It seems to me that intelligent design cannot really be argued positively. That is, all the arguments for it essentially boil down to arguments against evolution. Proponents of intelligent design point to gaps in evolutionary theory and in archeological records and to the sheer complexity of life as “proof” that an intelligent being created everything pretty much as it is. Science, including evolutionary theory, can’t adequately explain how life came into existence, or became a creature as astoundingly complicated as a human, therefore an intelligent being must have created it.Lately, intelligent design proponents have had to admit that “intra-species” evolution cannot be denied. That is, a dog and a wolf probably evolved from some similar ancestor over a long time. But, they declare, evolution across species did not and does not happen. However, that is still an argument against evolution, not for intelligent design. And furthermore, the argument then is over the details, the mechanism, of evolution, not over the FACT of evolution.
“God made it all,” is something you either believe or don’t believe. How can there be further discussion? The response is either, “I believe it,” or “I don’t believe it.” Once we reach our conclusion, then what? What is the objective of proponents of intelligent design? Is it, as they claim, simply to promote an alternative to the theory of evolution? Not really, since their arguments amount to anti-evolution.If we accept, for the purpose of discussion, that an intelligent being did create everything we see today, does that mean we should no longer teach the process of evolution that the intelligent being also created? Does it mean we should cease studying archeology? Must we stop scientific inquiry? Is THAT what the intelligent design dispute is all about? Is that what keeps the dispute going?
As far as science is concerned, all the principles by which the universe operates converge at the Big Bang. None of the mathematics holds at the Big Bang. At that point, science, creationism and intelligent design are all equally valid.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 12
It is a theological debate.
The proponents of ID say that evolution is wrong - and they have a laundry list of "evidence" to state why this the case. What they are attacking is the mechanism of evolution - which is that nature acting "blindly": by chance and a process of interaction called 'survival of the fitest' is the driving force for how life evolved.
They are attacking the mechanism by saying you MUST HAVE an intellegent force to guide the system. Hence God and then concluded that the Hebrew Bible is the word of that God.
They don't want to fix evolution they want to tear it down. They want to remove the natural forces & chance as the 'driving force/the driver' of the evolutionary process.
That's what I suspect, too, but I heard a very smooth proponent that other day, a lawyer, who carefully worded his attacks to not sound like attacks. Dangerous.
It actually broke my heart to see Alexandra Pelosi's (Nancy's daughter) documentary about the "Christian Right." It showed all these pre-teen children repeating lines that have drilled into their heads, about not believing in evolution. They are being told at such a tender age that critical thinking is tantamount to sin.
Dr. Francis Collins is a Christian biologist who's done groundbreaking work studying human DNA. He says that there is no reason why Christians should not accept that evolution was part of God's plan.
He has practically proven that humans evolved, anyway; regardless of what the Christian Taliban chooses to believe.
Although, of course, the only way to prove it 100% would be to actually document evolution taking place in a lab, he has discovered a characteristic of human DNA that proves it as much as one possibly can without actually seeing it take place.
Human DNA has trait that is present in all other creatures are known to have evolved in soem way over the millenia. It is sort of dormant section in our DNA; it doesn't really actively do anything, as it is. It's only purpose is as a margin in case changes to our gene structure are needed. The logical inference that can be drawn here is; if humans were designed to be one way and stay that way, why would our DNA be designed to make adaptive changes -- to "evolve"?
Or, for a more "spiritual' approach; If God didn't intend for us to evolve, then why would he make our DNA with the capacity to evolve?
I suppose the Rev. Falwell rebuttal to this argument would be either 1) He didn't; Dr. Collins is either lying or mistaken; or 2) God put that feature in our DNA in order to throw us off, to test our faith, to find out who the TRUE believers are.
Yeah; that's it! God's just trying to trick us!
I am going to write an essay on this when I am finished...if I can sort out my thoughts sufficiently. Meanwhile, my preliminary reactions:
Intelligent Design (ID) as you say, is a strategy of negativity, questioning the validity of evolution theory. There are many gaps in the evolution story that science cannot explain, or has at best tentative explanations for, but this does not validate ID. Shermer calls this the "Either-Or Fallacy." Disproving A does not prove B. The Either-Or Fallacy is the false assumption that there are only two positions: A and B, so if A is wrong, B must be correct. The fallacy is that discrediting A does not demonstrate B. Both A and B could be wrong and a third alternative could be right. Or there is just insufficient evidence to prove that either is correct.
However, there is a LOT of evidence that evolution is a biological reality and there is absolutely NO evidence for the creation theory.
Another thought: Creationists say that natural processes cannot create something out of nothing, so the Big Bang is really the story of Creation by God.
The Big Bang posits that at the instant of the beginning, the Universe was a single point...a Singularity, and all the matter and energy we see today emerged from that singularity. Creationists say this is impossible. All the "stuff" of the Cosmos could not have arisen from this nebulous singularity. In effect they are saying, "Your natural processes can't make something out of nothing, but our God can. Nyah! Nyah!"
There is a whole lot more that I could discuss about this, but this is already too long. Sorry.
Thanks for your comments. I'll be watching for your essay. Meanwhile, I'll look for those books you're reading.
