I present a controversy surrounding the cardinal Christoph Schönborn's op-ed article in New York Times, titled "Finding Design in Nature". In his paper, Schön-born challenges the claim that pope John Paul II accepted neodarwinian evolution as a possible method of God's creation of life forms and, especially, human beings. Moreover, cardinal says that neodarwinism contradicts Christian doctrine of creation. In Schönborn's view, neodarwinism excludes the possibility that there is a real design in nature and this is contradictory to the Catholic (...) Church's stand that this design could be and is recognizable by human reason. I argue, just like cardinal Schönborn, that neodarwinism actually is incompatible with the Christian doctrine of creation. I find also that his views, as well as some of the recent utterances of pope Benedict XVI, echoes the claims of intelligent design theory's proponents, who are skeptical of neodarwinism's validity and argue that they formulated scientific methods of detection of design in nature. Therefore, one can have a valid suspicion that these two leading hierarchs of Catholic Church attempt, though not explicitly, to embrace intelligent design theory as an appropriate view of origins for Christians in contrast with the currently dominating scientific view of biological evolution. (shrink)

METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM —A NECESSARY CONDITION OF SCIENCE? S u m m a r y Due to the success of Darwinian theory of evolution, with its methodological presuppositions, modern science is dominated by the principle of methodological naturalism, according to which only explanations invoking natural causes are acceptable in science. Supernatural or—in a broader sense—non-natural explanations, such as creationism or so-called intelligent design theory, are regarded as unscientific. The article analyzes the following questions: 1) Is it possible—contrary to methodological naturalism—to detect (...) scientifically the marks of the activity of intelligent beings, both natural and supernatural, in bio-logical and cosmic processes and structures? 2) What are the implications of methodological naturalism for science defined realistically, that is understood as a search for truth about the world of nature? 3) If one accepts that the inner-scientific per-missibility of concepts contradicting the principle of methodological naturalism is justified, would it be tantamount to the absolute exclusion of methodological naturalism as a principle directing the scientific inquiry? (shrink)

This article considers the main methodological objections against the theory of intelligent design. In general, they claim that it lacks a scientific character and they emphasize that design cannot be detected using scientific tools. The critics focus on showing that intelligent design violates various methodological criteria. In response to these objections, this article examines the methodological claim made by its proponents that the characteristic effects of the designer’s activity do provide a sufficient basis for inferring design. This paper also argues (...) that the procedure of inferring that a certain feature has been designed by a supernatural being does not differ in principle from design-detection procedures in other spheres of research. (shrink)

The main purpose of this article is a presentation of one of the subtheories included in the so-called intelligent design theory - a concept of irreducible complexity of the biochemical systems. The concept says that some features of different biochemical structures indicate that they are designed. It is an alternative concept to naturalistic theories of evolution, and especially to the Neo-Darwinian theory of the development of the life forms that is currently the dominating theory in biology. I shortly discuss the (...) logical and empirical point of the concept of irreducible complexity, whereas I give special attention to the most interesting, from the methodological point of view, part of the concept, namely the explanatory point. The explanatory point is concerned with the issue of design detection in natural sciences. I present also a response of the concept\'s of irreducible complexity critics, in the form of a variety of proposals of the evolutionary scenarios of the irreducibly complex systems origins. Although some of these scenarios describe material processes that, theoretically, are capable of producing the irreducible complexity, I agree with a criticism of intelligent design theory proponents that a high degree of speculativity of the evolutionary explanations presently does not allow for examination if these explanations correspond to the real history of irreducibly complex systems origins. Because, so far, both the evolutionists and design theorists are developing only general approaches to the issue of irreducible complexity that need further detailed analyses, I recognize that the problem of irreducible complexity of the biochemical systems remains unsolved in the advantage of one of the proposed theories. (shrink)