EVOLVING SCIENCE 5
Accordingto the arguments raised by individuals supporting intelligencedesign, a given phenomenon can be perceived as a product ofintelligent design if it cannot show regularity, which stems from thelaws of nature and cannot be as a result of chance. For instance,complexity alone cannot be sufficient to indicate the works designedby an intelligent agent it needs to conform to a specified patternthat is independent (Stewart,2007). Among the most convincing evidence for intelligence design inthe biology realm entails the discovery of digital information thatis inherent in living cells. It is evident that biologicalinformation is composed of complex, non-repeating sequence that ishighly specified in relation to the communication or functionalrequirements which they perform (Stewart,2007). Believers of the intelligent design will be capable ofembracing the incredibly promising and innovative solutions that areoutlined in Bawazer’s Tedtalk because Bawazer clearly expresses awholehearted endeavor of intelligently designing new genomes. This islikely to be embraced by the believers of intelligent design since itdepicts the works of an intelligent agent besides, the believers ofintelligent design can embrace the solutions proposed by Bawazersince they indicate that a product is not as a result of chance. Inaddition, believers of intelligent design are likely to embrace thesolution offered by Bawazer because the solution does not relate tothe Darwin’s theory concerning natural selection, but concerns themanipulation of life codes through engineering, which has a relationwith intelligent design.
Accordingto Bronowski, no scientific theory constitutes a collection of factsand all science constitutes the search for unity in the hiddenlikenesses (Bronowski, 2000). Besides, he argues that the progress ofscience entails the discovery of every step of a new order that givesunity to that which had long been perceived unlike. However, theremust be democracy from the confines of any kind of prescribedthinking for this hold. Bronowski shows Copernicus route ofenlightenment as an obscure thinker that confronted the normalscience of his epoch. He used imagination and creativity inchallenging the ideas brought by normal science. This depicts scienceas imaginative and creative. This relation of science as imaginativeand creative is also presented by Bawazer, where he indicates that heimagines of limitless possibilities for humans manipulating allgenomes (Bawazera, 2013). This is an indication of being imaginativeand creative because Bawazer does not show success in one area, buthe thinks of using creativity and imagination in manipulating allgenomes through genetic engineering (Bawazera, 2013). As Bawazeroffers a way of intelligently designing new genomes, he shows asignificant level of creativity that science should use in bringingin ideas. Besides, this is a show of maturation in the scientificprocess that Bronowski talks about. Therefore, the science discussedby Bawazer relates to Bronowski’s belief about science as beingimaginative and creative since he clearly shows a level of creativityand imagination concerning the idea of manipulating all genomesthrough genetic engineering.
Khundefines scientific paradigm as a research that is firmly grounded onone or more past scientific achievements, which some given scientificcommunity can acknowledge for a time. According to him, a paradigmmust attract an enduring group team of adherents away from the rivalmodes of scientific activity and should be adequately open-ended inleaving all sorts of problems for the redefined team of practitionersto resolve (Khun, 2006). Besides, Khun argues that for a paradigmchange to occur, revolution is needed. From the Khun’s argument ofa new scientific paradigm, I think Bawazer’s discussion representsthe dawning of a new scientific paradigm. One of the reasons why thismay indicate a dawn of a new paradigm is because the idea of usinggenetic engineering in designing life is likely to elicit debateconcerning the science behind it. This can well present a newscientific paradigm because it has the science of intelligent designbehind it for instance, this may be an extension of intelligentdesign science that came up with the idea that there is digitalinformation that is inherent in living cells. Therefore, what ispresented by Bawazer may become a new scientific paradigm from theinformation presented by Khun concerning scientific paradigms.
Scienceneeds to be free from any world views. Although world views areusually associated with science, this is not always the situationbecause some of the scientific views do not present facts. As such,science needs to be creative and imaginative in an attempt to come upwith issues that are not as a result of chance. From the Bawazer’sdiscussion, it is apparent that believers of intelligent design canembrace his solutions since whatever he argues is a representation ofimagination and creativity. From the Khun’s view of a scientificparadigm, it can be depicted that the scientific views presented inthe Bawazer’s discussion are likely to form a new scientificparadigm. The new scientific paradigm may bring changes to thealready existing scientific information as presented by differenttheories.
Bawazera,L. (2013). GeneticallyEvolved Technology.Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BljY3_i3gfw
Bronowski,J. (2000). The Nature of Scientific Reasoning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Khun,S.T. (2006). Structureof Scientific Revolutions,Philopher’s Web Magazine.
Stewart,R. B. (2007). Intelligentdesign: William A. Dembski & Michael Ruse in dialogue.Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.