not scientifically accurate. The earth is very old and many different animals and plants have evolved over the earth’s history. This evolution is the result of God’s guidance. There is a continuum of beliefs in the Christian church between young earth creationism and theistic evolution.

Intelligent design can test theistic evolution. If one assumes that God uses evolution as a tool, then we ought to be able to analyze the scientific evidence and find out which things God did and which things just happened by evolution. The criteria is as follows: events that have a reasonable chance of happening in 5 billion years are assigned to evolution, and those that have no chance are assigned to the work of the designer -> hence intelligent design. This is why intelligent design relies so heavily on statistics, probability theory, computer simulations and molecular biology. To a casual observer it looks like science. It is important to remember that intelligent design is not science. It cannot be science because science assumes that the designer does not exist.

Intelligent design differs from both creation science and science in a very important way. Intelligent design does not assume that the axiom on which it rests (theistic evolution) is correct. By using probability theory to calculate the odds of something happening, intelligent design theory can either infer design and no design. Thus, unlike evolution and creation science, intelligent design can be disproven. In other words, if the scientific evidence does not suggest a designer was required to create life, then intelligent design will not infer one. Thus, in my opinion, intelligent design offers a better way to investigate origin of life theories.

Intelligent design seems to get no respect these days. Universities fire or deny tenure to professors who support intelligent design. College and high school biology text books gloss over the scientific problems associated with the origin of life as trivial, because the publishers can not risk being labeled as creationists. The news media equates intelligent design to young earth creationism. US courts have ruled that intelligent design is not science. So is intelligent design dead? Has Darwin won?

This censorship, misinformation and discrimination arises because most people fail to understand the difference between intelligent design and science. The following definitions may help.

Definition of Science: science is the methodology that mankind uses to explore and describe the universe and everything in it. This methodolgy is based on two assumptions: 1) scientists can accurately observe nature (the observable axiom) and 2) everything that happens, will happen, or has happened can be explained without invoking the supernatural (the naturalistic axiom).

In other words, science assumes that God does not exist and then sets about to prove this assumption. Take evolution for example. Shortly after Darwin, science assumed that evolution happened and then set about to prove how it happened. The naturalistic axiom does no allow science to ask if it can happen or why did it happen? Science cannot ask these questions because science assumes that God does not exist.
Thus, science is limited.

Definition of Intelligent Design: intelligent design is a methodology that some scientists use to explore and describe the universe and everything in it. This methodolgy is based on one assumption: 1) scientists can accurately observe nature (the observable axiom).

Because intelligent design does not assume that God does not exists, it is not science. Intelligent design has more flexibility than science in that it can ask questions that science cannot. Take the origin of life for example. Intelligent design can look at science’s inability to explain this event as evidence supporting the existence of a designer. Scientists who use the intelligent design methodology have and continue to identify problems associated with the origin of life that evolution cannot explain and will likely never explain.

So which is better science or intelligent design? This depends on who is deciding. Many scientists are perfectly happy assuming that God does not exists, so they prefer science to intelligent design. These scientists are not upset by the fact that college textbooks say that life began in the primordial soup as a self replicating RNA molecule when the primary scientific literature (articles in journals like Science, Nature, and the Journal of Molecular Evolution) contradict this scenario. These scientists are not interested in the truth.

Others do care about the truth. These scientists want to understand the universe and everything in it. If God had some part to play in creation, then these scientists would rather not assign His part to the role of some yet unidentified and mysterious naturalistic process. It concerns these scientists that college and high school biology text books are not allowed to present the many unsolved issues with the origin of life that are so plentiful in the primary scientific literature. Most of these scientists do not voice their concerns because if they do, evolutionists will label them creationists. They will then be denied tenure, their papers will not get published, they might be fired and their research grants will probably be denied.

This academic censorship is well documented on other web sites, and for the most part I think it is working. So Darwin wins by intimidation and fear. The darwinian fundamentalists are squashing free speech and free thoughts to assert their world view. And the tragedy here is that these fundamentalists do not even understand that their unwavering believe in evolution is based on nothing more than their faith in the naturalistic axiom.

When I really like some place I visit a lot. I just got back from my third trip to the Galapagos in a little over a year. The best pictures from this trip are a batfish, sea horses and penguins. I also did the day trip to Bartolome this time and spent a few days on the mainland exporing puerto lopez diving and the nightlife in Montanita.

I am going to allow comments on this article so people can add their experiences or questions about the Galapagos here. No comments or questions about intelligent design or evolution will be accepted. To be posted, comments must be related to Galapagos travel or trips reports etc.

Galapagos sea horses at cousins rock

A batfish found at Floreana, A Southern Galapagos island

View from Bartolome, top of the hiking trail

Galapagos Penguins

One more seahorse

I just got back from my second trip to the Galapagos Islands. I have updated the video page with the best videos from this trip. The best is a sea lion fishing for pompano. The second best is a school of 7 hammer heads with 2 spotted eagle rays. I also took a video of a what I think is pregnant white tip shark and an octopus. Because the visibilty was often poor, I concentrated on videos this time rather than photos. Neverthless, I did take several hundred photos and we be updating the slideshow to include these pictures shortly.

The link to the video page is here -

Galapagos Video Clips

Science is based on two axioms - the naturalistic and the observable. Both axioms are defined in the figure. Intelligent design interprets science without relying on the naturalistic axiom - so it is less biased. This is best illustrated by considering the origin of life. Science assumes that energy sources and evolution are responsible and sets about to prove its assumption. This is why text books put forth theories like electrostatic discharges created self replicating molecules that evolved into man with the help of natural selection (see figure below). Intelligent design can look at the same evidence and conclude that the evidence does not support the above hypothesis. Because intelligent design makes 1 less assumption than science, it has more freedom.

Intelligent design can not prove that God exists. But knowing that science does not explain the origin of life may help some to conclude that He does. Thus, intelligent design is a bridge between science and religion. Intelligent design cannot determine which religion is correct. It cannot even prove that a designer exists. All ID theory can do is interpret the scientific evidence with less bias than science. Science is very limited by its axioms. Intelligent design theory enjoys much more freedom.

Click on Image to Enlarge -

I am headed back to the Galapagos this fall. In the meantime, I put some higher quality video clips here.

Galapagos Videos

The whale shark and the sea lions are the best.

This cartoon shows the flying spaghetti monster (FSM) with his noodles caught in several of Behe’s mousetraps - the idea being that even the great FSM cannot escape from intelligent design and its implications. (In his book, Michael Behe uses a mousetrap to represent a system that cannot work properly without all of its parts, and thus it offers no selective advantage until it is mostly complete. He then makes an analogy to life, which shares many of the same constraints).

Intelligent design can be used to build a bridge between science and religion. But because intelligent design cannot determine which religion is correct, critics have introduced the flying spaghetti monster parody. Intelligent design would perhaps be better served by not letting the question of the designer’s nature unanswered. The fsm did not create anything. Intelligent design implies that Christians are correct when they assert that God created life.

Unfortunately, it is a no win situation. If intelligent design advocates infer design and then conclude that God created life, critics will say that their logic is driven by religion and thus all of their conclusions are flawed. If instead the movement decides not to make such a jump, critics will create fictitious creatures like the flying spaghetti monster and start a mock church to worship him.

This link will hopefully get you to the right page:

Intelligent Design or Evolution? Why the Origin of Life…

Since the ARN price includes shipping, it is very competetive if not cheaper than Amazon.com. ARN has a large selection of intelligent design books listed on their products page. So if my book is too technical try another one. Behe’s book: Darwin’s Black Box is a good place to start.

I have posted a new page on the web site

RNA World and the Origin of Life

The idea behind this new page is that any self replicating RNA molecule that cannot also synthesize activated nucleotides (like ATP or IMPA) will only be able to replicate in a test tube with the help of researchers who supply these nucleotides.

This leads to the conclusion that simple self replicating RNA molecules do not exist and that the RNA world hypothesis should instead be called the myth of the RNA world because it did not exist, and it does not help explain any of the mysteries surrounding the origin of life.

