The Devolution of Intelligent Design
At the risk of being redundant, I thought I’d reflect on the imbalanced reporting of the Intelligent Design (ID) versus Evolution debate. One case in point is an article in the Dec 2, 2005 issue of “THE WEEK” (p 20).
Basically, the article entitled “Intelligent design: Should God be insulted?”, GROSSLY MISCHARACTERIZES Intelligent Design by quoting a laughable description by Charles Krauthammer from “The Washington Post”. Mr Krauthammer says (about ID):
- It’s based on the premise that evolution chugs along for eons, creating change within species – but “every once in a while, God steps into this world of constant and accumulating change and says ‘I think I’ll make me a lemur today.’”
Where did this nonsense come from? Were this what ID proposed, then perhaps God should be insulted! Certainly, I would not be counted among its defenders! However, this is FAR FROM AN ACCURATE DESCRIPTION of Intelligent Design.
In fact, this description bears almost no resemblance to what Intelligent Design theorists propose. And allowing this sort of gross caricature does nothing to enhance the credibility of the Darwinian naturalists — nor of “THE WEEK”. (We won’t mention the “Washington Post”).
To set the record straight, a number of facts must be understood about Intelligent Design theory:
- Nowhere as evidence for Intelligent Design is the Bible or God ever used. And there is certainly nothing said about a “God of the gaps” that Mr. Krauthammer attributes to ID’ers.
- Not all advocates for Intelligent Design are Christians nor for that matter even believers in God (although I personally find this interesting).
- In many cases, Intelligent Design examines elements of the universe that, by definition, could not be subject to Darwinian evolution. Examples include, among many other things, the origin of: the natural laws, the information and rules of genetics, and irreducibly complex biological structures.
Overall, one great hypocrisy that Intelligent Design attempts to expose is the great Naturalistic assumption which has invaded modern science — namely the presumption that only blind, random chance can be allowed as a possible cause for the state of the universe as we see it today.
Today, the “religion of purposeless Naturalism” (Darwinism Naturalism, …, etc) is the only one that is allowed to be assumed and still be called “science”. This philosophical presumption is no less a religious belief than the creationism that many find so easy to ridicule.
That the universe operates ONLY under random chance certainly has no more evidence (and arguably far less) than simply saying that “God did it”. By any objective definition this should make purposeless Naturalism a philosophical belief and a religion.
Where is the objectiveness? Where is the pursuit of truth? Unfortunately, nowhere near naturalistic science nor the mainstream press.
How about letting the evidence speak for itself?
Hi there. I’ve written a post about intelligent design that discusses an issue I haven’t seen addressed. I wonder if you’d take a look: http://http://www.brickswithoutclay.com/archives/2005/11/the-future-of-intelligent-design/
You’ll probably think I made some of the mistakes you write about, but I think the question holds no matter how vague your notion of a Designer is. I’d be curious to hear your thoughts.
Comment by Dan Kurtz — November 30, 2005 @ 10:40 pm
In response to Dan Kurtz’s article “The-future-of-intelligent-design”, in your post on 11/30/2005…
Dan, I’m going to try and ignore the obvious cynicism in your article and answer your questions:
1. “What long-term impact should ID have on how science gets done?” For starters, stop requiring that only solutions powered by blind-chance be considered. Isn’t it obvious that this is an arbitrary philosophical precondition like the creationism that some people try to equate ID to? One way to start will be to take an honest approach in studying what appear to be irreducibly-complex structures in microbiology. Also, admit that we know far too little about the nature of reality to disqualify intelligent causes out of hand.
2. Turning this into a discussion about “why?” takes us outside of the realm of science and into the philosophical realm. I’m willing to go there, but ID doesn’t identify the designer and I don’t want to lose focus. A scientific recognition of the possibility of intelligent causes and a methodology for detecting such causes, however is not a religious study — it is a search for the truth. ID cannot identify the “why” or “who” as is related to an intelligent cause. But when science excludes even the possibility of intelligent causes, then it is no longer a search for the truth — it has degenerated into dogma.
