Intelligent Design

Science can give us a how, but not a why. I am reminded of this axiom as I read this chapter in Dembski's Intelligent Design. He carefully explains why creation (at least in an ID sense) is not a miracle in the proper understanding of one. Through a discussion on contingency, complexity and specification, he shows how the science community has wrongly pushed out ID approaches to origins, not because of the science, but because of their own belief system.

Dembski maintains that we must assume design where design seems present. This seems like a common-sense approach, but when you have a naturalistic worldview, it is not quite so clear. Demski also visits the irreducible complexity of the cell (among other systems) as a road sign toward ID.

In the end, the author demonstrates that ID is not a science stopper, but actually that naturalism is as it limits the types of questions we can ask. This chapter gives excellent cannon fodder for discussing origins with people who approach knowledge from a naturalistic perspective. I am not a scientist, or really all that scientifically minded for that matter. So, I am thankful for such works as Dembski's Intelligent Design.