Creationism vs Intelligent Design, the Sublime and the Ridiculous

Well, as long as we're on the subject of "religion bashing" and "science worshipping," let's look into this very controversial subject that has been the subject of the "clash" between "reason" and "religion."

First:  I want to start by saying that this article will not follow any of the previous sides but will attempt to present a true "middle ground" that is more in line with reason than either of the sides as presented in the courts and in the literature -- as far as I am aware.

I became interested when I watched part of a program on PBS about the Massachucetts trial on the subject.  I went to the internet site of PBS and obtained the transcript, read it and then ordered two books from opposing sides as presented at the trial.  One of these books is OF PANDAS AND PEOPLE; the other is DARWIN'S BLACK BOX by Michael Behe of the Lehigh University Department of Biological Sciences.  After studying this latter book by Dr. Behe I became more informed of what Darwin's theory is and what it is not.  I was also impressed with Dr. Behe's "take" on the issue.

But I came away from these considerations with my own "take" on the subject that I think is something I have not heard proposed before or after, not that no one has even thought about it.  And for the first time, I will put down on paper (here the computer screen) my suggestion for an alternate theory regarding this issue that while seeming like a compromise for intellectual "political" purposes is actually a proposal that I think is more accurate to the fundamental truth of this issue.

Specifically, I propose that both sides of this as presented (i.e. Creationism vs Intelligent Design) are right and wrong at the same time.  And I will show how and why with specifics, starting by examing each in turn, first Creationism.

CREATIONISM is generally thought of as being the literal interpretation of the story of creation as told in the Bible.  I think that this is an accurate assessment.  But I also think that those who use the Biblical account as the basis misuse the Bible account and misinterpret it according to their own predilections.  For instance, I am amazed that a written account of our "creation" exists that is so "knowlegeable" with regard to certain aspects of reality without any rational way of knowing this information.   In Genesis of the O.T. it says that we were created from the "dust of the earth.  That is, "God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became aliving soul." (Genesis 2:7).   When I was a child and was told this I imagined God kneeling on the ground and molding a clay shape out of mud and then bending over to "breath" into that clay figure a "breath of life."  Yet today I wonder that an ancient account can understand that our bodies are composed of the same minerals and chemical constituents as the "dust of the ground."  But even if God knew in advance the terms for those minerals (iron, potassium, sodium, etc.) it could not be put into a message intended for a communications recipient having no such terms of conceptual basis for such terms.  If done, the recipient would have totally ignored the basic message as "nonsense."  And quite rightly so in view of the communicattee's limitations.  But then, God is by definition, "not stupid."  That is, the story of the Bible in genesis is a "the stork brought the baby" explanation of "the baby came from mommie's tummy" because "daddy started it there."  Yet I think that many people who consider themselves very "religious" and feel threatened in their sense of personal security by anything other than a blind literal repetition of the account without any rational adjustment for the realities of how and to whom it was recounted, are "shooting themselves in the foot" by fanatical insistance on an explanation that does not fit with their own limited understanding.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN, which is often used to back their intransigent position is (as presented by Behe in his book, I think) a very excellent presentation with many excellent points.   Yet there are problems associated with it that I think need modification which will show that it is not complete in and of itself.  For one thing, our tendency is to consider "intelligent" as pertaining to the electrical/chemical workings of a physical brain mechanism.  After all, we "think" and we do this with our "brain" as our current paradigm about reality assumes.   Thus, "intelligent" implies a brain involved.   Also, the word "design" tends to invoke in our minds -- at least subconsciously from day to day experience -- the image of someone at a drafting board with a small computer, a compass, pencils, paper, etc. slaving away to come up with a conscious "design" of something that will be produced in a factory somewhere.    It is an unrealistic view of something that bears only a fundamental relationship that is not apparent.   This is not, of course, what Behe is suggesting.  It is only what I think many detractors imagine that is going on when one makes such a proposal.  It is also the unfortunate but natural tendency to associate abstract ideas with non-abstract realities (according to Hume, we cannot conceive of anything that we cannot visualize in concrete terms, or something to that effect).

My proposal theory (until proven by experiment or subsequent reliable data to be otherwise or as such but refined or amended) is as follows:  1) "Intelligent" is not quite the right word to use in this case, at least semantically.  I would prefer "knowledgably directed".  2) "Design" is also not quite the right word, either.  I would prefer, "formulating process" or something else to that same effect.  3)  A natural phenomenon exists (not necessarily as a material entity but as a lawful process related to the material continuum, an as yet undiscovered "law of physics" so to speak) which knowlegeably directs  every aspect of the our visible and invisible natural universe.   The fact that we call this phenomenon Source or Originator "God" is simply a semantic convenience and carry over from our less sophisticated days.   It is just as valid a term or invalid a term as any other, since no term can capture the whole of IT.  4) The "formulating process" of tranlating into "reality" the "knowledgably directed" impulse is a process of gradual development "from scratch" of the "finished product."  We call this, as we have so far observed it, "evolution."  5)  The "finished product" is only "finished" with respect to the state of the environment within which is placed by the "formulating process."  6)  The "knowledgable direction" that caused the "formulating process" in the first place is not a one time event but a continuing process in Itself.  So that the "design" or "formulating process" is itself not a one time event but a continuous one outside of the dimension of "time" and it's limitations.  This is what, again, we observe in what we call "evolution."  7) Evolution as currently understood is a limited view which is based on certain apparently reasonable considerations that seem apparent only because of the lack of enough sophistication and extending of our knowledge base.  8)  Man, for instance, is not descended from a branch of apes.  That is an unproven -- if reasonable assumption in the view of many -- "probably guess" only.  A bone here, part of a bone there, and all of a sudden we have a whole theory that wants to act like a proven fact.  Even the current predominant theory of man generating as a single event or series of subsequent events at a single place is now being brought into serious doubt.  We may (and indeed all life) have occurred in different locations simultaneously but in the same basic form with identical DNA profiles.  In this case I suggest that "looks are deceiving."  Our similar DNA profile to the great apes or our general appearance is enticingly deceiving at best.  We really don't know that much about the DNA place in this process and only think that we do because of the popular media coverage.  9)  All of this tends to substantiate or be substantiated by Dr. Rupert Sheldrake's very astute and learned (but highly contested by the "establishment") HYPOTHESIS OF FORMATIVE CAUSATION theory as presented in his book THE HYPOTHESIS OF FORMATIVE CAUSATION (A NEW SCIENCE OF LIFE book).

I suggest you think about this, and I welcome your comments.