Paradigm Dawning - ID verses Darwinism and Creationism
From ResearchID.org
- How intelligent design differs sharply from Darwinism and Creationism.
In the debate over intelligent design, evolution, and creationism, there are two words that are very important for any participant to know: empiricism and rationalism. Empiricism is the idea that data, evidence, and measurements collected from nature, and human sensory experience of the world (whether direct or assisted by instrumentation), are what should guide the general project of modern science. Rationalism is the idea that commitment to a mental framework should precede the project of science.
Darwinian Materialism* and Scientific Creationism** are rationalistic approaches to science. (An adherent of Darwinian Materialism will herein be referred to as a “Darwinist,” and an adherent to Scientific Creationism will herein be referred to as a “Creationist.”) The Darwinist and the Creationist are using a rationalistic approach to science because they bring hefty mental frameworks to their investigation of nature, and think they have the answers to questions about nature before a detailed inquiry begins.
The Darwinist is convinced, before an investigation commences, that everything from quarks to brains are explainable only by a universe proceeding from ultimately unintelligent processes and strictly blind evolutionary mechanisms. The project of science for the Darwinist is to fit as many pieces of data into a preconceived framework of philosophical materialism while discovering facts about nature. The Creationist is convinced, before a detailed exploration is initiated, that everything from space-time to humans are explainable only by a literal interpretation of narratives in the Christian Bible. The project of science for the Creationist is to fit as many pieces of data into a preconceived religious framework while uncovering knowledge about nature.
In strict contrast to these approaches, intelligent design is an empirical approach to the study of nature. Intelligent design does not bring any cumbersome, preconceived notions to scientific investigation. Intelligent design does not look to the Bible, or any other non-empirical inspirations. ID is focused on the problem of how nature works. Scholars who are open to intelligent design are concerned about observable, measurable, and testable realities, and how the data we collect can provide clues about the operation of the universe and everything therein.
Intelligent design looks at the data and evidence about the physical effects of different causes, and tries to recognize patterns or signatures of the different types of causes in the universe. As one initiates this investigation of effects and their adequate explanation, it becomes clear that specific effects in nature are only known to be caused by intelligent design. Upon objective reflection of the evidence at hand, the appearance of design in the natural world becomes stronger. This appearance of design becomes a nagging question that must be asked. Can we reliably detect that something was caused by intelligence, even if we don’t have precise knowledge of an object’s origin? Effects like novel, independent, functional information and novel, independent, functional machines are known to be caused only by intelligent causes. One begins to see that there is more to the concept of ID than mere words: nature itself is speaking actual design to the inquisitive mind. What does this mean for the scientific study of how nature works?
Freed from rationalistic restraints, and constrained only by evidence gleaned from nature, intelligent design can allow the researcher to ask questions and investigate lines of evidence that are anathema for the Darwinist or the Creationist. The ID scholar is free to ask what is explainable by unintelligent processes, or whether something was intelligently designed, and is always focused on allowing nature to form and shape their scientific sensibilities. For example, ID liberates the researcher to ask whether a physical object found in nature is designed, whereas the Darwinist is already convinced nothing in nature is designed, before any evidence is gathered from nature about the physical effects of intelligence. An ID theorist can ask whether an intelligently designed object can be distinguished from physical effects resulting from unintelligent causes.
Intelligent design also liberates the researcher to ask whether nature, and not the Bible, can guide our study of nature. This stands in stark contrast to the research themes developed by a Creationist that is already convinced everything in nature was created precisely as the literal words of the Christian Bible describes, before any evidence is gathered from nature. The ID scholar is intellectually unhampered and free to challenge Scientific Creationism by doing experiments to determine what blind evolutionary mechanisms can or cannot do. The ID scholar is free to challenge Scientific Creationism by asking what was or was not designed. In these ways, the scholar open to intelligent design throws off the mental straitjackets of a precontrived Rationalism.
* For the sake of discussion, the term “Darwinian Materialism” is used in order to distinguish between a prior commitment to Materialism on the one hand, from the general idea of evolutionary change on the other hand. Everyone admits that things in the universe change, including living organisms. It seems that almost everything is malleable and has an inner ability to change. Because of this, a scholar open to the concept of intelligent design can appropriately use evolutionary ideas as they investigate nature. What remains unclear is whether or not unintelligent processes and blind evolutionary mechanisms can explain our entire universe and everything within it. This is one of the key questions that ID asks about how nature works.
* This article addresses the three key positions one could take in the ID/Evolution/Creation issue, but there are certainly a myriad of other possible perspectives.
|