I have updated the website so that each page of the book in chapters 1 -15 have a random picture from the galapagos generated at the bottom of the page. Approximately 235 pictures from the galapagos are now available. These include several from the Charles Darwin Research center, some from tortuga bay, a few of santa cruz and the surrounding islands, and many of sea lions, sharks, and rays. Even a picture of Darwin’s blue arch is available ( thats him in the center).

first page of Intelligent Design or Evolution? with galapagos pictures at bottom

Pictures are generated by javascript, so if you do not see them, enable javascript in your browser.

And for the extremely lazy who just want to see pictures and not read the site:

galapagos slide show

I have run out of things to say about intelligent design so I am going to change subjects and talk about another technique that complements intelligent design.

Once one infers design, logically one then must make another choice - which religion. There are certainly plenty of choices. Is the church of the flying spaghetti monster (or moster for those who cannot spell) really the right one? I don’t think so. There is historical evidence that suggests that Christianity is the right choice.

There are many techniques used by scholars and editors to evaluate the authenticity, accuracy, and reliability of any written document that decribes an event that supposedly happened. These include but are not limited to things like: 1) did the author actually observe the event 2) if not, how does the author know about the event 3) did the author stand to gain (financially or otherwise) from his writtings. If so, what was his motivation. 4) if the author quotes information from another earlier source, does the style of the quoted text differ from that of the authors. 5) Do documents written by other authors also exist. If so, is their description of the event consistent? 6) Most importantly, did the author or authors write their description of the event down in a timely fashion. For historical documents written by authors who lived hundreds or thousands of years agos, this last point is extremely important, because stories that are passed on verbally by oral tradition for many years tend to become exagerated and eventually become nothing more than legends. 7) Once the document is written, is it faithfully reproduced accurately?

The New Testament was not written in a timely fashion ( Paul’s letters were written ~25 years after the ressurection, and the Gospels even later). This has led many critics to suggest that the miracles performed by Jesus were simply a legend. The same people claim that the ressurection did not happen or was somehow faked by His followers.

25 years is a long time. But one thing we do have are the very early creeds, short statements of faith that outline important facts and are composed in such a way so that they are easy to remember. Paul relates such a creed in Corinthians 15:3ff.

For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to five hundered brothers and sisters all at one time……. - NRSV

The statement: “For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received” identifies this as a creed. Paul is passing on knowledge that others passed on to him. Historically this is perhaps the most important part of the Bible because this creed does so well when it is analyzed using the criteria outlined above.

That this confession is an early Christian, pre-Pauline creed is recognized by virtually all critical scholars across a very wide theological spectrum. - The Historical Jesus, Habermas

In other words, the creed dates back to a time before Paul’s conversion to christianity a couple of years after the ressurection. It is so short that it would have been preserved by oral tradition fairly easily - even I can remember it.

Ideally, we would like to have first hand witnesses. This creed does not meet this criteria. Nevertheless, this creed is so historically compelling because Paul learned about it within a few years of the resurrection and he likely received it directly from first hand witnesses - Peter (Cephas) and James ( Gal. 1:18-1:19). As mentioned earlier, 1 Corrinthians was probably written 25 years after the resurection, so Paul’s letters were not written in a timely fashion. Nevertheless, the early Christian church formulated this creed soon after the resurrection. Because it is short, easy to remember and so central to Christian beliefs, it is had to see how oral tradition would not preserve it for 25 years, and once Paul recorded it in his letter, its preservation into modern times would be all but assured.

As Habermas puts it:

The importance of the creed in 1 corinthians 15:3ff. can hardly be overestimated. No longer can it be charged that there is no demonstratable early, eyewitness testimony for the resurrection or for the other most important tenets of Christianity, for this creed provides just such evidential data concerning the facts of the gospel, which are the very center of Christian faith. It links the events themselves with those who actually participated in time and space. As such the creed yields strong factual basis for Christianity through the early and eyewitness reports of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, …

-The Historical Jesus

Given the above, the only way out for non-belivers is to suggest that the disciples stole Jesus’ body from his tomb and then made up the ressurection story. And as to this criticism one must ask what would they gain by doing this other than persecution and certain death. Even if they could not predict the hostility, once they experienced it, they did not change their story. Paul was thrown into prison and eventually executed. Paul certainly must have believed in what he wrote.

So no matter what members of the church of the flying spaghetti monster may claim, they are just simply wrong. While they claim to be mocking intelligent design, they are really making fun of Christianity. Their open letter reveals their intent when they claim to have many ancient texts that support their beliefs. While it is true that the ressurections happened a long time ago, Paul’s letter acurrately reflects his and the disciples’ beliefs. They were there, we were not. So while the letter is ancient, there is no reason to questions its content.

In closing, life can not be explained by a flying being made out of pasta anymore than global warming can be explained by the alarming decrease in pirates over the last two centuries.

church of the flying spaghetti monster

This web site now has something that you can not get by reading Darwin’s The Origin of the Species - > pictures and even a movie or two. I just got back from a two week trip to the Galapagos Islands and have several hundred pictures of the wildlife from santa cruz island (including the Darwin research center) , floreana, gorden rocks, daphne, cousins and seymore. Most of these are of underwater marine life including several of a 40 foot whale shark. The marine life around the galapagos is much more impressive that anywhere else I have dived. On every dive I encoutered sea lions, sharks, and eagle/golden rays. And on most dives I saw at least one manta ray. Unlike the carribbean, the water teams with thousands of fish. I am not going to post all of the pictures, but some of the best can be found by following the links below.

Darwin Research Center

whale shark

manta ray

galapagos turtle

galapagos sea lion

galapagos shark

Darwin’s origin of the species discusses the diversity of the finches on the galapagos in great detail. While these birds are everywhere around santa cruz, they are small, timid and while diverse not very impressive. I found the marine life much more interesting.

Darwin’s finches on path to tortuga bay, Galapagos

Darwin’s finch in trees at Darwin’s Station

While Darwin’s finches are most unimpressive, the same is not true of the blue footed booby. This is a cool looking bird. I never saw one underwater, but they dive into the water to catch fish.

the galapagos blue footed booby

The following movies require a movie player like quicktime or windows media player to be installed and working. I have not been able to get windows media player to work with these but that is just typical microsoft. Firefox + quicktime works. The made the first two movies small by editing out frames so everyone can watch. The others require high speed internet.

whale shark movie

Galapagos hammer head shark

The next 2 movies are very large so right click on the link and save these files to your desktop (save link as). Then left click on the file icon on your desktop to play with you favorite move player - quicktime, media player or real player will work. It is possible to left click on these links on my web site and see the movie after a download delay (2 minutes with high speed internet, hours with dial up) - the transfer rate is too slow to get a good movie with this method.

Galapagos sea lion (4.4mb)

This sea lion was trying to show us divers how to swim. I did not edit out frames as I did in the other movies so this will not play correctly even with high speed internet. I reccommend downloading it or playing it twice, as at least on my computer if I play it once, it plays normal the second time through.

If this does not work, I have made a few pdf files of the sea lion in the video:

galapagos sea lion
sea lion shot 2
sea lion shot 3

high speed required for the following movie (caution 10meg file download before playing)

millions of fish in the galapagos

It just is not like this anywhere else in the ocean. Charles Darwin missed a lot by not going for a swim.

Theistic evolution suggests that God used evolution as a tool to create life. It differs from intelligent design in that it does not look for any evidence to support this position, but rather it assumes that it is true. Several advocates of theistic evolution have claimed that this paradigm fully resolves the conflicts between science and religion. Surprisingly, several scientists have agreed. On the surface, this claim appears true. But if one digs a little deeper, then we find that nothing could be further from the truth.

Theistic evolution is based on 2 axioms: 1) the God of the Bible exists 2) man can observe the world around him accurately, conduct experiments, propose theories and develop laws to describe these observations. This assumption is called the observable axiom.

Science is based on two axioms: 1) the observable axiom 2) the naturalistic axiom. The naturalistic axiom states that all events have a naturalistic explanation. That is everything can be explained by physics, math, chemistry and biology. As a corollary of the naturalistic axiom, it follows that God (if He exists) never does anything that we can observe either directly or indirectly. It also follows that God is not required because science will eventually explain both the origin of life and the universe. So while the naturalistic axiom is not so bold as to just say that God does not exist, it does make both Him redundant and unnecessary.

Evolution is a subset of science. It relies on the same axioms. As the next article will show, evolution enabled science to adopt the naturalistic axiom in the first place. Before Darwin, science only relied on the observable axiom.

