MATERIALISM CAN'T EXPLAIN LIFE (continued)

Darwin's purpose was to explain all of life without the need for a mind, or designer.  Darwinists define science with a commitment to materialism - the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms from lifeless matter without any explanation of a mechanism - and do not address the question why life has the appearance of design.

Most life forms are comprised of billions of complex cells that display themselves in perfect order.  Michael Behe has argued that functional molecular systems in biology are irreducibly complex and hence cannot be assembled without the participation of an intelligent agent.

Several scientific organizations have fought to keep that possibility off the table by labeling it "religion, not science."  They speculate about "hidden agendas" and resort immediately to ridicule.  But if the presence or absence of intelligent causes in biology is testable, then intelligent design is a legitimate scientific hypothesis.

Evidence challenges these Darwinist assumptions:

The hypothesis of design has been readmitted as a worthy competitor to explain the origin and development of the biological world.  Design theory bases its arguments on what we know of biochemistry, from the DNA molecule, from the mathematical characteristics of designed systems elsewhere.  It is not a valid criticism of intelligent design that some people may draw implications about philosophy or world view based upon the scientific case made for or against design.  Merely because a theory implies things about issues other than science does not mean that the theory is unscientific.  It just means that the issue is an important one.

In "First Things," Phillip E. Johnson wrote, "Those in scientific leadership cannot afford to disclose that commitment (to materialism) frankly to the public.  Imagine what chance the affirmative side would have if the question for public debate were rephrased candidly as 'Resolved, that everyone should adopt an a priori commitment to materialism.'  Everyone would see what many now sense dimly:  that a methodological premise which is useful for limited purposes has been expanded to form a metaphysical absolute."

"People who define science as the search for materialistic explanations will find it useful to assume that such explanations always exist.  To suppose that a philosophical preference can validate a cherished theory is to define 'science' as a way of supporting prejudice.  Yet that is exactly what the Darwinists seem to be doing when their evidence is evaluated by critics who are willing to question materialism."

Many scientists and philosophers think that a dedication to materialism is the defining characteristic of science.  If design in biology is real, then the designer also might be real, and scientific materialists contemplate this possibility (if at all) with outright panic.  The concept that the universe is the product of a rational mind provides a far better metaphysical basis for scientific rationality than the competing concept that everything in the universe, including our minds, is ultimately based in the mindless movements of matter.

Christine J. Watson

March, 2000

North County Times