Science, Philosophy, Faith, and Creation:
Christian Perspectives on the Origins Debate

Originally presented as part of the Faculty Roundtable Forum
Belhaven College, Jackson, MS
October 23, 2003

Introduction
Dr. Daniel Fredericks
Senior Vice President and Provost

How do faith and science interact?  Is it sound practice to integrate faith and learning when it comes to the field of science?

All of us have a great stake in these important academic debates.  If our faith cannot inform science, then the foundation upon which Belhaven College–and most probably, your own thinking–rests is not sound.

In a recent Faculty Forum, Belhaven scholars explored three key arenas in which this great debate wages: theology, biology, and philosophy.  The outcome was hopeful, even upbeat.  The names of the scholars and their topics are as follows:

·        Dr. Guy Waters, Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies, outlines the key and most credible interpretations of the creation account in Genesis 1 and 2.

·        Dr. Rob Waltzer, Associate Professor of Biology, explains the scientific case for intelligent design as espoused by scientists such as himself who share a Christian worldview.

·        Dr. Wynn Kenyon, Professor and Chair of the Philosophy Department and Division of Ministry and Human Services, deconstructs the logical framework of the evolutionary position and argues that this position may be beginning to crumble.

The Argument for Intelligent Design

Rob Waltzer
Associate Professor of Biology

Intelligent Design is the academic assertion that the order in living things comes from an intelligent source and cannot be explained by chance and natural processes alone.  It is as simple as that.  It is not a religious position, although it is consistent with a Christian worldview.  It does not attempt to identify the designer.  It leaves that as an open question.  It is a minimalist position.

As Christians we are rightly concerned about key matters in the Genesis account.  As a scientist as well, I stake out my ground and make a stand on a core issue.

If, scientifically, we were to leave all the other extraneous or non-core issues aside, what would we make a stand for, dig in for, not let up on no matter what?  I choose to concentrate my scientific work on asserting and proving Intelligent Design.  If this were accomplished, the remainder of the cards in certain scientific theories would begin to fall rapidly. 

How does Intelligent Design differ from the standard positions taken by Christians in debates with evolutionists?  I think it more effectively steers clear of the quagmire of science and religion.  Very often in debates, creationists get tripped up by secular representatives when dealing with issues like the definition of science, the nature of religion, and the role of religion.  Even though opponents of Intelligent Design like to characterize the position as a religious one, it is not.  Because the Intelligent Design argument avoids religious language and biblical proofs, it avoids some of the areas that are most difficult for creationists in debate with secular scientists.  In addition,

·        Intelligent Design avoids issues related to the age of the earth and only deals with the subject of origins, not how long things took to be made.

·        Intelligent Design offers a positive position and explanation rather than purely an attack on evolution, and that is an important detail among scientists.  For the longest time, creationists were accused of being obstructionists and naysayers, of never presenting any positive information.  Of course, they were not allowed to present proofs from the Bible because that is not allowed in “scientific” debate.  Intelligent Design is an attempt to get around these last accusations, to play by the rules on the secularist field in a sense.

·        Intelligent Design is a more focused position scientifically, tying all things back to the question of the origin of order.

Why is the origin of order in nature important?  Evolutionists claim that the order in the natural world originated by chance and natural processes.  Intelligent Design says the opposite.  So, if intelligent design prevails, then by default evolution will be mostly defeated—not completely, but mostly.

What can intelligent design explain that evolution cannot?  Intelligent Design better explains the presence of new information, new traits, and more complex traits in living systems—and this is one of its greatest strengths.  Much debate between creationists and evolutionists focuses on fine shades of scientific meaning about which even scientists disagree.  But, because Intelligent Design explains foundational issues like new information, new traits, and more complex traits better than evolution does, it is basically a slam-dunk.  Evolutionists cannot touch this.

How does intelligent design explain the presence of new information, new traits, and more complex traits?   It compares the features seen in living systems with those in non-living systems that are known to be designed.  Non-living systems are studied continually for patterns or evidence of design—much scientific research on design has been performed in areas like forensic science, insurance claims analysis, photography, archeology, the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence, and many others.  The approaches in these disciplines are now being applied toward detecting design in the natural world of living things.  Here is an example: In an archeological find scientists will decide if the find is a designed object or, on the other hand, something produced by erosion or some sort of natural event.  They make a determination.  Intelligent Design seeks to apply these same sort of determinations to biological systems.  Sooner or later, biological systems require determinations.

Two biological examples—specified complexity and irreducible complexity—show how new scientific information might force a determination about ultimate origins.

The best example of specified complexity is DNA.  The growing, irrefutable body of knowledge about DNA is a gold mine for proponents of Intelligent Design.  Paul Davies, a researcher and professor of physics at the University of Queensland and at the Australian Center for Astrobiology at Macquarie University, says: “Just as the sequence of letters in an instruction manual is independent of the chemistry of the paper and ink, so the ‘letters’ in DNA—which make up the information—are independent of the chemical properties of nucleic acid.”  [See reference for Davies in the bibliography section.]  In other words, just like the content of a book cannot be explained by the laws of chemistry of paper and ink, so too the content of the genetic code cannot be explained by any set of natural forces.  The new information we have about DNA requires biologists to make a determination about origins—and I argue for Intelligent Design.  Another key thinker in the area of “specified complexity” is Dr. William Dembski, who has published important works on the subject of intelligent design.  Those interested in these subjects might also consult works by Philip Johnson, a lawyer and author of many books criticizing evolutionary theory.

The other biological example involves the concept of irreducible complexity.  An irreducibly complex system (ICS) is composed of several interacting parts, where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning.  Its existence challenges evolution, which claims that life arose from numerous small modifications over time.  If a system requires all parts to be present and operational at once, then numerous small modifications will never produce it.  There is an almost endless supply of examples of such ICS systems, including the cellular and molecular structure of muscles, immune components, and the nervous system.  Dr. Michael Behe is a key thinker in the area of irreducibly complex systems.

Of what benefit is intelligent design to scientists?  First, if certain current systems work—and thus need no evolutionary process—then should not secular scientists be open to Intelligent Design?  Scientists at least ought to desire the truth.  If intelligent design is the best explanation of reality, then secular scientists should not rule it out a priori.  Second, Intelligent Design is actually the model already used in science, but scientists will not admit to this, e.g. note the number of “purpose-related” terms used in the field of biology.  Purpose only comes from design and can never arise from chance and natural processes.  Imagine attempting to understand the paintings of Picasso or Renoir by attributing the patterns of color to chance and natural law.  That would be a completely erroneous direction, missing the message and the content of the paintings.  Similarly, attributing the biological world to chance and natural law will cause scientists to miss out on the true content to be found in studying it.  My own work seeks to show what fellow scientists could learn, and the ways in which research could advance, if the scientific community would embrace the concept of Intelligent Design.

Bibliography

Behe, Michael J.  Darwin’s Black Box.  New York: The Free P, 1996.

Can Intelligent Design Be Detected in Biology? A Debate between William A. Dembski and Niall Shanks.  Access Research Network Video.  <http://www.arn.org/arnproducts/videos/v038.htm>.

Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy: Debate at Stanford University between William B. Provine and Phillip E. Johnson.  Access Research Network Video.  <http://www.arn.org/arnproducts/videos/v004.htm>.

Davies, Paul.  “Is Anybody Out There?”  NewScientist.  18 September 1999.  <http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/astrobiology/lifeforce.jsp> (29 September 2004).

Dembski, William A.  The Design Revolution.  Downers Grove, IL: InterVarstiy P, 2004.

Dembski, William A. and J. M. Kushiner.  Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2001.