To summarize: the naturalistic axiom is the assumption that denies the existence of God. Science relies heavily on this axiom. Evolution is a subset of science, and thus it too relies on this axiom. Theistic evolution just like intelligent design is not compatible with science. Both intelligent design and theistic evolution support the idea that God used evolution as a tool to create life, but only intelligent design offers evidence to support this claim.

Science requires the naturalistic axiom to function (see next article). Nevertheless, most scientists are not athiests. This is possible because most leave the naturalistic axiom at work. They use the axiom as a tool to guide their research, to interpret results from experiments, to direct their lectures, and to influence their converstation and correspondence with other scientists. So while the naturalistic axiom is a necessary part of their job, they leave it at work and do not allow it to influence their personal beliefs.

This article will explore how Darwin’s theory of evolution has changed science. Evolution enabled scientists to adopt the naturalistic axiom. The best way to understand the change is to study the writings of scientists before Darwin. This article will focus on one of the greatest minds in scientific history, Sir Isaac Newton.

Newton’s accomplishments are too numerous to list here. But suffice it to say that he did a lot more than observe an apple falling from a tree. He developed laws to describe gravity as well as the laws that govern all non-relativistic motion, and by the way, he also co-invented calculus. His scientific accomplishments are probably second only to Einstein.

Newton also had a habit of mixing theology and science. This practice would be totally unacceptable today. Science does not allow this today. But Newton lived in the 17th century. And in his day science did not rely on or even recognize the naturalistic axiom. Back then rather than assume that everything had a naturalistic explantion they had to prove it. As we will see, this is both good and bad.

two examples from Newton’s writtings:

Newton wrote in an unpublished manuscript referred to by its opening words De Gravitatione, that an “infinite and divine power” occupies all space and “extends to infinity in all directions.” [When]Descartes claimed that where there is no matter, there is no space; on the contrary, said Newton, where there is not matter spirit alone endows space with extension. To say that space does not exist where there is no matter, denies the presence of spirit, and hence the presence of God in the universe.

- p56 Cosmology by Edward Harrison, Cambridge, 2003.

In a letter Newton wrote to Bentley, Newton agrees that gravity does not cause the universe to collapse because matter has been precisely placed ( by an intelligent agent) in such a way that all gravitational forces cancel to zero.

You argue that every particle of matter in an infinite space has an infinite quantity of matter on all sides and by consequence an infinite attraction everyway and therefore must rest in equilibrio because all infinities are equal………….And much harder is it to believe that all particle in an infinite space should be so accurately poised one among another. For I reckon that it hard to make not one needle but an infinite number of them ( so many as there are infinite particle in an infinite space) stand accurately poised upon their points. Yet, I grant it possible at least by a divine power; and if they once so placed I agree with you that they would continue in that position without motion forever, unless put into motion by that same power……………..So then gravity may put the planets into motion but without the divine power it could never put them into such a circulating motion as they have about the sun; and therefore, for this as well as other reasons, I am compelled to ascribe the frame of the system to an intelligent agent.”

- second letter to Bentley, feb 25 1693.

In the above letter, Newton makes use of the design inference! Most interesting. Are we to infer that he was a lousy scientist? Should we rename the unit of gravity after somebody else and credit his laws of motion to my dogs? I think not.

This second quote illustrates why science needs the naturalistic axiom. Because Newton did not rely on the naturalistic axion, Newton was never able to explain why gravity does not cause the universe to collapse. Instead he believed that God placed all matter precisely where it needed to be so that all gravitational forces on large objects like the sun cancel to zero. This conclussion prevented him from futher scientific inquiry. Science needs the naturalistic axiom. It does not function well without it - because great scientists like Newton stop looking for answers.

Nevertheless, just because science needs this particular axiom, does not mean that it is true. It is just an assumption, and it is not even a self-evident assumption. This is the downside and it is a big one. If a designer exists, science can not find him. Newton could and did find evidence for design in his observations. Modern scientists are not allowed to do this. If they make use of the design inference, and they are professors at a secular university they will be fired.

Newton’s design inference turned out to be wrong because gravity does not really cancel at all points in space to zero as Netwon and Bentley assumed. Furthermore, Doppler red shifts have shown that the universe is not static but expanding at an incredible rate. The cosmic background radiation all but proves the idea that the universe started 10 to 20 billions years ago with an explosion that created both time and space. So does Newton’s erroneous inference suggest that all current design theories will eventually suffer the same fate? Not really. Newton made this inference very quickly. He did not search for other answers, but more importantly he did not allow other scientists time to explore the question. Thus, from the start, his inference was very weak especially since he had no empirical evidence to suggest that gravity cancels to zero everywhere. Today, when a case for design is made based on the improbable origin of life, we can rest assured that tens of thousands of scientists have pondered this question for over a century, and that further, the solution to this important puzzle becomes more mysterious with each scientific discovery and experiment. Thus, the design inferences being made today are much more resilent than Newton’s.

Science must continue to use the naturalistic axiom, and let other disciplines like intelligent design propose the alternatives. The purpose of intelligent design is not so much to prove that a designer exists (this will always require faith), but rather to show that some conclusions drawn by scientists today may not be correct because these conclusions (especially those that deal with the origin of life and the evolution of the first genes and proteins) rely heavily on an assumption that is not self-evident and is most likely false. By creating a system for checks and balances, intelligent design and science complement each other well.

I had to turn off comments today because a spammer choose to attack this blog. This is not something I am willing to police so no more comments will be allowed.

Update: Unlike evolutionists who only want their world views told, taught and preached, I have decided that it is worth while to have both sides of the story and worth the risk of spam. So I have installed a ton of antispam software, and turned comments back on for all articles on this page. If you want to comment you need to register, the link to do this can be found in the upper right hand corner of the this page (in the grey toolbar). Once you comment you should see it posted - but nobody else will see it until I approve it. If it is not spam I will most likely approve it.

Intelligent design cannot prove beyond any doubt that God exists. Ironically, this doubt does not stem from biology, chemistry, physics or even mathematics. The uncertainty is due to man’s inability to accurately observe the universe - its origins, its history, and its extent.

This breakdown of the observable axiom plagues both science and intelligent design because both rely heavily on the observable axiom. Concerning the big bang, Jastrow writes in God and the Astronomers:

Now we would like to pursue that inquiry farther back in time, but the barrier to farther progress seems insurmountable. It is not a matter of another year, another decade of work, another measurement, or another theory; at this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock , he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

Jastrow points out that cosmologists can look back to the big bang ( the explosion that happened around 15 billion years ago that created time, space, matter and energy), but that they can never hope to look further back in time because time and space did not exist before the big bang. Thus, science can see evidence of creation but it cannot never hope to assign a cause. This is the bad dream.

Perhaps, more frustrating is that scientists cannot observe the entire universe as it exists today. So while astronomers can estimate the number of stars - there is no way to know if the estimate is accurate. The current paradigm of expanding space states that light from some stars can never reach earth because the space between earth and these distant stars expands faster than the speed of light. So there is no way to even assign a size to the universe. Does it extend to infinity or is it finite? Science does not know, and it is not a solvable problem.

Suppose that there are an infinite number of stars. If this is true, then the low probabilities associated with the origin of life must be multilied by infinity. In such a universe, an infinite number of life forms will evolve by chemical evolution every second. In fact, in such a universe, there is no need for self replicating RNA molecules, because fully formed bacteria cells will evolve (fully formed) in an infinite number of primordial soups. No matter how poor the odds, mutiplying the poor odds by an infinite number of tries will make it happen and the probability will be one.

Given this weakness in our knowledge, intelligent design cannot be used to prove (beyond any doubt) that life was created. So its purpose is more to confront science and evolution by showing that these disciplines do not prove that God does not exist.

Science assumes that if God exists he never does anything that we can directly observe. Intelligent design confronts science on this assumption and offers an alternative. But in the end, all beliefs seem to boil down to faith. Atheists have faith that God does not exist and the rest of us believe that he does. It almost seems that the universe was set up in such a way to prevent man from using science, logic and reason to figure out the truth. Thus, faith will always be necessary.

I think reading a short statement in biology class that states that many believe that life is too complex to be fully explained by evolution is a bad idea, and I think intelligent design advovates and creationists should instead insist on a different statement that I will get to in a minute.

