By Trina Bryant

The editor of the Journal of Origins ‘ Design, Dr. Paul Nelson, spoke to a crowd of about 115 students last Thursday on the importance of reclaiming openness in science that he says has been lost.

Dr. Nelson, who is also a philosopher of Biology at the University of Chicago, explained to the crowd gathered in Dodge Hall that the theory of Methodological Naturalism (or evolution) restricts much of the scientific freedom and openness that existed prior to Darwin’s evolutionary theory.

“Most scientists accept the rule of methodological naturalism,” Nelson said. “However, I actually think it profoundly hinders science. This restriction to science to only so called natural causes is not a neutral rule; in fact, it tailors the shape of science and gets between us and the world itself.”

Dr. Nelson, a specialist in evolutionary developmental biology and a member of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID) urged audience members not to forsake the idea of evolution or natural selection, but to also consider the idea that life could have been intelligently designed.

“We should consider [natural cause] when explaining certain events, but natural causation can not possibly be all there is. We know that there are intelligent causes as well,” Nelson said. “Lets say you come out of the movie theater and you see that your car window is smashed and your radio is missing. Most of us would not assume that the incident was a result of natural causes, but the result of an intelligent agent”

Dr. Nelson represents a growing debate within the scientific world between evolution and intelligent design. While evolution implies that life developed through natural causes, intelligent design entertains the possibility that the origin of life could have been the product of an “intelligent agent or designer.”

Although evolution restricts scientists to looking at natural causes when attempting to understand life’s patterns and mysteries, Nelson argues that there are sciences that utilized the concept of intelligent design.

“We do, in fact, use design inferences in science,” Nelson said. “All types of forensic investigation, as well as the whole genre of detective novels, use it. Actual detective work rests on our ability to discriminate events and say that that event is intelligently caused and that event occurred naturally.”

Archeology, the study of life and cultures of the past, also makes use of the idea of intelligent design. “We know that Stonehenge [large stone monuments that appear on Salisbury Plain in England] as a pattern was constructed by something or someone; it didn’t just roll into place,” Nelson said. “We use design inferences all the time in our daily lives but the controversy occurs when we talk about biology.”

The theory of intelligent design was pushed on to the discussion table in 1996 by the publication of Michael J. Behe’s “Darwin’s ‘Black Box’: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.” In his book, Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University, argues that the “astonishing complexity of subcellular organic structure” points to an intelligent designer. Nelson agrees with Behe that the complexity of simplest organisms encourages us to consider that something else besides evolution was at work in the creation of life.

“The point that I want to make is that the molecular sophistication of even the simplest living thing is truly staggering. RNA [ribonucleic acid], the very entity that is suppose to begin the story of evolution in the Universe is a mystery,” Nelson said. “There is no natural pathway to RNA. All attempts to synthesize it have failed. RNA that exists in the universe today was either produced by an organism or synthesized painstakingly by a biochemist.”

Some students in attendance questioned whether or not accepting intelligent design would also limit science. Nelson replied that allowing the possibility of design to be considered would only serve to open science up and allow other explanations, regarding the origin of life, to be explored. According to Nelson, scientists who consider the theory of design are often ostracized by fellow colleagues and or harassed.

“I’m simply appealing to intellectual freedom. I don’t want to take anything away from science. I want to open it up to the possibilities. Sir Isaac Newton and Johannes Kempler did not recognize that rule [methodological naturalism] and they did perfectly good science without it,” he said.

“The whole concept is interesting to consider,” said Clara Gabriel, a senior sociology major. “Dr. Nelson made a valid point about methodological naturalism limiting the job of science. Science, in general, ignores the fact that there is an intelligent anything and I just don’t buy that.”

Stephen McHugh, a junior and dual finance and accounting major, also believes that theory of intelligent design should be considered along with other theories that are presented in schools.

“In the absence of any evidence to the fallacy of the theory, there seems little valid scientific reason to rule out intelligent design before giving it a fair hearing. I think [Nelson] made an adequate case for the validity of the theory of intelligent design, and the necessity to get the issue open to discussion in the modern forum,” McHugh said.

To learn more about the on-going debate and to participate in discussions concerning intelligent design, go to www.iscid.org or www.arn.org.