Personally, I don't see any insurmountable difference between a Big Bang singularity and God having done it. But if that god is truly an intelligent being, and still involved, why would he countenance all the crap attributed to him?
Steve: If you take the Bible at anything like face value, God may very well be trying to trick us. Intelligence aside, just read Job to see what a cruel being (s)he must be.
As an advocate for science and free inquiry, I would caution against making that final determination, even if it is only for your own personal understanding. I have drawn the conclusion that it is useless to pray every day to a god that does not exist, but it is merely my assumption that there is no god. I patiently await word of a breakthrough discovery that will lead even the skeptical to believe. So far, no such word has come, and evidence to date seems to indicate that no such word is forthcoming.
But remember, both science and religion have yet to prove or disprove God, even if the preponderance of evidence would seem to indicate that the universe and its course of events were determined by perfectly natural, interacting forces. Someone else may see the universe differently, or be in touch on a different plane for which I myself do not exhibit a natural ability. Science itself is today pointing to the possibility of many more dimensions than we currently accept, or are even aware of. Such so-far unproven claims deserve the light of scientific scrutiny, as do all others. You can believe whatever you want. It doesn't mean you're right or wrong. But without science, there can be no proof acceptable to the world, only to one's own "heart". This is why they don't use things like projections, personal conclusions beyond the logical limits of available evidence, conjecture, and the like, as evidence worthy of inclusion in a legal case, except on occasion where a decision needs to be made based on projections of the future behavior of the people involved, e. g.: whether or not to impose a restraining order in a case of spousal abuse. Things have to make sense, and conclusions have to be drawn on the basis of real, solid, scientifically derived, testable evidence.
For unbelievers, like me, it behooves us to avoid the arrogance of absolutism, and remind everybody constantly the differing nature of all our assumptions. After all, for those of us who have never been to the moon, most of us assume that the Eagle is an actual spacecraft which actually landed on a site on the real moon called "Tranquility Base", even though the claim has been put forth that the whole Appolo program was a hoax. Our daily lives revolve around a set of assumptions, some of which are fluid, others less so. Should we be so arrogant as to assume that our way of thinking yields absolute truths? Heavens to Mergatroid! I should say not.
The main thing, tho, is to avoid "either-or", or "black-or-white", two-dimensional thinking. Some things are true, but only temporarily, or only if certain other things line up. We can assume that 1 plus 1 equals 2 on any given morning. But to exrapolate out to "God must exist", or "God can't be real" is to make assumptions beyond what science obviates, or to take a 'leap of faith'. Many possibilities exist between these two absolutist conclusions. And for those of us who have ever been burned in a shady deal, we know a bit about taking that leap of faith on the word of someone who later turns out to be untrustworthy, for example, your average real-estate agent, or your average Catholic priest.
Am I making any sense whatsoever? Basically, I mean that we should humbly hold our own conclusions to the same light of scientific inquiry to which we subject the notion of an almighty creator. Such humility and honesty, along with adherence to a commonly accepted method of inquiry, would do wonders in many negotiations now taking place around the world.
Rick McGirr invites all to join "The Happy Atheist" group on Gather.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. The line you quoted was meant to simply say that once a person has decided whether they believe in ID or do not, there is nothing left to debate. You either believe it or don't, so let's go on studying science.
I think we might be in agreement over the science part. What I was trying to say is that at the Big Bang singularity, it makes just as much sense to say god caused it as to say that nothing, not even time, exited before that singularity. Or that it was a convergence of two dimensions or of matter and anti-matter. Meanwhile, let's keep studying and experimenting and observing.
The Design Argument: Then and Now
thanks for the lead. I had to copy your article to Word & increase the font size before I could read it. i didn't follow all of it 1st time thru, but the gist supports my assertion that the ID proponents are not supporting an alternative to evolution as they claim. Instead they want to disprove evolution, or ban its teaching. They, of course, have nothing but faith-based pseudo science with which to argue. If they weren't so damn dangerous I'd say just ignore them. But you can't, or they take over school boards and instigate their insidious anti-science program.
BTW, many studies have shown that the USA leads all other industrial nations per capita in those who profess strong religious belief. Many other studies show that our high school students lag those of all other industrial nations in math & science. A coincidence?
Yes, we are at least firmly encamped in the same army- though it has ominous connotations to call it an army - Ok, ok, to be brief, good article. Creation or ID cannot be taught in any science class. It's not science. Teach it in pre-school, along with Santa Claus, the tooth-fairy and other lies.
I read an article in Time Mag about teaching the bible in public schools. They call it a literary course, but the teacher in the example was doing nothing more, with high school students, nothing more than exercises for memorization of bible verses. Proof that avowed Christians should be disallowed from teaching the bible in comparative literature courses, or they should at least be regularly scrutinized to see to it that the rights of every student are protected, not just the majority Christians. Here is a link to the Time article
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1601845,00.html
Better late than never. I assume you've read "Misquoting Jesus". It's a great book for understand how the Bible came about & helps when arguing with religious types (assuming you do that). I have some fundie relatives, so I have to know as much about the Bible as they do & I find it entertaining to ask them such questions as which of the 2 creation stories in Genesis they believe. "Whataya mean 2 stories?" I had to get the Bible out & show them before they believed me.