In a recent Forbes column, Michael Egnor (of Discovery Institute fame) wrote “Why I don’t believe in atheism’s creation myth.” In the middle of the column, Egnor asks a series of questions concerning evolution and intelligent design. These random questions are meant to cast doubt in reader’s minds about the validity of evolution without giving any real arguments. He probably doesn’t expect any answers to his questions, but here we go anyway. I have included the questions as written in here along with my own answers.
Why, when the genetic code was unraveled, didn’t scientists question Darwin’s assumption of randomness?
Contrary to Egnor’s insinuation, the unraveling of the genetic code supported randomness. The enzymes that copy DNA are not perfect and allow for random mutations to occur at a low frequency.
Why didn’t Darwinists ask the difficult questions that are posed for their theory by the astonishing complexity of intracellular molecular machinery?
What difficult questions? Scientists ask difficult questions all the time. Does he really think that trying to describe what happens inside a living cell is easy work?
Why do Darwinists claim that intelligent design is untestable, and simultaneously claim that it is wrong?
We already have a highly substantiated theory to explain the diversity of life on earth: evolution. Therefore, intelligent design is unnecessary. Why do we need to bring in a baseless idea that is untestable?
Why do Darwinists claim that intelligent design theory isn’t scientific, when both intelligent design and Darwinism are merely the affirmative and negative answers to the same scientific question: Is there evidence for teleology in biology?
What defines science is not what questions it asks, it is in the approach to answering the questions. In order for something to be scientific, it needs to make predictions that can be tested and be shown to be falsifiable. Intelligent design does neither. Science takes into account all evidence. Intelligent design ignores or denies scientific findings. Science deals with the natural world. It does not deal with the supernatural because, by definition, the supernatural does not follow the laws of physics.Intelligent design requires a supernatural being.
Why do Darwinists–scientists–seek recourse in federal courts to silence criticism of their theory in public schools?
We do not want an unscientific viewpoint based on an unscientific set of beliefs determining the direction of science in public schools. Logic, reason, and evidence have failed to work. Extensive debate doesn’t work. What else do we have? Using the courts is all that is left in many situations.
What is it about the Darwinian understanding of biological origins that is so fragile that it will not withstand scrutiny by schoolchildren?
Scientists are not afraid that school children will be able to disprove evolutionary theory. We are afraid of having a scientifically illiterate populous. It is very easy to indoctrinate children. Their minds have not matured and they do not have the knowledge necessary to fully evaluate a theory such as evolution.
These same questions, or slight variations, seem to arise quite often in Intelligent design proponent’s writings. They have been answered many times before, but they still keep being asked. Of course intelligent design proponents are not really interested in the answers, they are more interested in casting doubt on the evolutionary point of view.