The reason I believe the statement would do more harm than good is because of my own personal experience in schools with biology and creationism. Several decades ago a had a biology text book ( I think it was seventh grade) that recounted the Genesis story of creation and stated that many people believe that it is scientifically accurate. The book devoted about one page to this subject, the teacher ignored it, and the rest of the book described evolution and the origin of life. This juxtaposition of a topic that recieves almost no attention to one that is the focus of the class will always sway students towards the topic that recieves 99.9% of the attention. The same will happen with intelligent design if it is introduced into science classes. It is couter-productive to read these short statements unless the underlying details of why some hold these beliefs is also discussed. No school board has yet to suggest that teachers should do this.

Below I suggest the statement I would like to see read. It is not counter-productive and it really allows students to think about this on their own and reach their own conclusions:

“Science by definition assumes that everthing that happens can be explained by naturalistic causes. This assumption is the most fundamental axiom upon which all science is based. The naturalistic axiom overrides both observations and intellect influencing how scientific data and experiments are interpreted. Because of this assumption, scientists are not allowed to consider the possibiity that life was created by an intelligent agent.”

I would be happy with the above statement, but further detail would also be nice. So we could add:

“Because of the naturalistic axiom, science is often forced to introduce hypothesis that are contraindicated by all experimental evidence and logic. For example, concerning the primordial soup, most scientists do not really believe that the soup existed. Yet biology text books must claim that it did because if it did not then life could not arise spontaneously guided soley by naturalistic laws. Other origin of life theories are equally flawed. For example, life could not possibly arise as a self replicating RNA molecule ( the experiments conducted over the past 5 decades prove this beyond any doubt). Yet the idea of an RNA world persists because the naturalistic axiom justifies its existence.

Science often uses the naturalistic axiom to prove concepts. For example, it is common practice in biology to observe small changes in scientific experiments and then claim that such small changes prove that given millions of years large changes are possible. This extrapolation can be tested with computer models and statistical models. But rather than waste valuable research time with this effort, scientists often assume that the extrapolation is valid and justify this second assumption with the naturalistic axiom. Thus, biologists often use one assumption to prove another assumption.Thus, the theory of evolution is a scientifically proven fact only because it is assumed true.”

To summarize:

Intelligent design advocates differ from mainstream scientists because they feel that such extrapolations should be subjected to scientific analysis. They do not believe that it is logical or acceptable to prove an assumption with another assumption. This difference in beliefs stems from the fact that intelligent design does not accept the naturalistic axiom as self-evident. While many events certainly have naturalistic explanations, intelligent design advocates do not believe that is permissible to assume that all events have naturalistic explanations. Thus, all events from the origin of life to the evolution of man should be analyzed on a case by case basis, and after probabilities are assigned with statistical or computer models - we can draw the most appropriate conclussion.

Most Americans believe that alternatives to evolution like intelligent design have a place in the classroom.

discovery institute poll

This seems like an easy question but given the current state of confusion over this concept it must not be that easy to understand. In an effort to explain it better, this article will show how intelligent design alters 20th century paradigms. A paradigm is a view of the world shared by many people. Paradigms are based on assumptions and observations. These assumptions are called axioms. In this article, only 3 axioms will be considered. The naturalistic axiom states that everything has a naturalistic explanation. The observable axiom states that man can accurately observe nature and propose laws and theories to describe it. The existence axiom states that God exists. These axioms serve as the basis for many of the currently held paradigms. To see how they are related consider the diagram below (figure 1). The dark blue circle represents all observable events - the circle must exist because of the observable axiom. All events that happen within this circle can be observed accurately by man. The light blue circle represents all events with naturalistic explanations. The naturalistic axiom forces this circle to exist. Any event that happens inside the naturalistic circle is not a miracle. Anything outside of this circle is a miracle. Notice that the naturalistic circle completely encloses the observable axiom. This means that all observable events must have a naturalistic explanation - No Exceptions. Furthermore, science assumes that every single event (past, present and future) resides entirely within the naturalistic circle.

Figure 1: A Popular Paradigm with no Intelligent Design

Ideally, the region of overlap between the naturalistic and observable circles is where science and evolution should both reside. Science should be fully encircled by the observable axiom. Unfortunately, this is not the case today. While we cannot observe the origin of life directly, we can model and propose hypotheses as to how it might happen. We can test such hypotheses with experiments and mathematical models. We can even accelerate the laboratory conditions to model many hundreds of billions of years in a few weeks. Nevertheless, all of these models have come up empty. Every model that has been proposed whether self replicating protein, RNA, or pre-RNA runs into the same problem. The probabilities of life originating though each of these paths (chapters 9 and 10) is so remote that the age and size of the universe can not offset the poor odds (chapter 15). Thus, science invokes the naturalistic axiom. Despite, our inability to find a hypothesis to explain the origin of life, science assumes that one day future scientists will solve the problem and in the meantime it puts forth solutions that are not possible ( for example perpetual motion - see chapter 10) and relies on the naturalistic axiom to justify this practice.

The net effect of this “one day we will solve it” assumption is to push science (and thus evolution) outside of the observable events circle. The origin of life is of course not observable as it happened many billions of years ago. But the hypothesis designed to test it are observable as are the models that are designed to calculate the likelihood of each origin of life scenario.

A few scientists, myself included, are very uncomfortable with science existing outside of the observable circle but then contained fully within the naturalistic circle. Scientific theories residing here are not testable and are not falsifiable. On the other hand, the naturalistic axiom is self evident to many scientists, and these scientists have no problem with figure 1. These scientists are confident that things that appear to require miracles today will not in the future; as a result, there is nothing disturbing about figure 1 because one day future scientists will pull science and thus evolution back inside the observable events circle.

Figure 1 can only be constructed by people who have faith in the naturalistic axiom. This faith overrides all logic and results in figure 1. All observable events have naturalistic causes and there is no need to test this concept. It is assumed by science to be true. Note: figure 1 does not rule out God. But it does make him kind of lazy in that we can never observe him doing anything in the past, present or future. Figure 1 accurately represents the world view of many evolutionists. Figure 1 implies that Atheism is valid. The religions of the world are shown outside of the naturalitic events circle because these religion are based on abstract ideas, concepts and beliefs. Thus, they should not be drawn inside circles that represent real events or processes. While some would argue that atheism is not a religion, I think it is because it is based on faith and proposes a model for the creation of life and the universe that is based entirely on faith ( not science as some would argue).

If the naturalistic axiom is not assumed true, then figure 1 becomes obsolete and must be modified. The result is figure 2. In figure 2, the observable axiom is not completely enclosed by the naturalistic axiom. So in this world view some events may have naturalistic explanations and others may not. In other words, the naturalistic axiom is no longer assumed true. Now it must be tested. This figure represents events as they appear to science today.

Figure 2: Paradigms with Intelligent Design

Notice that science and evolution exist in three disctint regions:
1) events and processes that can be observed and explained by naturalistic laws.
2) events and processes that can be observed and not be explained by naturalistic processes ( for example, the difficulties associated with the origin of life experiments and models).
3) events that are we cannot observe ( for example the origin of life on earth 4 billion years ago).

The origin of life and the evolution of the first genes and proteins appear to require a miracle (they are not contained within the naturalistic circle or observable circles). The experiments designed to test origin of life theories are observable and they are governed by naturalstic laws. But the results of these experiments provide tangible evidence that life did not originate through naturalistic laws. This creates a region where science and evolution exist outside of the naturalistic circle, but within the observable events circle. And finally, because the origin of life is not observable, it is now pushed outside of both the naturalistic and observable circles.

Drawing the relationships like this reveal an important concept. Many events in science such as universe fine tuning, the origin of life, and the evolution of the first genes require miracles.

It is possible to define intelligent design using figure 2. Notice, no circle is labeled intelligent design. Intelligent design is not an assumption, a belief, or an ensemble of events. Thus, it cannot have its own circle. Intelligent design is a process that interprets observations using logic. When one looks at figure 2 and observes that many miracles are required to explain why we are here, it is possible to draw an inference. This inference is as follows: if the naturalistic axiom does not explain all events, then a supernatural force is necessary to explain these events. This is indirect logic. In short, intelligent design is a process that identifies many almost impossible events and then shows that the age and size of the universe do not make these almost impossible events possible. Thus, a designer is required. Notice that the red circle in figure 2 labeled “events or processes controled or created by the designer” is dashed. The dashes indicate that this circle is derived from elementary logic ( it is not assumed to be true like all other circles in both figures 1 and 2).

