I’m having a blast at Dembski’s website. There is so much there. I’m not going to print the entire essay here, but I will post his ten questions for you to consider.
1. Design Detection
If nature, or some aspect of it, is intelligently designed, how can we tell?
2. Generalizing SETI
The search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) is a scientific research program that searches for signs of intelligence from distant space. Should biologists likewise search for signs of intelligence in biological systems? Why or why not?
3. Biology’s Information Problem
How do we account for the complex information-rich patterns in biological systems? Where did they originate?
4. Molecular Machines
Do any structures in the cell resemble machines designed by humans? How do we account for such structures?
5. Irreducible Complexity
What are irreducibly complex systems? Do such systems exist in biology? If so, are those systems evidence for design? If not, why not?
6. Reusable Parts
Human designers reuse designs that work well. Life forms also repeat the use of certain structures (the camera eye, for example). Is this evidence for common descent, evolutionary convergence, common design, or a combination of these?
7. Reverse Engineering
In trying to understand biological systems, molecular biologists often need to “reverse engineer” them. Is this evidence that the systems were engineered to begin with?
Do intelligent design theory and neo-Darwinian theory make different predictions? Take, for instance, junk DNA. For which of the two theories would the idea that large stretches of DNA are junk be more plausible?
9. Following the Evidence
What evidence would convince you that intelligent design is true and neo-Darwinism is false? If no such evidence exists or indeed can exist, how can neo-Darwinism be a testable scientific theory?
10. Identifying the Designer
Can we determine whether an object is designed without identifying or knowing anything about its designer? For instance, can we identify an object as an ancient artifact without knowing anything about the civilization that produced it?
Now, I’m not suggesting these questions cannot be answered; they can, and they should be. I’m curious to know how differently they will be answered by Darwinists and creationists. Better, go over to Dembski’s essay and read his answers. Dembski concludes this way:
Phillip Johnson has written an insightful book titled The Right Questions: Truth, Meaning and Public Debate. In that book he shows that truth is best served not by having all the answers but by knowing the right questions, especially the tough questions suppressed by the intellectual elite of our society. In particular, truth demands that we ask the tough questions about Darwin and evolution. As Richard Halvorson has aptly remarked, “We must refuse to bow to our culture’s false idols. Science will not benefit from canonizing Darwin or making evolution an article of secular faith. We must reject intellectual excommunication as a valid form of dealing with criticism: the most important question for any society to ask is the one that is forbidden.” Intelligent design doesn’t have all the answers. But it is asking the right questions—questions forbidden by the Darwinian establishment. For a more thorough examination of the questions posed here, as well as many others, consult my new book The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design (InterVarsity, 2004).”
Kind of makes one wonder if perhaps the evolutionist establishment in the scientific community has something to hide doesn’t it? Kind of makes one wonder why they don’t want dissent doesn’t it? Kind of makes one wonder who the real conspiracy theorist are doesn’t it?