On Tuesday night I went to see Tom Woodward present a lecture at the Door of Hope in Launceston. It was part of his speaking tour of Australia.
It was very scientific and deliberately left the bible out of the picture. I think this is a deliberate choice by scientists in this field. Creation Science is closely connected with Intelligent Design but differs in that it focuses on the Bible. Incidentally I had the opportunity to hear Philip Bell the other week and blogged about it here.
I thought that Tom presented a persuasive scientific argument for ID from the field of biology. Here are some of the ideas from his lecture that most impressed me:
Irreducible Complexity – When Darwin posited his theory (150 years ago I think) they had very little knowledge of the workings of the Cell. Now we know so much about amino acids and proteins and the DNA/RNA that provides the instructions for the formation of protein structures. Within the cell there is such complexity that evolution becomes highly improbable.
The problem of the first cell in Darwin’s tree of life – How could proteins and amino acids form without instructions? DNA would have had to be present in the first cell. DNA is insanely complex and this complexity cannot be reduced into evolutionary steps. As well as a problem of complexity there is a problem of information – this is a non-material entity, how could information appear?
Mutations don’t make things – they only break things. This may provide a temporary advantage.
Tom discussed the irreducible complexity of the flagellum motor on a bacterium.
Darwinism is and must remain an unintelligent process. It’s adherents must make a deliberate philosophical choice to exclude mind.
Books he referenced:
- Michael Denton (1986), Evolution: A theory in crisis
- Phillip Johnson, Darwin on Trial
- Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box
- John Wells, Icons of Evolution.
He also reference significant counter works and discussed the intensity of rebuttal against ID. Arguments include:
“If ID wins we will enter into another dark age of fundamentalists.” This is a fearful religious argument. ID does not posit which is the most robust explanation of creation -but that the scientific evidence can only be explained by design.