So intelligent design is a the logical process that establishes the dashed red circle that implies that a designer is required. Once a designer is established, faith can take one to any world religion as shown. No religion is prefered over any other. Atheism is not implied today. But because intelligent design can be disproved atheism can reestablish itself if intelligent design is disproved by future scientists.

Anyone who criticizes intelligent design is criticizing logical thinking. Many make this mistake because they don’t believe that figure 2 is accurate. They are either unfamiliar with the mathematical models that support it, or they are so enamored with the naturalistic axiom that they reject figure 2 (on faith) in favor of figure 1.

The best thing about figure 2 is that it can be disproved. As soon as a scientist figures out how life originated, figure 2 evaporates and so does intelligent design. Figure 1 cannot be disproved, as its validity is assumed true (using the naturalistic axiom).

Intelligent design has been confused with many things.

Some think it is creation science or creationism. But it cannot be creation science or any form of creationism because it does not overlap or reside within the circle labled Christianity. Also notice that the circles that enclose religions in figure 2 are solid. They depend of the existence axiom, and all religions assume that this axiom is true. The circles enclosing the religions of the world must exist because the existence axiom establishes each one. Intelligent design does not originate or depend on the existence axiom, so its line is dashed rather than solid. Intelligent design suggests that the existence axiom is valid, but it does not assume that it is valid. Instead intelligent design observes nature, finds evidence of miricles and infers that a designer exists. Intelligent design cannot be a religion, because there is not faith involved. Intelligent design is a process or a methodogy that examines scientific evidence without assuming that everything has a naturalistic axiom. Given this definition, it cannot be equated to religion.

Others have labeled intelligent design an alternative to evolution. This is certainly not true. Evolution has its own circle in these diagrams because it can be represented by a series of events that have happened. Intelligent design is the logic that allows us to correctly interpret figure 2. There are no world events associated with this interpretation thus there is no circle for intelligent design.

Others have labeled it science. But this definition also fails. Science assumes that the naturalistic axiom is true. (Science did not always make this assumption - for example, many of the great scientists of the past like Newton tried to place God in his proposed models of the universe). But modern science does assume that the naturalistic axiom is true. And this assumption means that intelligent design is not science.

Many critics have claimed that intelligent design establishes Christianity/Creationism as a preferred religion. These claims are politically motivated and formulated to keep intelligent design out of public schools. The design inference does not establish any religion as superior to any other. In fact, even the religion of atheism has its place within the figure 2 world view because intelligent design can be disproved.

Intelligent design is a process that uses indirect logic to interpret scientific observation. Because this process does not accept the naturalistic axiom as self evident, the conclusions that it draws are often different than mainstream science. There is nothing more to it. It is not creationism, it is not an alternative to evolution, it is not a form of religion, and it is not science.

One final point. Figure 2 suggests that the existence axiom is correct, but it does not prove that it is correct. Religions are all based on faith and no logical pathway exists to move from intelligent design to Christianity or any other religion. Further, figure 1 suggests (but does not prove) that the existence axiom is incorrect. This is not too suprising in that figure 1 starts with the assumption that everything has a naturalistic explanation. Figure 1 does lend support to the religion of atheism as shown. So one of the often unstated goals of intelligent design movement is to migrate atheists away from figure 1 towards figure 2 by removing the excuse of evolution. Once figure 2 is accepted as a reasonable view of the world, it is much easier for people to move towards Christianity. Such a jump will always require faith - but less faith is required to jump to Christianity from figure 2 than from figure 1. In the end, I suspect that many atheists will never make this jump, but it is worth a try.

Finally, lets consider a popular Christain world view.

Figure 3: Old Earth Creation - A Christian Paradigm

In figure 3, Christians not only have faith that God exists but that the Bible reveals his true nature. This is the primary Christian axiom. It is assumed true so the dashed red circle is now solid - > because it cannot be disproved given the initial assumptions. Also given the initial set of assumptions, this circle must imply that Christianity is the preferred religion. The initail assumptions of Muslims and Jews would be similar but slightly different. Each religion will effectively assume that it is the preferred religion. Any religion that does not make this assumption will not have any followers. Perhaps the only exception to this rule is the church of the flying spaghetti monster - see posts about him below.

The most striking feature about figure 3 is that it almost identical to figure 2. So a person who begins with the existence axiom and then thinks about how science and evolution fit into his paradigm can reach a world view that is the same as one who starts with the observable axiom -> infers that design is required through logic, and then accepts Christ through faith. Most scientists prefer the second approach and most non-scientists prefer the first.

Figure 3 and 2 show how intelligent design differs from theistic evolution. Theistic evolution starts with the assumption that God exists and that the Bible reveals his true nature (red circle in figure 3). It then assumes that some events must be observable and that some observable events have naturalistic causes. That is God set things up to run themselves. This is of course the mark of a good design. For example, a watch that tells time without constant intervention from the watch designer is a better watch than one requires the designer to adjust the watch every second or two. So it stands to reason that God set up evolution as a method by which life can maintain and optimize itself with a minnimal anount of intervention. In essense, theistic evolution states that God used evolution as a tool to create all life. Theistic evolution is different from intelligent design in two ways. It starts with the axiom that the God of the Bible exists and because this is the most important axiom in this paradigm there is no way to disprove theistic evolution.

Theistic evolution has one great advantage over intelligent design - it requires no detailed knowledge of biochemistry, molecular biology, physics, information theory, chemistry or thermodynamics. It is a great paradigm for non-scientists who believe in God. The downside is that it is absolutley useless when it comes to trying to convince atheists that their paradigm is wrong. This is where intelligent design shines. Intelligent design shows that figure 1 is nothing more than a myth that many atheists cling to for dear life so that they may continue to reject God. While many web sites that promote theistic evolution are quite critical of intelligent design, I see the two approaches as complementary. Theistic evolution works best for those who believe that the existence axiom is self-evident. Intelligent design works best for those who believe that the observable axiom is self-evident.

Either the defense lawyers are really bad or the press coverage of this trial is one-sided. The prosecution made some really good points that received tons of press coverage. The same can not be said for the defense. The trial dominates the news this week so the following link will provide more information at least for this week.

recent news on intelligent design trial

The school board obviously supports intelligent design because they are creationists, but this is ok. Nobody is passionate about intelligent design because it is just a form of rational reasoning based on the observable axiom (see discussions below) . It is hard to get excited about logic. Throwing out a group’s views just because they happen to be Christians seems to me like discrimination. The prosecution’s argument seems to be that because the school board is comprised of creationists, the board must want creationism taught in school. While this may be what they really want, the board did not implement a system to teach creationism. Instead they opted for intelligent design, and intelligent design is not creationism. I wonder if the judge will see through this. The press coverage associated with this trial did not.

The most fundamental issues were not even brought up in this trial. Axioms were not even mentioned - at least not in the press coverage. This is unfortunate, because the whole issue of intelligent design vs evolution boils down to the basic assumptions that different people make (see discussions below). Intelligent design is not a thinly disguised form of creationism. But I do not think the trial was able to differentiate between the two, because the defense’s case did not focus on axioms. Instead it tried to show that intelligent design is the next major scientific revolution - a paradigm shift. This is unlikely, because I do not think science will ever reject the naturalistic axiom.

This is the preface of the revision of the book expected to be available in
a couple of weeks.

Intelligent Design, Creationism, and the Theory of Evolution
When Darwin proposed the theory of evolution, he envisioned that the process was continuous. He believed that the complexity and diversity of life could be explained by numerous slight modifications to existing species. His whole theory hinges on the idea that nature will preserve beneficial variations (natural selection) and thereby guide evolution creating new and more complex animals and plants.

“If it could ever be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” - Charles Darwin

Over a century later, science has yet to show that complex organs can be formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, and many scientists do not think that this is important. To understand why, it is first necessary to examine the assumptions on which science is based. Science is based on two assumptions called axioms.

Observable axiom: scientists can accurately observe reality, and then propose theories and laws to explain their observations.

Naturalistic axiom: everything can be explained by the laws of physics, chemistry, biology and mathematics.

