I don’t see much conflict anymore between intelligent design
and natural selection. Now that we are
sequencing DNA we know that the genetic possibilities are not infinite and they
are not random. Applying a field of mathematics
called combinatorics to DNA sequences, gives us a very, very large but finite
number of genetic combinations that are mathematically possible. Of those,
there are likely a lot smaller but still very large number of combinations that
are biologically viable. At this point, if you want to consider the
biologically viable genetic combinations intelligently designed I don’t think
the science is changed at all. The natural selection of Darwin chooses which of the biologically
viable designs survive and which don't. There's no scientific conflict between
intelligent design and survival of the fittest, but there is also no evolution
driven by random events. The laws of genetics were all baked in the cake before
the natural selection began with the original set of biologically viable
designs.
The open questions have to do with the exploration of which
of the mathematical genetic combinations are biologically viable. At the
moment, we are in the early stages of genetics and can only glimpse that these
questions will exist once we get further information. However, I would expect
that eventually we will have models that will be able to explore the
biologically viable combinations for clues as to hidden aspects of extinct
lifeforms. If you want to dwell in the past conflicts of pre-genetic Darwinism
versus creationism, enjoy yourself.
The
creationists believe G_d designed man. The Darwinists believed man evolved
through natural selection. At this point, our knowledge of genetics is leading
us towards the position that both are right. So from a scientific point of
view, we can stop arguing and get on with more interesting questions. The only reasons left to argue this are
political, not scientific. The argument allows Liberals to feel superior to
Conservatives for being "scientific." But the science involved has
moved on from the original argument.
Evolution
is in the news lately, because Scott Walker refused to answer a question about
it. I think somebody should ask if
belief in Darwin is a religious test for holding office in the US. Because any
religious test for holding office is unconstitutional. Since Scott Walker
refused to answer the question, I think they are assuming he has to answer the
question and demonstrate a religious belief in Darwin in order to hold the
office of president. They are saying failure to answer the question is
disqualifying.