Almost all of the scientific world today has embraced the theory of evolution. There is some evidence: the study of fossils, the similarities and differences between related species in different geographic areas, the evidence produced by anatomy and comparative embryology, the remarkable correspondences in the chemical composition and structures of the body. A competing theory should be capable of producing as many evidences. At present no one succeeded.
The debate has been going on for some time like the one on natural, material, immanent explanations, pursued through the construction of descriptive and predictive models of logical, rational and, where possible, mathematical. Instead, what one seeks is to support the evolutionary explanation (which, for its scientific status, is of a strictly naturalistic and materialistic type) with an alternative one also philosophical, of finalistic nature: a wizard or an 'intelligent design'. It is true: science is not born in a vacuum of a philosophical conception. A debate is being proposed on the theory of "intelligent design" as a 'scientific theory' alternative to neo-Darwinism.
In any case, it is important to remember that we must distinguish clearly between a rigorous scientific content and a questionable philosophical generalization. Yet, there are statements such as that of Flavio Keller, Professor of Neurophysiology that begins: "Now there is no longer the problem of distinguishing the philosophical method by the scientific method ......" because the distinction is only that which is in the questions, since those of scientific type concern partial aspects of reality, while those of a philosophical nature relate to the global, last and total traits. This statement is a source of further dialogue.
Now, continuing the discussion, it is noted that no evolutionist can accept that the belief in a supernatural design or an 'ontological leap', could be verified through the natural sciences. It would be a denial of science, but also a very bad theology of fundamentalist character.
There can be no dialogue with those who want to impose as a scientific truth a dogma of faith, whatever it is. Science can not abdicate its role of critical thinking, averse to any internal or external authorities. These challenge became quickly an opportunity for new discoveries and new insights, that everyone lives and processes freely according to his/her own religious and philosophical convictions.
A great part of the scientific community believes that the theory of intelligent design, known as evolutionary creationism or scientific creationism was introduced for reasons beyond science.
This theory was born from a critique of some weaknesses of Darwinism that Darwin himself had described in the "Doubt" chapter of his best-known work, The Origin of Species.
The theory of intelligent design holds that science can prove the existence of a creator entity. According to its followers, the complexity of life is such that can not be explained simply in terms of random mutations, but we must admit that the evolutionary process is "driven" by a Creator endowed with intelligence that sometimes intervenes directly to operate the " evolutionary jumps" that nature alone would not be able to accomplish.
Yet, the intelligent design is not strictly scientific, and most of the scientific community, which supports the theory of evolution, does not consider it valid. It should be noted that Intelligent design, as all versions of creationism, is not falsifiable and refers to unknown causes by definition. Therefore it can not be given the status of scientific theory.
In fact, almost all of the scientists says that its primary argument, that of the irreducibility of complex organisms, has been already overdone in the years immediately following Darwin himself, in particular:
- noting that many " complex parts " of organisms have, or have had, in the course of evolution of the organism itself, multiple functions (think for example of hearing and balance functions of the ear in mammals, the various endocrine functions carried out simultaneously by the same glands, as well as to the many overlapping functions of the animal brain);
- observing how the same function is sometimes performed redundantly by different entities, thus allowing a displacement even slow and partial of the important or vital functions from one organ to another (think for example of the similar functions performed by different glands).
There is to be aware of an additional issue of debate. In fact, there is no doubt that throughout the twentieth century we have seen a considerable broadening of the concept of scientific rationality with respect to the classical paradigm of Galileo, Newton and Laplace. It is possible to find, in some of the greatest contemporary scientists, an aspiration towards the ‘whole’, called by Karl Jaspers, when he writes: "The orientation towards the ‘whole’ is called philosophical, reason for which all science is philosophical.
In my opinion, the discourse is going to became more and more complicate. What do you think?
Dear Roland,
thank you for the stimulating contribution.
I wish to say just a few synthetic words related to your intervention, as I had already the opportunity to express my thought in some Questions asked at RG.
The idea of being able to recognize the presence of intelligent design in nature has accompanied much of human thought. The theme has however complex itineraries, both for the diversity of the epistemological context - scientific and philosophical - where it intended to propose itself, and for the wide meanings assumed by the term "design" and other terms related to it, such as purpose, intelligence, teleology.
The Anthropic Principle, or the "biotic conditions" associated with it, highlight only the coherence, coordination and interrelation in the structure and evolution of cosmos: they can not be employed, directly and without any further reflection, as demonstration of an intelligent design, nor can they prove the existence of a necessary and absolute teleology to the appearance of life and man.
All the best, Gianrocco
Our article published in peer-reviewed Journal "Communicative & Integrative Biology". A few major points discussed in the paper:
(1) Brain is not the source of consciousness.
(2) Consciousness is ubiquitous in all living organisms, starting from bacteria to human beings.
(3) The individual cells in the multicellular organisms are also individually cognitive entities.
(4) Proposals like “artificial life”, “artificial intelligence”, “sentient machines” and so on are only fairytales because no designer can produce an artifact with the properties like internal teleology (Naturzweck) and formative force (bildende Kraft).
(5) The material origin of life and objective evolution are only misconceptions that biologists must overcome.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Chemistry, Organic
- Organic