Intelligent Design Not Disingenuous
Letters to the Editor
January 17, 2006
I am glad that my letter to the El Tejon school board provided such large percentage of text for Wayne Adkins’ recent editorial attacking myself and the Discovery Institute. Lieutenant Adkins believes it is “disingenuous” to claim intelligent design does not postulate a supernatural or divine designer. But he clearly does not understand intelligent design.
Darwinists and materialists have been reminding their critics for years that science cannot study the supernatural. In fact, this was their primary critique of creationism during the 1980’s. Design theorists too have recognized that referring to the “supernatural” is not a form of scientific explanation. This is because science can only study things which we can observe, and the supernatural is beyond the observable realm.
While we cannot study the “supernatural” through science, we can study intelligence. We have a huge sample dataset to tell us how intelligent agents operate: technology produced by the human race. Design theorists observe that intelligent action produces large amounts of “complex and specified” information. Language and the finely-tuned, purposeful arrangement of parts in machines are prime examples of this encoded information. If the cell was designed, then we would expect to find language-like encoded information commonly throughout biology.
The cell confirms our expectations from design. Our DNA contains incredible amounts of encoded information. Living cells transform this encoded chemical message into machines which are engineered to perform necessary biochemical functions. The conversion of DNA into protein relies upon a software-like system of commands and biochemical codes. This is an information processing system which Bill Gates has described as “like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.” Moreover, the machines in our cell are often said to resemble human design machines—such as the rotary engine found in the bacterial flagellum. This is powerful evidence that an intelligence was at work.
I have always openly acknowledged that I am a Christian, and thus I believe the designer is the God of the Bible. Thus Adkins assertions that I am “disingenuous” about my beliefs about the identity of the designer are thus baseless. What Adkins doesn’t realize is that his position is self-contradictory: evolutionists cannot on the one hand attack creationists as unscientific for referring to a “supernatural” of “divine” creator, and then on the other hand slander design theorists as “deceptive” for refusing to appeal to unscientific explanations like the supernatural. Rather, design theorists should be applauded for constructing an approach to studying intelligent causes in the history of life which does not stray into unscientific territory.
Many design theorists, including myself, believe the designer is God. But that is my personal religious belief and not a proposition of the scientific theory of intelligent design. The explanatory category of an “intelligence” is a valid scientific form of explanation because we have much empirical experience with how intelligent agents operate. The observed products of intelligent agents are precisely what we observe in the cell.
The designer very well may God, or a supernatural divine being. But if that is true, it is not something which a scientific approach to studying origins can tell us. Intelligent design thus takes a bona fide scientific approach which is endorsed by a growing number of scientists and peer reviewed scientific publications.
Sincerely,
Casey Luskin
Darwinists and materialists have been reminding their critics for years that science cannot study the supernatural. In fact, this was their primary critique of creationism during the 1980’s. Design theorists too have recognized that referring to the “supernatural” is not a form of scientific explanation. This is because science can only study things which we can observe, and the supernatural is beyond the observable realm.
While we cannot study the “supernatural” through science, we can study intelligence. We have a huge sample dataset to tell us how intelligent agents operate: technology produced by the human race. Design theorists observe that intelligent action produces large amounts of “complex and specified” information. Language and the finely-tuned, purposeful arrangement of parts in machines are prime examples of this encoded information. If the cell was designed, then we would expect to find language-like encoded information commonly throughout biology.
The cell confirms our expectations from design. Our DNA contains incredible amounts of encoded information. Living cells transform this encoded chemical message into machines which are engineered to perform necessary biochemical functions. The conversion of DNA into protein relies upon a software-like system of commands and biochemical codes. This is an information processing system which Bill Gates has described as “like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.” Moreover, the machines in our cell are often said to resemble human design machines—such as the rotary engine found in the bacterial flagellum. This is powerful evidence that an intelligence was at work.
I have always openly acknowledged that I am a Christian, and thus I believe the designer is the God of the Bible. Thus Adkins assertions that I am “disingenuous” about my beliefs about the identity of the designer are thus baseless. What Adkins doesn’t realize is that his position is self-contradictory: evolutionists cannot on the one hand attack creationists as unscientific for referring to a “supernatural” of “divine” creator, and then on the other hand slander design theorists as “deceptive” for refusing to appeal to unscientific explanations like the supernatural. Rather, design theorists should be applauded for constructing an approach to studying intelligent causes in the history of life which does not stray into unscientific territory.
Many design theorists, including myself, believe the designer is God. But that is my personal religious belief and not a proposition of the scientific theory of intelligent design. The explanatory category of an “intelligence” is a valid scientific form of explanation because we have much empirical experience with how intelligent agents operate. The observed products of intelligent agents are precisely what we observe in the cell.
The designer very well may God, or a supernatural divine being. But if that is true, it is not something which a scientific approach to studying origins can tell us. Intelligent design thus takes a bona fide scientific approach which is endorsed by a growing number of scientists and peer reviewed scientific publications.
Sincerely,
Casey Luskin
Print
Email