Axioms are self-evident assumptions. Without the observable axiom, science cannot function properly. If scientists cannot observe reality or if they observe it incorrectly, then all scientific theories are suspect. Fortunately, this axiom is self-evident to most.

The naturalistic axiom is different in two respects: 1) it is not self-evident to 90% of the population 2) science can function properly without it because unlike the observable axiom the naturalistic axiom can be tested.

Today science does not understand how life originated. The better science understands the nature of the problems associated with the origin of life the more mysterious life’s origin becomes. Today, every theory concerning the origin of life suffers from the same problem. The probability of life originating is so small that the extreme age and size of the universe cannot offset the poor odds. The most popular theory concerning the origin of life proposes that life arose as a perpetual motion machine (see chapter 10). Yet physics clearly states that perpetual motion cannot exist.

Joyce and Orgel describe the situation best with the following quote: ” It must be said that the details of this process remain obscure and are not likely to be known in the near future.”

- The RNA World, p72-73.

This dilemma places science in an awkward position. The naturalistic axiom forces science to only consider origin of life theories that do not require a supernatural explanation. Yet these theories continue to fall short and do not explain how life originated. Because evolutionists are unwilling to abandon the naturalistic axiom, they must make one final assumption. They assume that one day science will unravel the mystery of life’s origin. Unfortunately, many evolutionists are unaware that they have made this assumption. Thus, they continue to claim that evolution is a proven fact when in reality they have only assumed that it is true.

This third assumption obviously has far reaching consequences because with this assumption, evolution cannot be disproved. Any observation that evolution does not explain is simply ignored. This places the theory of evolution on a pedestal. The theory cannot be disproved because science has already made the assumption that it is true. Furthermore, this assumption also explains why scientists are in no hurry to apply Darwin’s proposed test to evolution. Most scientists simply do not see the need to prove that a complex organ can form through a series of numerous, slight, continuous modifications. They have already assumed that evolution explains the origin of complex organs. Why test something that must be true?

Intelligent Design

Intelligent design is based on the observable axiom. The theory does not assume that the naturalistic axiom is true, but rather attempts to verify the axiom, and it accomplishes this with indirect logic.

Consider the problems with life’s origin. The probability of a living system evolving on the earth or anywhere in the universe can be calculated, and if this probability is so small that the vast size and age of the universe cannot overcome the poor odds, then design should be inferred. The goal of this book is to perform the above calculations and to show that the design inference is justified.

Unlike evolution, intelligent design can be disproved. Suppose tomorrow that one scientist unravels the mystery of life’s origin, and that another demonstrates that a complex organ can be explained by the laws of physics, chemistry, biology and mathematics. When and if this happens, the theory of intelligent design will be disproved.

Intelligent design like science requires one final assumption. The theory assumes that science will not solve the mystery of life’s origin. In the 1950s, this would have been a very dangerous assumption. Most scientists would have argued that they were just beginning to understand the nature of the problem and that they had not had time to solve it. Fifty years later, such arguments are weak. Not only has science had ample time, but the solutions have become more elusive with time. As the years pass, the probability of science finding a solution will continue to fall, and the design inference will continue to become stronger as indicated by the height of the bars in the figure below.

Intelligent Design and Creationism

Creationism is a broad term that can mean many different things. Many creationists believe that the earth is only 5000 years old and that it was created in six 24 hour days. Others believe that the earth is 5 billion years old and that life was created slowly as time passed or in spurts separated by large expanses of time. Creationism is different from intelligent design because it is based on the existence axiom.

Existence axiom: God exists.

This axiom separates intelligent design from creationism in an important way. If science explains the mystery of life’s origin, most people will still believe in God. So unlike intelligent design, creationism cannot be disproved.

How is this Book Different

The design inference in this book is only drawn from the origin of life and the evolution of the very first genes and proteins. Others have attempted to infer design from the evolution of new classes of animals. This book stays away from this practice because the inference is weak. While evolutionists assume that naturalistic laws can explain how a bird evolved from a reptile, many intelligent design advocates seem to just assume the opposite. Neither side has introduced accurate mathematical models or computer simulations to describe such an evolutionary transition. Life is definitely very good at evolving. It has developed techniques that create new information by re-arranging and shuffling existing information. Furthermore, the DNA of a bird is not that different from that of a reptile. These factors weaken the design inference.

In my opinion, it is illogical to invoke design for the origin of life and then assume that the designer played no part in the rest. Thus, this book will focus on the origin of life and the evolution of the first genes and proteins. These two events clearly imply design.

Creationism can mean many things. It describes Christians who believe that the earth was created 5 thousand years ago in 6 24 hour days, but it also deiscribes those who believe that God created everything billions of years ago and used evolution as a tool to optimize His creations. So in reality everyone except the atheists are creationists.

Anyone following the Dover court case can clearly see that many creationists have endorsed intelligent design only because they feel that it will be a good way to discredit evolution in public schools. The supreme court has ruled that creationism may not be taught in public schools - so intelligent design is the next best alternative.

Neverthless, there is a very important difference between creationism and intelligent design. Creationism, just like evolution, cannot be disproved. If a scientist unravels the mystery of life’s origin tommorow, Christians will still believe in God. No scientific finding will ever change this.

In sharp contrast, if a scientist unravels the mystery of life’s origin tommorow, intelligent design will be disproved and the theory will have to be discarded. This makes intelligent design unique and sets it apart from both creationism and evolution.

I have placed a new article on the web site. Since it is at the end of the home page nobody will read it unless I link to it from here:

the philosophy behind the creation paradigms

The article compliments many of the posts in this blog.

Evolutionists are often quick to point out that intelligent design is not falsifiable and that therefore the theory is beyond the scope of science. In fact, the opposite is true. Intelligent design is falsifiable and evolution is not.

Consider the mystery of life’s origin. Chemists in the early 1900’s speculated that the earth’s early atmosphere must have contained no oxygen because without oxygen it is easier to synthesize the chemicals needed by life. In 1953, Stanely Miller produced amino acids in a spark chamber and further strengthened the idea that the early atmosphere contained no oxygen. Over the next few decades, science discovered the complexity of living cells and elucidated how they replicate and survive. It became clear that it would be impossible for a completely formed cell to originate in the primordial soup, so scientists instead proposed a self replicating RNA molecule. Many years of research later, it is clear that the self replicating RNA molecule hypothesis is fatally flawed - see chapter 10 in the book or on the web site. It has also become clear that the components needed to create a RNA molecule cannot be readily synthesized in the primordial soup - see chapter 9 in the book or on the web site. Also note that the sources for these two chapters are not other intelligent design literature - but rather the primary scientific literature (PNAS, nature, science, journal of molecular evolution etc.).

So now science is stuck. It has already assumed that naturalistic laws are responsible for the origin of life yet it can not propose a workable hypothesis as to how this may have happened. So we must now play a waiting game. Science is making an assumption that at some time in the future some very bright scientist will solve the origin of life mystery. I take no issue with this assumption because science must keep searching for an answer to this puzzle. But it does not take a rocket scientist to understand that with this second assumption - evolution is placed on a pedestal and it can no longer be falsified.

Now consider intelligent design. If a scientist ever synthesizes a self replicating molecule under plausible prebiotic conditions and this molecule can replicate in nature without help from the investigator then intelligent design is disproved. So the theory is falsifiable.

Evolutionists should look more closely at their own theory before they blindly lash out at one they do not understand. Intelligent design is not science because it does not assume that everything has a naturalistic explanation. But it is superior to science in that it does not rely on an axiom to obscure the truth. I wish more scientists would take a step back and understand the assumptions that they have made and how these assumptions influence their beliefs.

I was happy to see that in the latest version of the Molecular biology of the Gene ( the textbook used for most graduate level molecular biology classes) the chapter dealing with self replicating molecules was deleted. So perhaps some progress has been made.

One of the problems that many have with intelligent design is that the theory uses indirect logic. So rather than applying indirect logic to origin of life experiments, lets consider its application to paleotology.

Scientists believe that the dinosaurs are extinct. But to actually prove that dinosaurs are extinct, scientists would have to find every animal on the planet and show that each of these animals is not a dinosaur. And of course, if anyone actually tried to accomplish this daunting task, they would fail. There are too many animals and the planet is too large. So how do scientists know that the dinosaurs are extinct?

