"Why Would You Choose ID?"

I began this series with:

“Nothing Did It” http://makarios-makarios.blogspot.com/2009/12/nothing-did-it.html

“Atheism of the Gaps” - http://makarios-makarios.blogspot.com/2009/12/atheism-of-gaps.html

“Es - ka - Pay” - http://makarios-makarios.blogspot.com/2009/12/es-ka-pay.html

“Please Read This” - http://makarios-makarios.blogspot.com/2009/12/please-read-this.html

“Which Came First” - http://makarios-makarios.blogspot.com/2009/12/which-came-first.html
=====================

That is a question that all atheists ask. It is beyond them that anyone could have any reasons, other than religious, for seeing a designer in the origins of life. And yet science itself compels us to at least consider ID for the cause of life. Here’s why.

One reason ID fits the scientific formula for discerning historical events is because ID fits what we know, UNIFORMLY, regarding cause and effect. After all, science is, at its base, a search for a cause to the effects that we observe. To be fair, ID isn’t the only hypothesis out there. I’m not saying that it has to be. But neither can it be shoved aside for philosophical reasons.

Some atheists might be tempted to say at this point that science works by testing and evaluating the accuracy of the predictions that their theories make. Well, that’s true but it is not the ONLY way that a hypothesis is tested.

Here is what we know from origins science.
. Past causes are inferred from present effects.
. Past causes are inferred to explain particular present day facts.

Here is where the scientific method of inquiry can help us decide which cause best explains specified complexity. Here is where the scientific method of inquiry can help us decide between a million monkeys typing for a billion years, ID and any other hypothesis that might explain the origin of the extraordinarily complex information needed to build the first living organism.

Here’s the problem when atheism enters the sphere of science. Science sets aside ideas that are obviously false. No problem there. However, atheist bias also causes science to toss out any ideas that entail anything beyond nature; even if that idea fits current evidence. Let me explain.

On Origins Science
. In order to find the “Best Evidence” or “Causal Adequacy,” regarding specified information, causes that are KNOWN to bring about specified complexity, i.e., formulated information, are judged to be better candidates than ideas that are merely theoretical.

On Origins Science
. In order to find the Best Evidence, possible candidates should not include unknown causes or exotic causes. For example, in origins of the universe, Hawking’s imaginary time hypothesis has been rightly thrown out. In other words, science should follow causes that are known from uniform experience to have produced the effect in question. Lyell, “Principles of Geology.” Darwin himself used this methodological principle.

On Origins Science
. Of course, when scientists can point to a uniquely credible cause, they are not in danger of ignoring other possible causes of the same effect. As I hope to show, the production of specified complexity does in fact have a known and knowable unique cause.

On Origins Science
. To fit the paradigm of Best Evidence, the cause must be BOTH plausible and known.

On Origins Science
Unlike Dawkins who says the words “billions of planets” or “mutations” and thinks ‘problem solved,’ candidates for Best Evidence do not become candidates merely by mentioning or suggesting it as a possible cause.

Michael Scriven says, “In order to establish a causal claim, the historical scientist needs:
1) Evidence that his candidate / cause was present, and
2) Evidence that it has on other occasions clearly demonstrated its capacity to produce an effect of the sort here under study, and
3) An absence of evidence of other possible causes.
Scriven, Causes, Connections and Conditions in History” 249-50

Following this scientific method of historical scientific reasoning and investigation, I believe that specified complexity clearly finds its source in intelligence an only in intelligence. So far, our two main candidates for the specified complexity that has been present in cells for at least 3.8 billion years are:
- A chaotic environment where random mutations in inanimate and inorganic gases, in a blind unguided process produced highly specific arrangements of chemicals that produced highly selective information for the building of proteins.

- A conscious designing agent created the origin of information-rich molecules.

Why do I support the latter? Well:
. What do we experience now, in the present, that is capable of producing digital code or specified complexity? Intelligence.
. What does our uniform experience tell us is always responsible for the development of highly formulated information? Intelligence.

We know and we know beyond all doubt that our experience is uniform that only intelligent agents are capable of producing specified information. Only intelligent agents are capable of producing the effect being examined. Only intelligent, conscious activity is responsible for the creation of new specified complexity. There are no known exceptions. According to the historical scientific method, that is the main criteria for selecting candidates a possible causes of historical events. This is especially the case when dealing with singularities involving specified complexity. Only in those cases are intelligent agents uniformly experienced as the cause of such singular events.

The main question facing scientists today when trying to explain the origin of first life is: “How did the sequence-specific digital information necessary to building the first cell arise?”
Kuppers, “Information and the Origin of Life,” 170-172.

I believe and I think we have good reason to believe that an Intelligent Designer is responsible for the intelligent design that we find in each and every living cell.