Wednesday, October 28, 2015

Ignoring What We Observe

Below is one of the best videos I have seen that presents the scientific theory of Intelligent Design. This is presented by Dr. Stephen Meyer and Dr. Douglas Axe. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science in 1991 at the University of Cambridge after receiving his B.S. degree in physics and earth science in 1981 from the Whitworth College. His dissertation was entitled "Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of origin of life studies." Axe is the director of the Biologic Institute. After a Caltech Ph.D. he held postdoctoral and research scientist positions at the University of Cambridge, the Cambridge Medical Research Council Centre, and the Babraham Institute in Cambridge. His work has been reviewed in Nature and featured in a number of books, magazines and newspaper articles, including Life’s Solution by Simon Conway Morris, The Edge of Evolution by Michael Behe, and Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer.

What these two scientists clearly and logically present is the fact that Intelligent Design Theory stands on the same scientific footing as Darwin’s. Darwin actually did not use what we classically know as The Scientific Method. Rather, Darwin branched off into forensic science. In doing so, he attempted to explain causation by methods that we can’t and have never observed. In contrast, Intelligent Design Theory also employs forensic science but looks to what we can observe in order to explain causation. On such merits alone, nobody can reasonably argue that Intelligent Design Theory is not science or is lesser science than Darwin’s. In fact, to ignore what we can observe is forensic foolishness. In the case of origins of species, genetic code is the driver. In Darwin’s defense, at the time he wrote his body of work, we knew very little about the genetic code. It was not until the 1950s when Dr. Francis Crick was largely credited with the discovery of DNA, over 70 years after Darwin’s death. But, today, we can’t claim nor support ignorance of what we know and what we can observe.

Simply, what Meyer and Axe logically outline is the fact that it is information that drives genetics and thereby all biological function. And, what we observe today in every area of scientific study is that information is caused by applied intelligence. To conclude that all of this information arrived on our planet driving every biological function was caused by non-intelligence flies in the face of everything we know and can observe on the subject. Ironically The Scientific Method begins with observation - ignoring observation is a non-starter scientifically. Therefore, I would argue that to argue against Intelligent Design is not science, but something entirely opposite. Further, to argue in favor of Intelligent Design is more scientific forensically than Darwin’s body of work. Watch the video and reason for yourself: Click HERE to watch, or watch below.



You can purchase the book "Reason If You Will - How To Answer Questions Regarding Faith" by clicking HERE. Profits go to Camp Bahamas. You can also follow @ReasonIfYouWill on Twitter.