If It’s Not Science – Could it be Engineering?

Posted in Evolution, Intelligent Design (ID) at 7:39 pm by Administrator

(Originally written November, 2005)

The Vatican stand that biological evolution “represents the interpretative key of the history of life on Earth” is refreshing (‘Design’ is not science, Vatican paper says). Its conclusion (and subtle admonition) that “intelligent design doesn’t belong to science and the pretext that it be taught as a scientific theory alongside Darwin’s explanation is unjustified” has a ring of irony that begs a reading between the lines, so to speak. My interpretation of the message follows along these lines: there is a line separating science and theology that should not be crossed, and that intelligent design falls squarely on the side of, and within the exclusive purview of, theology. The implied meaning coming out of the Vatican is an accommodation of sorts: we’ll keep theological concepts (such as intelligent design) out of science deliberations; (if) you undertake to keep scientific concepts (such as evolution) out of the way of theology.

The problem as I see it is that intelligent design also includes the non-theological concept of “rational design” as proposed in Origin of Life: The 5th Option – the idea that the interactive system of biological life could have been rationally designed by molecular engineers and implanted on Earth as unicellular organisms by an intelligent alien civilization some 3.8 billion years ago to fulfill some purposeful design intent. As part of the package, the life system would have come equipped with the ability to adapt (evolution) and thereby survive the ever-changing biosphere conditions of the host planet. Furthermore, there should be somewhere within such a rationally designed system, waiting to be discovered and tested by scientists, incontrovertible evidence of design.
With all due respect, is there any logical reason why rational design should be prohibited from discussion in science classes?

Origin of Life, The 5th OPTION


  1. celpjefscycle said,

    January 12, 2008 at 9:02 am

    Thanks for information.
    many interesting things

  2. A. T. said,

    October 20, 2008 at 3:40 am

    Not sure if I follow your reasoning here! If a scientist is using his pre-concluded belief in chemical evolution to interpret origin of life experimental data, then that creates a large bias that skews his interpretation of the ‘facts’. It is undeniable that one’s belief (intelligent design, chemical evolution, or creation) influences the interpretation of the ‘facts’. Why then would we allow those who have conclusively declared chemical evolution as “true” to be the only ones with their viewpoints taught in schools? It isn’t fair or rational to exclude the other views when our National Science Foundation (2008) reports the current status of origin of life research as “sketchy”. I hope you aren’t letting a group intellectually railroad you simply because they have more people shouting louder and longer. The science simply isn’t there. The belief in chemical evolution of life requires as much faith as any religion. In summary, a belief in A = must be proven true one day does not mean that A = infinitely true today. Origin of life studies have been ongoing now for over 500 years with no conclusion yet everyone follows a handful of nerdy scientists with no answers. That is blind faith for sure! Thx!

Leave a Comment