Clear? Please refer to my category on ID for more context: http://upontruth.com/blog/?cat=2
Comment by Stephen M. — December 3, 2005 @ 9:49 pm
Stephen, you miss a few things. Better writers than I have pointed out that evolution is not “blind chanceâ€. The term “natural selection†should make that quite clear. The environment a species lives in determines what traits will survive. Why don’t monkeys have gills? Why don’t seagulls have tunnelling claws? If evolution is so random, how come animals are so well-suited to their habitats?
It seems that ID, as it’s presented now, is based on blind chance. You say “ID doesn’t identify the designerâ€. My whole point is that eventually it will have to, because this idea that some things were designed and not others—well, what determines what gets the designer’s attention? Looks like random chance to me. Eventually, ID will have to answer the question of how the designer(s) make decisions, because otherwise the whole thing is an even bigger scientific travesty. That’s the point I was trying to make — it’s a refutation of the first point you make in your post. The fact that ID doesn’t specify the nature of the designer actually makes it a worse theory. Maybe it’s just incomplete, but if it’s incomplete, uh, why don’t we complete it before teaching it to children?
Comment by Dan Kurtz — December 4, 2005 @ 3:52 pm
Incidentally, why do you find it interesting that there are atheists who believe in Intelligent Design? I’ve never heard of such people, but if they did exist, that should come as no surprise to anyone who thinks ID is science. No other scientific theory requires its adherents to believe in God. So I’d be curious to know what you think is interesting or peculiar about it.
Comment by Dan Kurtz — December 4, 2005 @ 4:00 pm
Dan, you miss my point.
Most people understand that Darwin, in “Natural Selection”, believed that he found an impersonal designer. But lets move closer to origins for a moment; Darwinism cannot account for MANY necessary conditions for life to begin in the first place. For example:
a. How does (Darwinian) Naturalism account for the mechanism used for passing on inherited traits in simple life — before DNA even existed? Without a mechanism for passing on new characteristics that contribute to the survival of the life form, then Darwinism has nothing on which to operate. And yet even the simplest cell, and its genetic code that guides its self-replication, is complex beyond the creative ability of humankind.
b. How does Naturalism account for the inanimate universe and its incredible fine-tuning for the existence of life? The inanimate universe, with no genetic code for inheritance, cannot be not subject to Darwinian evolution.
c. Your argument that some things are designed well and others not-so-well implies that you, being an intelligent agent, can tell the difference. Are you quite confident here? I would make the point that, when humans design an artifact, they always design with real-world constraints in mind. Take the design of a PDA for example. It will be a compromise of manufacturing cost, power consumption, assembly cost, and many other factors balanced against its end-purpose. PDA’s can be designed with longer battery life or more memory, but this will increase the cost. Can you identify all of these factors in a life form that you believe to be inadequately designed?
d. You are also falling into the trap of using what you perceive to be negative evidence for God (i.e. “God wouldn’t have done it that way”) as a substitute for positive evidence for evolution. In this you are in good company — Darwin did much the same. Is this also why many cling so strongly to Darwinian Naturalism (evolution) — because the only perceived alternative is a creator God?
e. “Why do I find it interesting that there are atheists who believe in Intelligent Design?” Because design implies a designer! I’m suggesting that when one sees the hand of the designer, she probably doesn’t remain an atheist for long. Witness the famous atheist Anthony Flew’s departure from atheism last year (abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976). That being said, ID doesn’t require its adherents to believe in God, but it does provide substantial evidence for such belief.
As I have said before, my primary complaint is the presumption of “random chance” / purposelessness which is used as a prerequiste nowadays before a theory can be considered legitimate scientific inquiry. How can science know enough about the universe to determine that no purpose lies behind it?
This much should be CRYSTAL CLEAR. IF there is a design behind our existence, then prematurely disqualifying as “out-of-bounds” anything that looks like design will guarantee that we will NEVER be able to discover it! Again, I submit to you that this approach is not a search for truth!
Why require purposelessness as a prerequisite to be qualified as science? Why not keep an open mind and follow the evidence where it leads?
Comment by Stephen M. — December 4, 2005 @ 8:22 pm