Intelligent Design: Welcome to the Dark Ages
“Despise reason and science, humanity’s greatest strengths, indulge in illusions and magical practices that reinforce your self-deception, and you will be unconditionally lost!” (Goethe). For as long as humanity has existed, people have questioned the origin of their existence. As life progressed and technology and science increased, people began to come closer to an answer for this question. One of these people was Charles Darwin. His answer to the origin and meaning of life, evolution, has been under attack ever since. Nearly all of these wars have been waged in the name of religion, and Intelligent Design is no different, albeit more subtle, in its motives. Intelligent Design is the belief that life could not have evolved without some thinking force to help it along. It is also, subsequently, the idea that schools need to teach this belief alongside evolution in the science classroom. However, Intelligent Design is not a viable alternative to evolution and should not be taught as such. Until there is scientific evidence for this phenomenon, it should be kept out of science classrooms.
In 1991, Bruce Chapman founded the Discovery Institute in the hope of fulfilling its mission "to make a positive vision of the future practical." (Source Watch). In 1996, the Discovery Institute launched a program called ‘The Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture’, the main goal of which was to replace the materialistic science of evolution with the Christian-friendly intelligent design. According to James Still the CRSC hopes to “replace materialism and its destructive cultural legacies with a positive scientific alternative.” One of the main steps in achieving this goal is to bring Intelligent Design into the science classroom in order to convince American children that there is scientific evidence for a creator. As of now, the CRSC has not succeeded in making this happen, but they are still formulating reasons as to why it should.
One argument that this organization often uses in support of Intelligent Design is that people need to be exposed to different ideas in order to become fully open-minded. They claim that America’s free-thinking society should be willing to allow different opinions into its classrooms. According to Senator Bill Frist, schools should teach evolution next to intelligent design because “in a pluralistic society that is the fairest way to go about education and training people for the future.” This conclusion is irrelevant. It is important for society to embrace differing thoughts, and therefore discuss differing science theories in science classrooms; however, Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. The CRSC has not, to date, released any experimental data or fossil records, or any form of scientific evidence whatsoever that has even remotely challenged the mainstream understanding of biology (Dennett). CRSC scientists also have “no empirical research program and, consequently, have published no data in peer-reviewed journals (or elsewhere) to support their intelligent-design claims” (Forrest). It would be fair to teach the idea of intelligent design in a “course on comparative religion,” but there is absolutely no reason why Americans should dupe their children into believing that intelligent design has any scientific basis (DeVore). As noted by Governor Jon Huntsman, “I would expect my kids in science class to be instructed in those things that are somewhat quantifiable and based on thorough and rigorous empirical research.” Additionally, science is based on the idea that everything needs to be thoroughly thought through, and questioned, and re-questioned. Intelligent Design encourages people to just accept what is told to them without really having to think about it. As noted by Robert Carroll,
"To say [humans] [were] designed by God or an alien race is to say: Stop, go no further in trying to understand this. Students might be taught that ID is just the kind of theory that some philosophers and theologians find interesting but since it doesn't lead to any deeper understanding of biological mechanisms, doesn't lead to new discoveries or research ventures, and doesn't have any practical scientific applications, it is left to those in other fields to pursue."
Advocates of intelligent design also argue that the earth is designed in such a way that it is perfect to support life. They use the argument that if the variables on this planet were not exactly, or at least not close to the way they are now, that there could be no life, thus proving the existence of God. Furthermore, the source also claims that a divine being had to be at the controls to “set or manipulate the physical constants as we know them” (Fine-Tuned Universe). The intelligent design theory assumes that there must have been a divine being controlling the makeup of earth, otherwise life could not exist.
This wrong direction fallacy is easily refuted. The earth is not suited for life, life is suited for the earth. Life evolved according to the laws of the universe, thus making sure that it would be able to stay alive in said universe. As Douglas Adams once observed, “…imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in. It fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well. It must have been made to have me in it!” (Carroll). This quote gives an example of how the organism tends to be perfectly suited for its world, and not vice-versa. Additionally, the improbability of an occurrence does not preclude its actual possibility. Even if it is accepted that life needs a specific set of variables to be exactly balanced in order for life to exist, that is still does not mean that it had to be designed in order to happen. If one rolled a die a million times and came up with the same number every time, would one suspect that the event had not actually happened, no matter how improbable? Obviously, no one would ever come to this conclusion, just as no one should assume that the universe could not have created habitable conditions randomly.
Another argument frequently utilized by intelligent-design proponents is that matter is too complex to have simply arisen on its own. This is a favorite argument among creationists because it is complex and difficult to refute. William Paley’s famous watchmaker argument is described as such:
"Suppose I found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think … that, for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for [a] stone [that happened to be lying on the ground]?… For this reason, and for no other; viz., that, if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, if a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it."
This theory, although confusing, if carefully examined is obviously begging the question since at its core it is saying that since everything has a creator, then everything must have a creator. Even if one assumes that this faulty logic is true, they would be forced to conclude that if everything must have had a creator, then obviously, God (or aliens, or the divine being, etc.) would have to also have a creator, and subsequent creator would also have to have a creator. Obviously, it is impossible to reach a beginning if this logic is used. Of course, if one believes that it is possible for the creator to have no beginning then the argument falls flat because then one leaves open the possibility that matter need not have a beginning. As noted by David Mills, “If everything except God is governed by the “Law of Cause-Effect,” then the First Cause argument becomes ad hoc and therefore logically impermissible. In other words, we’re right back where we started…”
Clearly, intelligent design has no scientific basis and is rather a matter of religion and politics. Until proven otherwise, intelligent design is not a scientific theory and teachers should not be allowed, let alone required, to pass it off as real science. The CRSC has managed to do nothing in the way of proving their theories besides throwing together a few easily refuted arguments. Despite the obvious invalidity of their cause, they continue to fight in the bleak hope that they will finally have something other than blind faith to promote their beliefs, while subsequently undermining America’s entire scientific and educational systems. If intelligent design promoters have their way, they will succeed in nothing but squelching mankind’s one and only tool for better understanding this universe and man’s own existence.
Associated Press. “Huntsman: Intelligent Design Doesn’t Belong in the Classroom” Daily Herald.
Carroll, Robert. “Should ID Be Taught in Public Schools?” The Skeptic’s Dictionary.
Dennet, Daniel C. “Intelligent Design? Show Me the Science” International Herald. Tribune.
DeVore, Edna. “Intelligent Design and Evolution at the White House” Space.com.
“Discovery Institute” Source Watch
“Fine-Tuned Universe” Answers.com.
Forrest, Barbara. “The Newest Evolution of Creationism” Actionbioscience.org.
Mills, David. Atheist Universe. Xlibris Corporation, 2003.
“Paley’s Watchmaker Argument” The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Still, James. “Discovery Institute’s ‘Wedge Project’ Circulates Online” The Secular Web.
No comments:
Post a Comment