Science by
definition attempts to explain everything in terms of naturalistic laws. So before
analyzing any data, science rules out the possibility that life was created. While this
philosophy has served science well, it is somewhat problematic if a creator exists.
Intelligent design differs from science in that it does not make any assumptions about
creation. Instead intelligent design allows the evidence to lead where it may. If the
scientific evidence suggests that naturalistic laws do not fully explain the origin of
life, then intelligent design infers that a designer exists and was responsible.
Intelligent design cannot prove that a creator exists. Rather it uses indirect logic to
infer that such a being exists.
Scientific experiments test how evolution happens. Experiments designed
to test if evolution is possible are not considered good science, and this philosophy has
trapped science. To better understand the trap, suppose tomorrow that a thousand fossils
are found that document how T. Rex evolved from another dinosaur. Science will assert that
these fossils prove that T. Rex evolved from another ancient dinosaur. Further, it will
assert that naturalistic laws fully explain the transition. Science does not have to
justify the second assertion because it simply assumes that it is true. Furthermore, most
scientists would consider any experiment designed to test the probabilities associated
with this particular evolutionary transition as unnecessary. This philosophy does not
allow science much freedom. No matter what the evidence shows, the assumptions on which
science is based ensure that science will always support the theory of evolution. Thus,
science is trapped.
The failure of science to ask is evolution possible has led to the
premature acceptance of many ideas concerning evolution. For example, when Darwin proposed
the theory of evolution in 1859, the chemistry of living organisms was a complete mystery,
so the testing of Darwin’s theory was limited. For nearly 100 years following
Darwin’s first publication, science only had three ways to test his theory: 1) search
for the fossils that link existing animals and plants, 2) design experiments to observe
how animals and plants change ever so slightly from one generation to the next and 3)
accumulate evidence that the earth is very old. While such experiments were critical for
evolution’s acceptance, the chemical processes behind evolution remained a mystery.
Science just assumed that naturalistic laws were responsible; thus, science was able to
embrace the theory of evolution without understanding it.
Next: Molecular Theory of Evolution
Previous: Intelligent Design or Evolution?
|