They use indirect logic. The basic premise is that because nobody has ever seen a dinosaur they must be extinct. So rather than proving that dinosaurs are extinct, science has inferred that they are extinct. This inference is based on the observation that nobody has seen a dinosaur in modern times.

This situation is fully analogous to intelligent design. Because scientists cannot figure out how life originated in the primordial soup, and because this mystery has existed for over 100 years, it is logical to infer design. Granted one day science may solve the origin problem, just like someday an explorer may stumble across a dinosaur in the amazon jungle. Indirect logic is acceptable science because the inferences so drawn can be disproved. The inferences only become stronger as time passes. 500 years from now if the origin of life is still a mystery then the design inference will be much stronger than it is today. Likewise, 500 years in the future, scientists will even be more certain that the dinosaurs are extinct.

What could possibly be so dangerous as the truth. Science does not understand the origin of life. Why should teachers be required to say that it does when the such statements conflict with the primary scientific journals as well as the view of every scientist who is familiar with chemical evolution. Does the ACLU want a federal law prohibiting teachers from telling the truth? They brought a suit claiming that ID theory violates separation of church and state, but in reality, they just want to supress the truth. ID theory does not rule out any religion - even that of the flying spaghetti monster. So how can it establish a religion? ID theory does not even rule out atheism.

For a full link to the discovery institute article click on the link below:

Discovery Institute strongly disputes the ACLU’s effort to make discussions of intelligent design illegal. At the same time, the Institute opposes on policy grounds the science education policy adopted by the Dover School District. Discovery holds that a curriculum that aims to provide students with an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of neo- Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories (rather than teaching an alternative theory, such as intelligent design) represents a common sense approach that all reasonable citizens can agree on.

“Attempts to require teaching about intelligent design only politicize the theory and hinder a fair and open discussion of its merits among scholars and within the scientific community,” said West, adding that most teachers currently have not been trained enough about intelligent design to teach it accurately and objectively.

discovery institute press release

I have noticed that most of the people who visit this blog are searching for the flying spaghetti moster. So I am wondering if I keep mispelling inteligent, moster, and spagetti if I will get more visitors. I can understand mispelling spageti because it is a hard word to spell, but I apologize for not being able to spell monster. My guess is that his noodly appendages have influenced my ability to spell. How many ways are there to mispell intelligent design? Perhaps I should change the title of the blog to intellligent design or evolution or maybe intelligent design or evollution, or perhaps intelligent design or evolutiion. I think I like the last option because when I am typing fast this is usually how I spell evolution.

In both physics and thermodynamic classes, students are taught that perpetual motion is impossible. Yet biology classes have been invoking perpetual motion to explain the origin of life ever since the idea of a self replicating RNA molecule took hold several decades ago. Intelligent design may not belong in school, but then neither do perpetual motion machines. See excerpt from chapter 10 of Intelligent Design or Evolution below:

Self Replication and Perpetual Motion

Researchers today are actively seeking and finding new ribozymes. Many are artificially engineered and others arise from random sequences. Many of these researchers believe that in time they will find a self replicating RNA molecule. Others like Joyce and Orgel who are at the forefront of the research disagree.

In chapter 7, several techniques used by life to circumvent the second law of thermodynamics were discussed. Unless a self replicating RNA molecule has the capability to implement some of these same techniques, its existence can be ruled out on purely theoretical grounds.

Based on fundamental laws of physics, science can state with certainty that if a self replicating RNA molecule is found, the molecule will only be able to replicate in a test tube. It will require a continuous supply of activated nucleotides to drive its replication. While this might work in the test tube, it will certainly not work in the primordial soup. Activated nucleotides in the soup will not last for more than a few days. Given that their decay will dominate any conceivable path for prebiotic synthesis, the soup will only contain at most a very dilute supply of activated nucleotides. Given the difficulty associated with the prebiotic synthesis of ribose, adenine, and cytosine, the concentration of these critical molecules in the soup will also be extremely low. This means that the first successful self replicating RNA molecule must be able to direct the synthesis of adenine, cytosine, ribose, uracil and guanine. If it cannot do this, it will not be able to replicate in the soup. Furthermore, it must be able to activate all of the nucleotides. So this special RNA molecule must know how to tap a plentiful energy source and use it to drive many different chemical reactions. If it cannot perform all of these functions, then it is a perpetual motion machine, and its very existence is limited to biology textbooks.

Figure 10.2: A Self Replicating RNA Molecule

In figure 10.2, the RNA molecule can exist in two states, folded and unfolded. When folded, it catalyzed RNA replication, and the formation of adenine, ribose, cytosine, uracil, and guanine. It also must create activated nucleotides (not shown). When unfolded, it serves as a template for replication. The folded version must also know how to replicate the unfolded version.

This particular ribozyme taps into sunlight as an energy source using a primitive form of photosynthesis. Other self replicating RNA molecules could potentially oxidize a chemical like methane, hydrogen, or sulfur to generate the required energy.

Figure 10.2 is what is required of a “living molecule.” Anything less is not alive. This figure was construted with due consideration to the second law. Any RNA molecule that does not possess all of the capabilities shown in figure 10.2 is a perpetual motion machine. It may replicate in the lab as long as it is supplied with activated nucleotides, but it will not replicate in the soup. Thus, it only exists in textbooks, and there is no need to wait to see if researchers can locate it.

Inventors have been trying to invent perpetual motion machines for at least 2000 years. They have all failed. Nevertheless, many have been issued patents by various governments throughout the world. Two examples of perpetual motion are shown in figure 10.3. Both examples are equally absurd. While many scientists apparently only recognize the absurdity of the first picture, nature can recognize both, and it does not allow either to exist.

Figure 10.3: Perpetual Motion Machines

The first picture in figure 10.3 is a clear violation of energy conservation. It does not work because the force that the magnet exerts on the car is exactly cancelled by the force that the car exerts on the magnet. The magnet does not cause the car to move. The second violation is more subtle only because it violates a different law of nature. When a self replicating molecule replicates, the replication decreases the entropy of the universe. The second law is violated. To get around this problem, any real self replicator must know how and be able to couple its replication to a plentiful energy source. If it is unable to do this, then it is a special type of perpetual motion machine, and it only exists on paper and in the imagination of researchers.

References:

1) Lee, Granja, Martinez, Severin, Ghadiri, “A Self Replicating Peptide,” Letters to Nature, 382:525-528, 1996.
2) Joyce, Visser, Boeckel, Boom, Orgel, Westrenen, “Chiral Selection in Poly (C) Directed Synthesis of Oligo (G),” Letters to Nature, 310: 602-604, 1984.
3) Joyce and Orgel, The RNA World, Gesteland, Cech, Atkins, Cold Spring Harbor, “Origin of the RNA World,” 1999.
4) Bartel, The RNA World, Gesteland, Cech, Atkins, Cold Spring Harbor, “Recreating an RNA Replicase,” 1999.
5) Ekland, Szostak, Bartel, “Structurally Complex and Highly Active RNA Ligase Derived from Random RNA Sequences, ” Science, 1995.
6) Bartel and Szostak, “Isolation of New Ribozymes from a Large Pool of Random Sequences,” Science, 261:1411-1418, 1993.
7) Thaxton, Bradley, Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, Philosophical Libraries, 1984.
8) Orgel, Self-organizing Biochemical Cycles, Salk Institute of Biological Studies, 99:12503-12507, 2000.
9) Green, Szostak, “Selection of Ribozyme that Functions as a Superior Template in Self Copying Reaction,” Science, 258:1910-1915, 1992.

From the article posted below:

In my classes on logic, we expose the fallacy of turning your opponent’s position into something foolish and then attacking that imaginary argument. It’s always easier to win a debate that way, right? This is called the straw man fallacy.

Comment: the flying spaghetti monster is an example of this tactic ( see article published on aug 27 for more about him).

I like this article and could not say it better myself. So I have posted the beginning and end of the article here with a link to the middle for readers who want to read the entire article.

