A Word about "Intelligent Design"
The idea of Intelligent Design has been around for centuries.
Generally stated as the "Cosmological Argument" (for the existence
of God), it holds that the existence of complex order and structure
in nature indicates that the universe must have had an intelligent
designer and creator. Nowadays, we often hear it expressed in
terms of specifics, such as that the human eye is far too complex
and its parts too intricately interrelated to have formed and
arranged themselves at random; so,
it is inconceivable that such an organ could have evolved without
some form of conscious guidance—if not an overt act of creation,
then at least a purposeful nudging of events in the general
direction of producing the wonder of the human visual apparatus.
Similar points are made about the human ear and the human brain
(but, notably, not about wisdom teeth or appendixes).
It is certainly all right to
speculate along such lines After all, the ability to
indulge in speculation is one of the characteristic marks of
humanity. It has given rise to a wealth of tradition, art, literature,
and philosophy, and has provided the seeds of development in fields
from cooking and medicine to cosmology and mathematics.
However, speculation by itself is still just that and nothing more; if what we
are after are simply pretty ideas and comforting beliefs, that is probably good enough.
However, if we seriously hope to link our speculations to reality,
if we are to use it in making important decisions, we must examine
related evidence, formulate rational hypotheses, subject those
hypotheses to rigorous and independent testing, and forthrightly
explain any conflicts between our ideas and our observations.
This is what science must do whenever it develops an idea to the
point that it can be called a "scientific theory"—a coherent
explanation of all relevant evidence, which enables us to make
reliable and explicit predictions that can be measured and verified.
But this is precisely what
Intelligent Design (or ID, as it is sometimes abbreviated) does
not do. So-called
Intelligent Design "theory" does not work from verifiable evidence
and methodical testing, thus cannot in any way be considered a
"theory" on a par with the demanding scientific definition of the
term. Instead, it works from an assertion that complex order
arising from supposedly "random" nature is unfathomable (at
least to those doing the asserting), and therefore complexity in nature can only be explained by
a supernatural intelligence. This overlooks two important
points:
(1) such a supernatural intelligence is certainly no less unfathomable than
the complexity it purports to explain, and thus does not really
explain anything (i.e.,
does not increase our understanding); and
(2) nature is not random, but adheres consistently to certain
identifiable patterns—the constant patterns which we humans are
inclined to describe as "order" and "natural laws" (for want of less anthropocentric
terms), patterns which we so far have no concrete reason to suspect
arise from any source outside nature itself.
Intelligent Design advocates'
attempt to challenge scientific theory so far relies on two
fallacies:
(1) the tactic of misrepresenting science (specifically by falsely
claiming that science views nature as completely random), a common ploy of faulty reasoning dubbed the
"straw-man fallacy" by logicians; and
(2) the assumption that if something cannot be comprehended, then it
must be false and its opposite must be true, a fallacy of appeal to
ignorance (which, if it were allowed, would cut both ways and thus
prove nothing).
Of course, it is perfectly okay to challenge scientific theory, but
this requires credible
evidence, and the ID crowd has yet to present any. Meanwhile,
so-called ID "theory" itself is at most a strand of logic dangling from
a shaky assumption—mere speculation, not theory
in the scientific sense. Still, this does not rule out the
possibility of Intelligent Design (for
indeed, many intelligent and rational people, including some
scientists, personally favor such a view); however, without solid
evidence and rational support, ID
remains only an opinion, attractive to many though not necessitated by
any facts evident so far. Thus to present speculation about
Intelligent Design as equivalent to scientific theory is ignorant at
best, dishonest at worst.
Nowadays, Intelligent Design has become the fall-back position of
religious fundamentalists. So far, they have been frustrated
in their attempts to require that scriptural dogma be preached in
public schools, inasmuch as this would be an unconstitutional
"establishment of religion" by government. Their appeal to
"cultural diversity" rings hollow, when it becomes obvious that the
only culture they have in mind is the Christian one—no Hindus or
other diverse "pagans" need apply with their competing creation myths.
And not surprisingly, their attempt to legitimize mythical
"creation" as "science," simply by sticking the two words together
and selectively ignoring some evidence while creatively interpreting
the rest to suit their preordained viewpoint, without benefit of the
rigors of scientific method, failed to fool anyone but themselves.
Intelligent Design, creationists feel, might be the way around all those
pesky obstacles. ID might yet get religion's foot inside the
schoolhouse door, even if in weakened form, by decoupling the alleged
Intelligence from any particular religious tradition. Indeed,
some of creationism's cleverer thinkers have realized that there is a very good
chance of picking up additional support from non-fundamentalists and
even non-Christians in the process. A nameless Intelligent
Designer, they suggest, is ambiguous enough to conform to anyone's
concept, whether it be the Christian trinity, the Jewish "I am," the
Islamic Allah, the Hindu trimurti (with consorts and cadre),
the Deist's impersonal Higher Power, or the Pantheist's
reverent personification of the natural universe. "Intelligent
Design is not a religious agenda," they claim. And that
would be true, if their objective were to present ID as merely an
alternative opinion. However, the fundamentalist aim of
requiring that ID be taught as the only acceptable way of
understanding nature makes it an agenda. And it is a
distinctly religious (albeit non-denominational) one, inasmuch as
it presumes to explain nature in supernatural terms, however vague.
The fundamentalist agenda has never been, and is not now, to open a
door to alternative views, but to slam the door on any views that
differ from its own—including a forthright, detailed, and coherent
secular view. It seeks to stifle those who would openly
question the so-called
Intelligent Design of a blind spot near the center of our field of
vision, of a troublesome vestigial appendix, of wisdom teeth that do
not fit modern jaw structure, of birth defects and childhood
diseases, and a multitude of other obvious goofs that do
not speak well of a supposedly supremely Intelligent Designer.
Still, we should have no quarrel
with those who fancy the notion of Intelligent Design, so long as
they do not insist that such a mystical notion be misrepresented as
"science" and compulsorily taught as such. Anyone is welcome
to subscribe to the ID viewpoint: philosophers may frame it in
logical terms; mystics may assign it astrological or numerological
qualities; theologians may preach it to their congregations; parents
may encourage their own children to accept it. But science
teachers cannot teach Intelligent Design on a par with science for
one simple reason: ID fails to meet the rigorous criteria of
science—a method which admittedly seldom gets the right
answer on the first try but is by nature self-correcting, a
discipline which is governed by preponderance of evidence, not by
opinion, dogma, or politics.
Though science doesn't refute Intelligent Design, neither does it
supply any evidence to support it. Advocates insist that
ID contains no religious agenda—people can call it something other
than "God" if they wish. So we must
ask: Since there is no science to it, no serious religion to it, no
legitimate civil objective in propagating it, then precisely what is
the reason for demanding that ID be taught?
=SAJ=