|
A Hard Look at Intelligent Design
by Meade Fischer
There is a battle being fought in science education. A vocal group
is advocating for the teaching of an idea known as Intelligent
Design in addition to or as an alternative to evolution. While most
people would balk at tossing out evolution in favor of an alternate
theory, there are those who don't see any harm in exposing
children to an additional explanation. The proponents, after all,
make it seem innocuous enough. However, we need to look
carefully at what they are saying before we welcome their
theories.
In a report for Natural History magazine, editors? Richard Milner
and Vittorio Maestro sum up position of the Proponents of
Intelligent Design (ID). "These antievolutionists differ from
fundamentalist creationists in that they accept that some species
do change (but not much) and that Earth is much more than 6,000
years old. Like their predecessors, however, they reject the idea
that evolution accounts for the array of species we see today, and
they seek to have their concept -- known as intelligent design --
included in the science curriculum of schools."
Some of those arguing for ID are willing to concede much to
evolution, perhaps in order to be scientifically credible. The one
place they all draw the line is the question of how life began.
While evolutionists are concentrating on chemical combinations
present on the young earth, along with various energy sources
needed to drive these combinations into complex proto life
molecules, Intelligent Design maintains that life was arranged and
created by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Intelligent causes
and purposes are difficult things to quantify scientifically, so
these concepts should be examined critically.
First, there are arguments of the type used by William Paley,
creator of the famous watchmaker analogy in 1802. If we find a
pocket watch in a field we immediately infer that it was produced
not by natural processes acting blindly but by a designing human
intellect. Michael J Behe follows a similar pattern with the example
of the mousetrap being too complex to be made built up from
simpler elements, which is meant as an analogy to complex
organs in humans. Kenneth R. Miller refutes that argument with
a list of uses for part of the mousetrap. Then there is the classic
argument of the complex eye, the perfect organ that couldn't have
evolved from simpler organs. In fact, there are ample examples
of light sensing organs simpler or in some cases far more perfect
than our own. But these specific arguments are begging the
question.
These arguments about complex organs and watches that by their
nature require a designer have a counterpart in the arguments
against chemical evolution. There are several theories about how
life might have occurred via natural means on the early earth.
These require certain assumptions about the early atmosphere,
the chemical composition of the early shallow seas, and the types
of energy available in the forms of solar radiation, lightening and
the like. We cannot recreate the early earth, and we cannot prove
now, nor may we ever prove, exactly how life got its start. Science
isn't about answers, but about the search for reasonable
explanations that can be shown to be consistent with observation.
There are no absolute answers in science, only the best answer at
the time. The door remains open for a deeper understanding.?
The Intelligent Design position appears to say, if you can't prove
A, than you cannot deny the argument favoring B. More
specifically, since we can't prove any of the chemical evolution
scenarios, we need to say, life was likely a product of an
intelligence and designed for some purpose. While that is
certainly a possibility, it doesn't necessarily follow. One can
speculate, hypothesize, widely, including that life was brought
here by space travelers. This kind of speculation might find a
home in philosophy if the arguments are consistent enough, but
they are not the stuff of science.?
There are certain impossible or nearly impossible questions that
immediately send the mind on mystical and metaphysical
tangents. One of those is the question of what came before the
big bang. One day we may be able to create proto universes in the
laboratory, but until then, that's a question much like, "What time
was it a minute before time started?" We may say, "logically, I
would think that it was this way," or "my faith assures me that it
was that way." In either case you are making an assumption not
based on science, and in the final analysis we are talking about
what is fed to children as scientific education.
At a deeper, linguistic level, there is the argument based on the
way we define our terms. "Intelligent design" is a very loaded
term. What do we mean by "intelligent?" It would not be difficult
to argue that our universe in an intelligent system, using the term
to refer to information in the way that "military intelligence" refers
to the gathering of information about the enemy, not a statement
of the relative IQs of people in uniform. Information is encoded in
DNA, as it is in quarks, atoms, the electro-weak force, and
gravity. Where that information came from is still an unanswered
questions, of the pre big bang type of question.?
If you add "design" to "intelligent," you compound the
complications of definition. Is a design simply a pattern that is
expressed more clearly as a system grows, or is it design as
engineers know it, a conscious attempt to bring a technological
solution to a problem?
"Intelligent Design," as its advocates assume, requires a designer,
an intelligence that has shaped experience for a predetermined
purpose. This is something we humans do. We have a problem,
such as it's too hot in the summer. We mess with freon and
pumps and the like, and we design air conditioners, true
intelligent design. However, that is radically anthropomorphic. Is
it realistic to assume that an intelligence capable of creating the
entire universe thinks just like we do and solves problems using
the same methods as postindustrial man? Its as comforting as
our once-held belief that the earth was the center of the universe,
but it has no basis in science.?
The reality is that we don't really know all the answers,
particularly regarding how it all got started. We tend to like
answers, whether we can prove them or not. However, when
people use terms that are highly colored both emotionally and
spiritually and use them as if they were neutral, they confuse
young minds and destroy the objectivity that science attempts to
foster. It is a very short journey from Intelligent Design to the
notion that science really knows nothing and faith is the answer.
It's an interesting journey for theology and perhaps for
philosophy, but it shouldn't be undertaken in the name of science.?
|
|