Intelligent Design and Straw Men

Thursday, September 08, 2005

Editor,

Brett Rowland recently wrote about the ongoing controversy over the teaching of intelligent design. I respond to the criticisms offered against it. First, have you noticed that the critics of intelligent design (ID) never tell you what it is? As some of these critics are educators, it seems unconscionable to me to intentionally misrepresent a topic and then attack it as something that it is not. ID is accused of teaching religion. Let’s consider that criticism.
.
.
.
.
In my classes on logic, we expose the fallacy of turning your opponent’s position into something foolish and then attacking that imaginary argument. It’s always easier to win a debate that way, right? This is called the straw man fallacy. It seems quite clear to me that the attacks on ID are a prime example of the straw man fallacy. When the critics of ID attack it for what it really is, then maybe the 90 percent of the American population that doubts the validity of Darwinism evolution will pay some attention to them.

Edward Huston, Hollister

Read the entire article by following this link:
entire article

Whether the argument is about young earth creationism and evolution or intelligent design and evolution, many people do not seem to be aware of why they believe what they do. This thread will explore paradigms and the assumptions (axioms) on which they are based.

A paradigm is a set of common beliefs held by a group of people. Paradigms are formed over long periods of time as people interpret their observations and the observations of others. These interpretations are guided by certain assumptions known as axioms. In the creation/design/evolution debate, these assumptions are critical. The assumptions that individuals make determine which paradigm they support. Several paradigms are listed below along with their axioms.

Science:
1- The observable axiom: man can accurately observe nature and formulate laws and theories to explain these observations.
2- The naturalistic axiom: all observations can be explained by the laws of math, physics, and chemistry. Science does not require this axiom because this particular axiom can be tested with indirect logic.

Intelligent Design:
1- The observable axiom. This paradigm requires the fewest assumptions.

Old Earth Creationism:
1- God exists.
2- The Bible is one of the ways that he has chosen to communicate with us.
3- The observable axiom. For example, most old earth creationists defer to science to determine the age of the earth, because they do not perceive an old earth as a threat to their faith.

Young Earth Creationism:
1- God exists.
2- The Bible is one of the ways that he has chosen to communicate with us.
3- God wanted the creation story outlined in Genesis to be scientifically accurate.

Creation Science:
1- God exists.
2- The Bible is one of the ways that he has chosen to communicate with us.
3- God wanted the creation story outlines in Genesis to be scientifically accurate.
4 - The creation science axiom: because many scientists do not believe in God, they can not reliably interpret the scientific evidence. Fortunately, creation scientists are qualified to interpret the evidence.

Given this last axiom, I find it hard to believe that creation scientists and scientists still bother to debate each other. In the end, all of the axioms listed above are assumptions. No assumption listed above is any better than any other. Nevertheless, the assumptions are not desirable because any paradigm that is built around a faulty assumption is also suspect.

I prefer old earth creationism, but also like intelligent design because the ID paradigm can and does exist independent of religious preferences.

I am thinking about adding this preface to the book. This is a work in progress until I publish the second edition.

Preface

Science is the methodology used by scientists to explain the physical universe and everything contained in it. Science was invented by ancient civilizations, and throughout most of civilization’s history, science has relied heavily on one axiom. An axiom is a self evident assumption.

Science assumes that man can accurately observe events and then develop laws and theories to explain and model these observations. The observable axiom is integral to all branches of science. Science cannot prove this assumption, so instead it is assumed true. Often different branches of science have their own set of unique axioms. Axioms are not desirable, but they are often required by to develop scientific theories. For example, if the observable axiom is not true, then the validity of every single scientific theory is called into question. This is of course unacceptable, so science relies heavily on the observable axiom.

For nearly 5000 years, the observable axiom was the only axiom common to all branches of science. In the early 19th century, science adopted a new axiom, known as the naturalistic axiom. This axiom states that every observation can be explained by naturalistic processes. Darwin’s theory of evolution was the catalyst for this change, but the change was not really brought about by Darwin. One hundred and fifty years after Darwin, science as yet to explain the origin of life. While this should raise serious doubts about the axiom’s validity, it has not. Today, every branch of science relies on both the naturalistic and observable axiom.

The widespread acceptance of the naturalistic axiom within the scientific community seems to have been more a rebellion against the truth rather than a search for it. While science needs the observable axiom to function, it does not need the naturalistic axiom because this axiom can be tested with the use of indirect logic. When such logic is applied to origin of life scenarios, the results are always the same. The origin of life on earth was nothing short of a miracle, and science is at a complete loss to explain it.

Darwin believed that the complexity and diversity of life could be explained by numerous slight modifications to existing species. His whole theory hinges on the idea that nature will preserve beneficial variations (through natural selection) and thereby guide evolution creating new and more complex animals and plants.

“If it could ever be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” - Charles Darwin

While Darwin suggested the way to test his theory, the science of his day could not apply his test to evolution. In fact, even today it is quite difficult to evaluate the validity of evolution using Darwin’s test. The mathematical models are quite cumbersome because complex organs depend on the evolution and interaction of many different genes and proteins. Furthermore, the required changes at the molecular level for many evolutionary changes are often unknown. For example, while science knows that the DNA in man only differs from that in a chimpanzee by about 1%, science does not know which changes are required to make a man from a chimpanzee. These complications make it likely that Darwin’s test may never be applied to evolution.

Fortunately, there are similar tests that are within the grasp of modern science. Implementing these tests requires biologists to move away from complex organs and consider instead the evolution of specific genes and the proteins that they encode. Because complex organs require the evolution of many novel genes, if the genes themselves cannot evolve through a series of “numerous, successive, slight modifications,” then neither can the complex organs. So this book will test Darwin’s theory by exploring the probabilities associated with the evolution of new genes.

If the probabilities are reasonable, then this book will conclude that the naturalistic laws are responsible. If on the other hand the probabilities are so low that the required events can be classified as miracles, then this book will conclude through indirect logic that life was created. This later theory is called intelligent design.

Darwin’s proposed test is subjective because the words numerous and slight are open to interpretation. To implements Darwin’s test these two terms must be replaced. To test his theory a probability must be assigned to each evolutionary event. Once these probabilities are established, probability theory may be used to test the validity of Darwin’s theory. While conceptually this is an easy enough task, the details are not. Because evolution creates new useful information, the branch of probability theory known as information theory is particularly useful for this analysis. Information theory was developed to mathematically model information transfer in electrical communication systems, and in many cases, information theory can also model the evolution of new genes and proteins. Unfortunately, for reasons discussed in the next section, information theory is only applicable to the genes and proteins that evolved coincidently or soon after the origin of life; as a result, it is much easier to apply Darwin’s proposed test to the evolutionary transitions that were required for the first living organisms to live and reproduce; therefore, this book is only concerned with evolutionary transitions that took place over 2 billion years ago.

The Evolution of Information

Because genes contain the information that life needs to build proteins, evolution is by its very nature a process that creates new useful information or knowledge.

One of the most interesting oversights of biology is its failure to differentiate between the processes responsible for evolution over the past 600 million years and those 2 to 3 billion years ago. For the last 600 million years, evolution has created new genes and proteins by shuffling and re-arranging existing genes and segments of these genes. In other words, for over 600 million years, evolution has created new information by shuffling existing information.

In sharp contrast, 4 billion years ago, no genes existed. So it would have been impossible to create genes by re-arranging and shuffling existing genes. Furthermore, even after the first couple of genes existed, it would be very difficult to create new genes from these first few genes. The following two examples illustrate why this is true.

Genes contain information as do sentences. Therefore, it is possible to conceptually illustrate how evolution has changed using sentences. In these examples, each word represents a segment of an existing gene.

Example 1: Three billion years ago assume that the first gene evolved. To make the concept clear, this gene will be represented by the following sentence: He is the brown dog. How many other sentences can be created from this sentence? Answer: two, The dog is brown and He is the dog. This example show that shuffling and re-arranging existing information was not a very productive path for evolution 3 billion years ago. Only sentences very similar to the original sentence can be created by this path. Furthermore, the number of possible sentences is limited.

Example 2: Six hundred million years ago, assume 4,000 genes exist. In this example, these genes will be represented by 4,000 sentences. The number of new sentences that can be created by re-arranging and shuffling the words in these 4,000 sentences is now astronomical. Furthermore, the new sentences may bear little resemblance to the original sentences. For example, suppose that four of the 4,000 sentences are as follows: 1) The house is large, 2) The building is small, 3) The store is nearby and 4) The red car is across the street. Many new sentences can be created by shuffling these four original sentences:

The house is small. The house is nearby.
The house is across the street. The building is large.
The building is nearby. The buildin