'We Don't Have to Know the Designer'

A leading proponent of intelligent design theory explains Darwin's vulnerabilities and design's strengths.

Great
1
2
3
4
5

Rate

The defense has begun to present its case in the ongoing Dover, Pa. trial that will decide whether intelligent design theory can be taught as an alternative to evolution in a ninth-grade biology class. On Oct. 18 and 19, leading intelligent design proponent Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, testified in great depth as to the scientific merits of intelligent design, merits that he believes should qualify the theory for inclusion in public school curricula. Although he is a practicing Roman Catholic who believes that the "designer" of life was God, Behe stressed the scientific aspect of intelligent design over the religious.

As the case progresses, Beliefnet will continue to post intriguing excerpts from testimony on both sides of the isssue. Previously, Dover parent

Bryan Rhem

testified as to why, as a person of faith, he objects to intelligent design being taught to his children.

Behe's Testimony:

Does "design" mean we can know the designer?

Can intelligent design be scientifically disproved?

What are the weaknesses of Darwinism?

Astrology and ID--similarly scientific?

(Back to top)
ATTORNEY: Now does the conclusion that something was designed, does that require knowledge of a designer?

BEHE: No, it doesn't. And if you can advance to the next slide. I discussed that in Darwin's Black Box in Chapter 9, the chapter entitled Intelligent Design. Let me quote from it.

Quote, The conclusion that something was designed can be made quite independently of knowledge of the designer. As a matter of procedure, the design must first be apprehended before there can be any further question about the designer. The inference to design can be held with all the firmness that is possible in this world, without knowing anything about the designer.

Q. So is it accurate for people to claim or to represent that intelligent design holds that the designer was God?

A. No, that is completely inaccurate.

Q. Well, people have asked you your opinion as to who you believe the designer is, is that correct?

A. That is right.

Q. Has science answered that question?

A. No, science has not done so.

Q. And I believe you have answered on occasion that you believe the designer is God, is that correct?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. Are you making a scientific claim with that answer?

A. No, I conclude that based on theological and philosophical and historical factors.

(Back to top)
Q. Is intelligent design falsifyable?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And I want to get to that in a little bit more detail later. Now just to summarize. When you say you are relying on logical inferences, you're referring to inductive reasoning, correct?

A. Yes, inductive reasoning.

Q. And other than intelligent design, as you discussed, and you discussed a little bit about paleontology, do you have an example of this sort of reasoning, inductive reasoning that's used in sciences? A. Well, I think an excellent example of inductive reasoning is the Big Bang theory. Most people forget that in the early part of the 20th century that physicists thought the universe was timeless, eternal, and unchanging.

Intelligent design's scientific antecedents
Read more >>

_Related Features

Dover Parent: 'That's Not My Religion'

The ID Debate: Full Coverage

FAQs: What is Intelligent Design?