Over the past half-century, Artificial Intelligence has been all the rage among computer scientists, and among many other scientists and philosophers and the general public. Can machines think? Is it possible that a computer could have intentions and desires and understanding of its own? Many otherwise well-informed people have taken it for granted that machines are capable of thought, particularly if a substantial level of complexity is reached. Several philosophers and scientists have argued that AI is not possible -- machines will never be capable of thought. They are right to deny the possibility of AI. The arguments against AI are several.
Is evolutionary theory "critical" to medicine? A poll of doctors from 2006 found that at least 34 percent of U.S. physicians think intelligence played a role in the origin of humans. That's a very significant portion of doctors who support intelligent design. On the flipside, evolutionary science has hindered medical research by promulgating the now-defunct concept of "junk DNA". That's the evolution-based idea that most of the DNA in human cells is useless junk. It's now known that the vast majority of our DNA has function, but evolution discouraged research into "junk DNA." In this regard, with its faulty understanding of "the human person" as being the result of strictly blind physical mechanisms, evolution has obstructed "advances in medicine." Many other examples could be given. For another, evolutionary science has wrongly assumed that many organs are "vestigial" and thus unnecessary or unimportant. Those organs include the appendix, tonsils, coccyx, and thyroid. It's now known that each of those organs plays an important role in human physiology. By presuming nonfunctionality or reduced functionality in these organs, evolutionary science did great medical damage to many patients.
In 1904, genetics pioneer Hugo de Vries quipped that "natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest." In 2014, Andreas Wagner thinks it can. His new book, reviewed by Mark Pagel in Nature, is titled Arrival of the Fittest: Solving Evolution's Greatest Puzzle. What is that "greatest puzzle"? The ability to work miracles.
When Biologists Think Like Engineers: How the Burgeoning Field of Systems Biology Supports Intelligent Design
Opponents of the intelligent design (ID) approach to biology have sometimes argued that the ID perspective discourages scientific investigation. To the contrary, it can be argued that the most productive new paradigm in systems biology is actually much more compatible with a belief in the intelligent design of life than with a belief in neo-Darwinian evolution. This new paradigm in system biology, which has arisen in the past ten years or so, analyzes living systems in terms of systems engineering concepts such as design, information processing, optimization, and other explicitly teleological concepts. This new paradigm offers a successful, quantitative, predictive theory for biology. Although the main practitioners of the field attribute the presence of such things to the outworking of natural selection, they cannot avoid using design language and design concepts in their research, and a straightforward look at the field indicates it is really a design approach altogether.
Absolute proof is strictly the domain of logicians. In mathematics, for example, once a theorem is proven it is proven for all time and all circumstances. Mathematical proof is absolute. Mathematics, however, is not science. This is a point about which many are confused. Mathematics is a language used by science, but is not itself a science. Mathematical proof and scientific proof are not the same thing at all. Scientific proof is not really proof at all, in the mathematical sense, but is either verification or disproof. Since scientists deal with a universe that is not of their own creation, they cannot prove their laws absolutely as can mathematicians. Although scientists use the term “scientific proof,” what they really mean is that a particular hypothesis has been verified or disproved. They don’t mean “proof” in the mathematical sense.
If you were to come across Mt. Rushmore while hiking through the hills of South Dakota, having no prior knowledge of the structure, which statement is more "scientific" and which one requires a lot of faith? 1. Some intelligent being designed this. 2. Wind and erosion over millions of years created this. If you choose #1 as the statement most "scientific" (with no guessing or conjecture as to who made the design), then you would be labeled as an idiot trying to force your religious beliefs on others by 21st scientists when applying the same scientific reasoning to other things found in nature. If you choose #2, however, starting with the presupposition that #1 cannot be true, you have now created a new belief system from which to develop your theories or origins upon. This new religion, fueled mainly by Darwinism, is Scientism. Scientism is the basis of much of western culture today. It gave us eugenics, for example, and was responsible for the medical tyranny that unfolded in Nazi Germany leading up to World War II. What few people today realize, however, is that the foundations of the religion of Scientism is bringing about medical tyranny in many of the same ways as they unfolded in Nazi Germany, today right here in the United States. If you want to understand #1, however, you need to study Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design (ID) is a branch of science which is constantly under attack today, and labeled as "religion" or something else it is not. ID is quite different from "Creationism." Creationism moves beyond the observation of scientific facts and makes statements as who the Creator is, such as what is written in the Bible (a worthy topic of study in and of itself!) ID does not deal with the "who," but leaves that up to religion. David Klinghoffer of the Discovery Institute writes about the prejudices against ID by those who have never even studied it: "We Don't Have to Listen to the Evidence Because..."
Intelligent design gets a bad rap because it is not in line with the supposed scientific consensus that unguided evolutionary processes account for the existence of all of the life that we see today. But there are unanswered questions regarding the origin of the complexity of biological systems and the information content in DNA (both within the genome and the epigenome), as Stephen Meyer has shown in Darwin's Doubt and Signature in the Cell. Science, indeed, should be about exploring uncharted territories from varying, even unpopular, perspectives rather than confining ourselves to research that has been blessed by convention. The old paradigm focused on the sequence of the coding portion of DNA to find genetic factors for disease. However, when the old paradigm cannot answer questions, it is time to think outside the box.
Charles Darwin knew that there was a significant event in the history of life that his theory did not explain. In what is known today as the “Cambrian explosion,” 530 million years ago many animals suddenly appeared in the fossil record without apparent ancestors in earlier layers of rock. In Darwin’s Doubt Stephen C. Meyer tells the story of the mystery surrounding this explosion of animal life—a mystery that has intensified, not only because the expected ancestors of these animals have not been found, but also because scientists have learned more about what it takes to construct an animal.
The study of epigenetics -- codes and systems "above" genetics -- has accelerated in recent years. Scientists now recognize a multitude of players implicated in regulating genes. These players include proteins, RNA molecules, and chemical "tags" that DNA translation machinery recognizes. Some recent papers elucidate a few of the many ways epigenetic factors interact with the genome. While evolutionists scramble to deal with the unprecedented complexity, intelligent design is not surprised by it. Design thinking propelled the discovery of functions for what evolutionists considered useless leftovers of a haphazard process, as the reports quoted in this article show. The lesson is clear: intelligent design is in the best position to promote scientific discovery, and to deliver the understanding sought by science.
A strong case can be made that the cell has turned out to be a lot more complicated than Darwin or his contemporaries imagined. Not only did they vastly underestimate the complexity of the cell, but it's probably vastly more complex even than we imagine today.