WASHINGTON, July 18 (UPI) -- The continuing argument between strict  Darwinian
evolutionists and those who believe in the intelligent design of  the universe
seems to hinge on two issues.

  The first is the mechanism of biological change over time. Darwin's  dynamic
can be summarized in the phrase "blind variation and selective  retention." In
other words, changes in genetic material are random and  purposeless. Most
mutations are harmful, but some confer reproductive  advantages in given
environments.

  This gives rise to another aphorism, "differential fertility and  differential
mortality." In other words, organisms that have by chance  inherited genes
favorable to survival in a given habitat are more likely to  live to
reproductive age and have more offspring than those less favored,  modifying the
gene pool of the breeding population.

  Scientists who believe in intelligent design have no quarrel with simple
Darwinian mechanics in the short run. They believe this is the way bacteria
become resistant to antibiotics, for example, and how mosquito populations
became resistant to DDT.

  But they ask if random genetic change can account for creation in all of  its
amazing complexity.

  Most intelligent design theorists also accept the Darwinian doctrine of
"common descent," meaning all organisms descend from a common ancestor.

  "The issue is not science vs. religion," William Dembski told United Press
International. "It is about the mechanism or force that's driving  evolutionary
change."

  Dembski is a mathematician and a philosopher who also has a background in
theology. He is an associate research professor specializing in the conceptual
foundations of science at Baylor University in Waco, Texas, and a  senior fellow
at the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science  and Culture in
Seattle.

  "The fundamental claim of intelligent design is that purpose is displayed  in
the complexity and diversity of the living systems that we see," Dembski  said
in a telephone interview from Waco. "Undirected natural causes are insufficient
to account for functional complexity, and the underlying design is empirically
detectable."

  Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pa., wrote  in
his 1996 book "Darwin's Black Box" that some biological systems are so
"irreducibly complex" at the molecular level that it is impossible for them to
have evolved by chance alone.

  An example is a bacterial flagellum (tail), which Dembski described as "a
little outboard rotary motor on the back of certain bacteria. It requires  about
30 protein parts to make the thing and another 20 to put the whole  thing
together. It spins at about 17,000 RPM and can change direction in a
quarter-turn." Dembski called it as "a marvel of nano-engineering," which
indicates "specified complexity."

  The mathematician told UPI that one cannot generate this type of  complexity
by "stochastic (chance) processes. Basically, if a stochastic  process outputs
'specified complexity,' it's because it had to first be inputted."

  Dembski likened the process to solving an accounting problem. "You track  the
information, and you see that it needs intelligence to get this type of
result."

  Judging from the Discovery Institute's Web site, discovery.org,  intelligent
design theorists welcome input from their many critics. An  unfavorable review
of "Darwin's Black Box" by computer scientist Don Lindsay  argues that some
examples offered as evidence of "irreducible complexity" are in fact reducible.

  Behe's bacterial flagella are considered. Lindsay said that the flagellum  on
a certain form of intestinal bacteria consists of a chain of 497 amino  acids.
"What if we chop out a third of those? (He cites a study.) If the 'system' is
irreducible, then removing these parts should make it stop functioning. But that
has been done, and the flagellum still worked fine."

  Dutch science writer Gert Korthof has problems with intelligent design theory,
but he welcomes it as a good test for contemporary Darwinism. The  famous
philosopher Karl Popper (1902-1994) changed the world with the  publication of
his book "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" in 1934. In this book Popper
introduced the concept of "falsification."

  What separates science from other endeavors, Popper wrote, is that  scientific
theories must be subject to refutation. Only hypotheses capable  of clashing
with observation can be considered scientific. Korthof notes  that
neo-Darwinists, who are in charge of mainstream science, seldom publish  any
writer who attempts to falsify the idea that evolution occurred by  chance
alone.

  This raises the question of which group is more scientific and which is  more
doctrinal.

  The best answer might derive from a far older scientific principle --
parsimony, otherwise known as Occam's razor. William of Occam, a 14th  century
Franciscan priest who taught at Oxford, wrote: "What can be done  with fewer
(assumptions) is done in vain with more." In other words, the  simplest
explanation is best.

  In the last analysis, the determination of which school of evolutionary
thought is more scientific might come down to a subjective judgment about  which
explanation is more parsimonious. Intelligent design theorists will  defend
their ideas doggedly, but one can imagine, at least, that they will  back away
from examples that don't pan out.

  Strict Darwinians, on the other hand, refuse to consider explanations that
depart from the preconception that all natural phenomena are the result of
chance. Which approach is more scientific, and which relies more on  doctrine?
 --
 Copyright 2001 by United Press International.
 All rights reserved.
 --