Prejudging the outcome of sporting events is outrageously unfair. This was illustrated during the 2002 Winter Olympics when Canadians Jamie Sale and David Pelletier outperformed all other pairs skaters, but colluding judges initially denied them a gold medal.

Sometimes in the sciences the outcomes of investigation are also prejudged. For example, when attacking creationism, the National Academy of Sciences stated: "The job of science is to provide plausible natural explanations for natural phenomena."1 This definition allows only "natural" processes as the "scientific" explanation. It precludes finding any evidence within science of a supernatural Creator. Restricting science with the ancient philosophy of naturalism ensures that naturalistic theories about life will win every time, but it fails to ensure these are the best explanations. Applied to sports, this logic might mean for instance, that the Dallas Cowboys would win every game no matter how they play--a great thing for Cowboys fans perhaps, but not for football. Applied to science, if we include radical naturalism as part of the definition of science we thereby remove rational competition between ideas and fail to ensure that the best explanations of nature are accepted.

Intelligent Design (ID), an emerging field of scientific inquiry, elegantly challenges the naturalistic bias intercalated into definitions of science. ID asks the simple question: If the designer is unknown, is it possible to detect design? For example, when archaeologists studying the Nazca Lines in Peru find stones arranged to form gigantic images of birds and other creatures, is it possible to infer that intelligent beings lined up the stones? Scientists involved with the Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) face the other side of the same problem: How can radio signals from intelligent space aliens be differentiated from those originating in exploding stars? If complex meaningful patterns of stones are accepted as evidence of intelligent action, then complex meaningful patterns in cosmic radio waves may also be viewed as a product of intelligent extraterrestrials. The solution to detection of intelligence lies in recognition of complex meaningful patterns.

ID does not arbitrarily restrict the search for signs of intelligence to space aliens or ancient civilizations, but opens all fields, including the origin of life and the universe, to the logical search for intelligent causes. ID theorists like William Dembski2 and Michael Behe3 have broken with restrictive naturalistic definitions of science by applying to biological systems the same logic employed by archaeologists, forensic scientists and other well-respected scientific disciplines. Even before deciphering hieroglyphics, archaeologists have no trouble recognizing them as the work of intelligent beings. Dembski argues that information, whether it is written on the walls of ancient gravesites, in the pages of this magazine or in the pattern of bases in a cell's DNA is logically the product of intelligence. From ancient boats, chariots and other transportation machines archaeologists infer skilled and intelligent engineers. Behe has shown how, just like manmade machines, minute molecular machines inside cells exhibit all the properties characteristic of intelligently manufactured products. The logic used by these investigators is sound; the data they work from are immense. It is only the conclusion, that life exhibits properties characteristic of intelligent design, that is controversial.

It is tempting for Bible-believing Christians to embrace ID because it appears to remove the anti-creation bias from science. However, there are several inappropriate responses thinking Christians should avoid. Claiming that ID proves God created everything is an overreaction and definitely is not what ID aims or claims to do. It is inappropriate to think that ID "finally" answers the challenges to faith that come from science. If ID is science, we must regard all its conclusions as tentative. It is not healthy to base our faith on constantly changing scientific theories, even if at present those theories seem to be friendly to our beliefs. Another inappropriate reaction is viewing ID as irrelevant because it makes no claims about the nature of the Intelligent Designer.

ID represents a very big tent under which people of many faiths, including skeptics, find common ground. ID is not about winning debates or proving the superiority of one's personal faith over another's. ID is about liberating science from a restrictive philosophy that constrains its progress. It opens new areas for research and exploration. It allows for a richer set of questions as we seek to advance our understanding of creation.

Notes:

1 Science and Creationism: A view from the National Academy of Sciences, 2nd Edition, Pg. 7.

2 Dembski, William A. 1999. Intelligent Design: The bridge between science and theology. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois.

3 Behe, Michael J. 1996. Darwin's Black Box: The biochemical challenge to evolution. The Free Press, NY.