---
Judge Jones decides against Intelligent Design in Dover PA
I think that the judge was mistaken in his dismissal of Intelligent Design. For additional comments, see articles at the Discovery Institute.
---
“Vatican Official Refutes Intelligent Design”
(Yahoo! News article, by Nicole Winfield, 18 November 2005)
Brief overview of the article:
The Vatican’s chief astronomer George Coyne says intelligent design isn’t science. Although God, according Coyne, has a role to play in the universe’s creation, science explains the history of the universe without any need for God. Moreover, according to Coyne, “God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world that reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity.” And “He is not continually intervening, but rather allows, participates, loves.”
Hendrik’s initial response:
Huh?
Hendrik’s more thoughtful response:
I think that Coyne is saying that God created the universe and its matter/energy in such a way that the created stuff has “freedom” in the sense that it has an element of spontaneity/chance built into it in such a way that evolution (natural selection operating on chance changes) produces the diversity of life; and so the intelligent design hypothesis isn’t needed. In other words: Design is wholly front-loaded at creation, science doesn’t address this, so that’s it—there’s no need for the intelligent design hypothesis. Or so Coyne would have us think.
Well, I find myself asking, why can’t science address this alleged front-loading of design? Interestingly, it turns out that some scientists try to explain the universe’s apparently designed, exquisitely fine-tuned initial conditions by making an appeal to multiple universes. The idea is that if we have trillions of universes, then a chance universe that merely looks designed is probable. So what looks like intelligent design is explained away. But herein lies the rub: If intelligent design can be explained away, i.e., if intelligent design can be falsified, then surely the hypothesis of intelligent design is a real contender in scientific practice. So the question becomes: Multiple universes or Intelligent Design (or both)?
Also, I ask, if we are trying to understand the history of the universe, shouldn’t that include whatever might have come before it, even if that something is an intelligent cause? The history of an ancient cave painting in archeology includes the painting's intelligent cause. The history of finding out “Who done it?” in forensic science includes the intelligent cause who did it. The history of any real radio communication from space in SETI (search for extraterrestrial intelligence) would include the intelligent cause who sent the message. So Coyne’s non-science versus science dichotomy between, on the one hand, understanding the universe’s beginning, and, on the other hand, the history of the universe, is a false dichotomy. If the universe has a cause for its existence, then the history of the universe, which is science's domain, should include that cause.
Also, I ask, how does Coyne know that God only front-loads design? If God is infinitely free, as Coyne thinks, then surely God might inject some design or specifically configured matter/energy into the system sometime after the initial creation. The fact that a potter puts the handles on the pot after his/her pot has taken initial shape doesn’t make the potter any less of a potter. Maybe the potter has good reasons for putting the handles on later rather than sooner? Maybe God has good reasons for intervening a few billion years after the initial creation rather than putting everything together in one shot at the beginning? Maybe God wanted carbon to develop via stars first so God could put together carbon-based life later? Maybe God wanted the right building materials in place before He intervened in the Cambrian explosion? Coyne assumes that God will only create the universe in such a way that everything must unfold as a consequence (with some room for chance variation) of the initial creation. But here Coyne is forcing his preconceived God-takes-one-shot-only theology onto the universe. Instead Coyne should let the universe speak for itself and then develop his (natural) theology out of that. Maybe God intervened when life originated. Maybe not. Without the intelligent design hypothesis, we would never know that He did, if He in fact did. Science that couldn't discern God's activity, if God were to exist and leave "fingerprints" of His activity, would be really lousy science.
One last point (for Christians). According to the Vatican and most Christian churches throughout history, God intervened in the universe when Mary became pregnant with Jesus (God the Son) and God intervened in the universe to resurrect Jesus from the grave after Jesus' death by crucifixion. If the intelligent design hypothesis is appropriate in history, why not in science? Science and history are, after all, two slices from the same pie--knowledge of the world.
---