Seven More Views on Intelligent Design

Mano Singham’s Opinion article “Philosophy Is Essential to the Intelligent Design Debate” emphasizes both the importance of “the demarcation problem”—that is, the unambiguous distinction of science from nonscience—and the nature of “origins science.”

Science deals with the physical aspect of reality; its subject matter is data that, in principle, can be collected solely by physical devices. If physical devices cannot measure something, then that something is not the subject matter of science. Of course, the whole of reality encompasses more than the physical.

Physics is the prototype of experimental science, which yields laws of nature based on data collected from repeatable experiments. In contrast, origins science is more akin to forensic science, because it deals with unique, nonrepeatable events. Nonetheless, for origins science to qualify as science, extant evidentiary data must also be collectible by physical devices.

Human consciousness and reasoning summarize all physical data into laws and create the mathematical theories that lead to predictions. However, the human element that creates the theories is totally absent from the laws and theories themselves. Accordingly, human consciousness and rationality are outside the bounds of science since they cannot be detected by purely physical devices and can only be “detected” by the self in humans.

Unraveling the mysteries of nature requires conscious, intelligent beings. But no humanly conceived theory of nature, however complete, can ever encompass all that exists or the creation process that brought everything into being. This ontological problem is best answered by supposing the existence of a Creator, which must be conscious and intelligent to an infinitely higher degree. I believe this idea is the underlying rationale for advocates of intelligent design to infer an Intelligent Designer.

Human reasoning cannot avoid the fundamental question of origins, which is outside the purview of science. John Wheeler (Physics Today, May 2002, page 28 ) said it best: “Philosophy is too important to leave to the philosophers, and I had better get busy on the most important question: How come existence?”