Creation engineering?
My grandfather, an engineer for most of his life, was also a devoutly religious man who believed in the power of prayer. So much so, in fact, that some in our family are convinced that his faith and reliance on prayer�even over medical science�directly contributed to his early death many years ago at the relatively young age of 65.
A new “scientific theory” is vying for attention in our classrooms. Does it pass the test?
Yet, despite his deep religious faith, my grandfather�a scientist through and through�also understood and appreciated the essential nature of science. Whether by documenting his own and family illnesses and injuries in an attempt to objectively prove his spiritual beliefs, or through his reading of books offering scientific explanations of biblical events, he demonstrated a clear passion for and belief in using the tools of science.
So I've no doubt that were he alive today he'd be intrigued by the idea of “Intelligent Design”�a view that the “irreducible complexity” of fundamental natural mechanisms could not have emerged through accidental evolution. At the same time, however, I'm equally sure he'd reject the notion that it be taught alongside evolution in science classrooms.
This is, of course, an old debate. But a new twist this time around is that several of those promoting “Intelligent Design” are�like my grandfather�scientists themselves. And according to them, it's a valid scientific theory, despite a reliance on the existence of an unspecified “intelligent designer.”
It certainly sounds scientific, not least so in its description of complex “molecular machines” and “circuits” found in living cells. Some proponents even speak of a sub-cellular world of nanotechnology, where scientists are finding everything from “functioning turbines” to “rotary engines” to “machines for copying, reading and editing digital information.”
However, as my grandfather would have quickly recognized, despite the claims made by its proponents, the theory lacks any real basis in the scientific method�the very foundation of modern science. Used in a systematic way since the 17th century, the scientific method�the systematic use of experimentation to prove or disprove a hypothesis or idea based on earlier observation�has succeeded again and again in expanding mankind's knowledge of the world around us.
And one of its fundamental requirements for any scientific theory is that it be testable. “Intelligent Design” fails this test�it has no predictive capability, and it can't be falsified; further, in violation of “Occam's Razor,” it relies on a complex explanation (a “cosmic designer”) over simpler alternatives.
A theory that can't be tested may be worthy of debate and discussion at some level, but it doesn't qualify as science�a conclusion with which my grandfather would surely have agreed.
R. Pell
Advertisement
