Letter to the Editor -- Andrew Lawson

Now that we have all read the ad hominem arguments (e.g. marked by an

attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the

contentions made) and straw man arguments (e.g. an imaginary opposition

set up only to be easily confuted), let’s focus on the argument (Readers

Respond, March 5).

First let’s define the terms:

1. Intelligent design theorist: Someone who believes that the

empirical, scientific evidence shows that there is design to life and to

the universe; therefore, there is a designer. They infer from the

evidence that the design we see in life and in the universe came from a

designer.

2. Neo-Darwinian theorist: Someone who believes that the empirical,

scientific evidence shows that there is no design to life and to the

universe; therefore, there is no designer. They infer from the evidence

that the “apparent” design we see in life and in the universe came from

natural selection and random mutation.

3. Science: (a) The methodological definition -- science as an

experimental process that allows you to gain knowledge about the physical

world. (b) The philosophical definition -- every solution to every

scientific problem must conform to philosophic naturalism (a theory

denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance;

specifically, the doctrine that natural laws are adequate to account for

all phenomena).

Now, let’s look at the argument: The argument hinges on the two

definitions of science. Intelligent design and neo-Darwinian theorists

both agree on the methodological definition: an experimental process that

allows us to gain knowledge about the physical world.

The rub comes from the philosophical definition. This definition is

philosophy, not science. It involves looking at the facts and then making

an inference from these facts based on a predetermined philosophy such as

naturalism. For example: The facts show that, at the biochemical level,

the cell is incredibly intricate.

The intelligent design theorists make the inference that this

spectacular complexity comes from a designer, whereas the neo-Darwinian

theorists make the inference that this spectacular complexity does not

come from a designer. The rub comes because neo-Darwinian theorists

insist that the only inference allowable is theirs (i.e. the facts can

only infer a conclusion that fits with naturalism). Even when the facts

logically support a designer, neo-Darwinian theorists insist that such a

logical conclusion is not allowable because it does not fit within their

philosophical definition of science (i.e. all conclusions must be within

the philosophy of naturalism).

The argument is simply that the intelligent design theorists (Gallup

polls show that more than 80% of the population believe in a designer)

want the textbooks to teach our children the facts and either let them

make their own inferences or delineate both positions in the text (Gallup

polls show that 69% of population favor this option). As it is now, the

textbook teaches the facts and very emphatically states that there is

only one inference or interpretation that can be drawn from the facts.

For example, a committee of neo-Darwinian theorists defines science as

“the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe

in the world around us,” whereas intelligent design theorists ask us to

consider defining science as “the human activity of seeking logical

explanations for what we observe in the world around us.” In short, the

intelligent design theorists want only for the public school textbooks to

teach tolerance of the other logical inference based on the facts.

The intelligent design theorists, like their neighbors the

neo-Darwinian theorists, realize that if the neo-Darwinian theory is

true, then the philosophy of naturalism that we insist is the only

inference to be taught to our children makes for some very somber

conclusions: We have all come from nothing, are going to nothing, and are

random, chance accidents in a meaningless, purposeless universe. In the

end, we must both be willing to accept this truth or its alternative if

the facts continue to point to one position over the other.

* ANDREW LAWSON is a Newport Beach resident.