Where are the Intelligent Design Science Articles?
Paul Gay
March 01, 2006
Intelligent Design, (ID) is the belief that the building blocks of life are far too complex to have started randomly on Earth, therefore a designer must have been involved. Some call it a theory, however the scientific community does not feel that it meets this definition, due to a lack of data. Regardless, everyone seems to have an opinion on ID. Even people who know next to nothing about the concept seem to formulate an irreversible opinion on the subject immediately upon receiving a quick brief about it. Many tend to base these opinions along religious lines. A more polarizing topic, you will not find. Of course the reality is that opinions are irrelevant. Indeed, what truly matters is the science behind it. For the past three months I have been reviewing articles via an RSS feed attempting to view the scientific data behind ID.
Note: For those of you not familiar with an RSS feed, it's an internet feature which allows you to automatically receive emails with links to articles about a given topic. You supply the keywords and the program searches the internet on a daily basis for articles related to them. It's an excellent way to keep tabs on any topic that interests you. Many of the larger search engines and news outlets offer them for free.
Each day I receive about five links to news stories about ID. These articles typically consist of the following:
1. Opinions on whether ID should be taught in public high school science classes.
2. Debates over the validity of ID via the over-use of philosophical arguments and analogies.
3. Reports on school districts and their intentions to include or exclude ID in school.
4. The formulation of state and local laws regarding ID.
5. And of course frequent reports on court rulings.
Unfortunately the key ingredient missing from these daily articles is the science behind Intelligent Design. Why is it so difficult to find factual scientific articles about ID? One immediate problem appears to be the lack of qualified scientists performing any research. It seems that only a small nucleus of experts are willing to try their hands at falsifying/testing the validity of ID. Currently an organization called the Discovery Institute is leading the charge. Representatives from this organization are frequently called upon to testify in court each time a school district decides to bring even the suggestion of ID into the science classroom. Thus far, they have failed to make their case in the eyes of the courts.
Another factor appears to be genuine disinterest on behalf of the scientific community. The problem they face is a lack of researchable scientific methods. Exactly how can a scientist study ID? Science studies the natural world, seeking explanations and making observations through repeatable experiments. Many experts feel that searching for a designer transcends into the metaphysical, thereby launching it into an area outside of science. That line of thinking bares little in the way of logic. If something is designed, (at least by humans), it seems likely that some indication of the design and production process will be visible. We design, (using our intelligence), all kinds of things everyday. A new birdhouse certainly shows indicators of design. Symmetrical sides, angles, tool marks etc. Even creating new strains of bacteria leave telltale signs of purposeful design. The real question is, "could a super intelligent designer construct life on this planet without leaving any indicators?" Finding the answers may be a daunting task, however it is hardly metaphysical. Why not simply use the natural world to investigate? Who knows, perhaps each of us has a molecular bar code stamped into our DNA.
Until science can figure out a way to look into ID, we should propose the following reverse methodology. What's the ole saying? If we cannot figure out what something is, perhaps we can figure out what something is not. If the vast majority of scientists don't feel that ID research is feasible, then it's time to begin publishing articles on why. At the very least, a few definitive answers would save millions in court battles for our nation's school districts.
People of science, the challenge is simple; explain in plain language why ID is unlikely or impossible based on the evidence in your field. Obviously the burden of proof is with the proponents of ID, however any points that science can add will certainly help the rest of us in our quest for the truth.
Note: For those of you not familiar with an RSS feed, it's an internet feature which allows you to automatically receive emails with links to articles about a given topic. You supply the keywords and the program searches the internet on a daily basis for articles related to them. It's an excellent way to keep tabs on any topic that interests you. Many of the larger search engines and news outlets offer them for free.
Each day I receive about five links to news stories about ID. These articles typically consist of the following:
1. Opinions on whether ID should be taught in public high school science classes.
2. Debates over the validity of ID via the over-use of philosophical arguments and analogies.
3. Reports on school districts and their intentions to include or exclude ID in school.
4. The formulation of state and local laws regarding ID.
5. And of course frequent reports on court rulings.
Unfortunately the key ingredient missing from these daily articles is the science behind Intelligent Design. Why is it so difficult to find factual scientific articles about ID? One immediate problem appears to be the lack of qualified scientists performing any research. It seems that only a small nucleus of experts are willing to try their hands at falsifying/testing the validity of ID. Currently an organization called the Discovery Institute is leading the charge. Representatives from this organization are frequently called upon to testify in court each time a school district decides to bring even the suggestion of ID into the science classroom. Thus far, they have failed to make their case in the eyes of the courts.
Another factor appears to be genuine disinterest on behalf of the scientific community. The problem they face is a lack of researchable scientific methods. Exactly how can a scientist study ID? Science studies the natural world, seeking explanations and making observations through repeatable experiments. Many experts feel that searching for a designer transcends into the metaphysical, thereby launching it into an area outside of science. That line of thinking bares little in the way of logic. If something is designed, (at least by humans), it seems likely that some indication of the design and production process will be visible. We design, (using our intelligence), all kinds of things everyday. A new birdhouse certainly shows indicators of design. Symmetrical sides, angles, tool marks etc. Even creating new strains of bacteria leave telltale signs of purposeful design. The real question is, "could a super intelligent designer construct life on this planet without leaving any indicators?" Finding the answers may be a daunting task, however it is hardly metaphysical. Why not simply use the natural world to investigate? Who knows, perhaps each of us has a molecular bar code stamped into our DNA.
Until science can figure out a way to look into ID, we should propose the following reverse methodology. What's the ole saying? If we cannot figure out what something is, perhaps we can figure out what something is not. If the vast majority of scientists don't feel that ID research is feasible, then it's time to begin publishing articles on why. At the very least, a few definitive answers would save millions in court battles for our nation's school districts.
People of science, the challenge is simple; explain in plain language why ID is unlikely or impossible based on the evidence in your field. Obviously the burden of proof is with the proponents of ID, however any points that science can add will certainly help the rest of us in our quest for the truth.
Print
Email
