Theorizing in science, like theorizing in other disciplines, often employs a method known as inference to the best explanation in which the theorist asks, given the empirical data, which of several competing hypotheses best explains what we see? The criteria for a "best explanation" are several, and include simplicity, adequacy, fruitfulness, testability, etc.
There are essentially two live options to choose between when it comes to the origins of life and the cosmos. These phenomena are the result of either the purposeful creative activity of an intelligent mind (Intelligent Design) or the product of mindless, random forces (naturalism).
Sewell limits his discussion to the origin of life, the origin of advanced life forms, and the origin of human consciousness and maintains that in each case naturalism is hopelessly inadequate as an explanation. We never see unintelligent forces producing massive amounts of information, such as is necessary to construct and operate the first living cell, but we see minds do this sort of thing all the time.
To read the details of his arguments check out his article, which isn't long, at the link. He summarizes it with this statement:
The argument for intelligent design could not be simpler or clearer: Unintelligent forces alone cannot rearrange atoms into computers and airplanes and nuclear power plants and smartphones, and any attempt to explain how they can must fail somewhere because they obviously can’t. Perhaps this is the best way to understand why explanations without design will never work, and why science may finally be starting to recognize this.An example of how science is beginning to recognize the cogency of the ID arguments is the theme of his second article.
He discusses a scientific conference he attended in Israel on the topic of the potential and limitations of evolutionary processes to generate living things. The conference organizers invited numerous prominent evolutionary biologists, but also invited four or five scientists who are proponents of intelligent design. It's hard to imagine ID proponents being invited to speak at such an event even a decade ago.
Sewell writes:
Most, but not all [of the ID speakers], avoided mentioning design explicitly, but still emphasized the “limitations” of evolutionary processes.We're in the midst of a scientific revolution. Thinking on the origin and structure of the universe, life, and consciousness is "evolving" as more and more scientists recognize the power of ID to explain what naturalism simply cannot, or at least cannot explain in a plausible manner.
Even Rice University chemist James Tour (who considers himself “agnostic” toward intelligent design) argued that origin-of-life researchers have deceived the public into believing that we are close to understanding how life formed, when we are not.
As stated on the conference web page, “the main goal of this unique interdisciplinary, international conference is to bring together scientists and scholars who hold a range of views on the potential and possible limitations of chemical and biological processes in evolution.”
The organizers attempted, to a large degree successfully, to create an atmosphere of mutual respect between those who emphasized the “potential” of evolutionary processes, and those who emphasized their “limitations.”
Until recently, intelligent design has been considered an untouchable topic in mainstream scientific circles, where it’s considered axiomatic that everything must be explainable in terms of the unintelligent forces of nature, no matter how implausible and incomplete our current explanations may be.
This axiom has worked well in other areas of science, but the problems of explaining the origin and evolution of life without design are inherently much more difficult than other scientific problems.
For this reason, a growing number of scientists seem finally ready to at least include intelligent design within the “range of views” allowed to be heard. The meeting in Israel represented an important step in this direction and shows that mainstream science can ignore the obvious for a long time, but not forever.
If you need further evidence that intelligent design is finally being taken more seriously, look at the long list of distinguished scientists endorsing Stephen Meyer’s 2021 book “Return of the God Hypothesis.” Physics Nobel prize winner Brian Josephson said the book “makes it clear that far from being an unscientific claim, intelligent design is valid science.”
Another endorser is Brazilian chemist Marcos Eberlin, whose own book “Foresight: How the Chemistry of Life Reveals Planning and Purpose,” which promotes intelligent design, carries the endorsements of three Nobel prize winners.
It'll be fascinating to see how this revolution unfolds over the next decade or so.
