The Problem With Intelligent Design

After much research and self reflection on the matter of God and science, I finally came to the following fundamental conclusions: Darwin’s theory of evolution is true, the big bang theory is a plausible explanation for the beginning of the universe, and the bible is not a literal history of the origins of life but a man-made guide filled with parables and divinely inspired testimony. As I mentioned in my last post, I didn’t know what to call myself. Although I have no great fondness of labels in general, I felt uncertain and alone in my beliefs without having a group of peers to share thoughts with.

I first remember hearing the words “intelligent design” in my early college years. I thought all this meant was a belief in a higher being or consciousness who had an input in creating and shaping the universe. I did not realize the loaded meaning these words had, and went about telling people who asked that I believed in intelligent design. Looking back, it’s a little embarrassing that I jumped aboard a bandwagon when I had no idea who was driving or where it was headed…

Evolution and Intelligent Design... They just don't mix

 

Photo source: openparachute.wordpress.com

While I was going about associating myself with this new dogma, I was blissfully unaware of the fact that I was a walking contradiction. Intelligent design is essentially an idea used to counter the theory of evolution: a theory I was very firmly convinced of its truth. I’m unsure of its origin, but the debate between evolution and intelligent design came to a head in Dover, PA.

Darwin Discrimination in Dover

 

Some members of the Dover school board were upset by a perceived imbalance in the high school science curriculum. They wanted an emphasis on the fact that evolution is a “theory” and not a “fact” and proposed teaching alternative theories to give the students the tools to explore the options themselves. This seems like a reasonable and secular request on its face, but they had ulterior motives.
 

Since creationism was banned from science classes after a court case decided it conflicted with the separation of church and state, those at odds with evolution needed something else to push for. They thought that intelligent design would give them a legal loophole for discounting evolution and having a voice in the classroom, while subtly promoting the idea of a creator.
 

The basic reasoning for intelligent design is this; some life processes and systems are too intricate to have been derived naturally. Those who follow this line of thinking champion the idea of irreducible complexity. This describes objects thought to be so complicated that if one component is removed the entire system is rendered useless, hinting at a designer. This means they believe all species appeared abruptly and are unrelated.

Photo source: www.time.com

 A NOVA documentary describes the entire Dover case. The main outcome of the case was that the school board's desire to teach intelligent design was based in promoting their religion, and was therefore found unconstitutional. The expert testimony, very soundly in my opinion, denounces the views of intelligent design and shows that even seemingly complex processes can be traced back to simple and/or different original purposes.

Is Anything In Science Absolute?

After classes in genetics and evolutionary anatomy I can say I am a huge supporter of Darwin's theory. The argument that it's "just a theory" is rather weak when you look at the actual meaning of a scientific theory. Although most things in science aren't considered "facts", that doesn't mean they're based on a passing whimsical thought. To paraphrase a segment of the NOVA documentary, a theory in science is backed up by a very large body of information and evidence and has been subject to much testing and refining. It consists of many different hypotheses and lines of evidence that all point to a uniform truth.  So perhaps, if those purporting the truth of intelligent design can gather evidence of their theory, they have a chance at having a voice in classrooms.

The nature of science is to question, and nothing is ever an absolute. In this sense science remains a humble practice where no theory is truly regarded as concrete truth, and room for improvement and further understanding always remains.