Intelligent Design Might Backfire on Religious
The more I think about it, research into the theory that an hypothetical "intelligence" may be involved in development of complex organisms on Earth, might not be such a bad thing after all.
And it might not turn out the way the religious Right expects. As a theory, there is something compelling about the notion that there must have been some "input" from outside the system for such incredibly specialized organs such as eyeballs to have come into being.
Before we look at this issue, let's get one thing straight: The religious extremists who want "Intelligent Design" to be taught in classrooms have no desire for the discovery of truth behind nature. They only want God to be presented as a fact to students. They don't care a whit for understanding, for clarity, or for any of the reasons scientists do what they do. The supporters of Intelligent Design just want their own religious beliefs to be validated by making them part of scientific curriculum.
Let's say, after decades of research into some hypothetical intelligence behind evolution, that we discover life on Earth to be descendant from extraterrestrial sources. Will the Creationists embrace this discovery? If it turns out that some advanced spacefaring race seeded the Earth with the beginnings of life, will the current proponents of "Intelligent Design" be satisfied? If experimental research establishes time and time again that there was no "designer" behind the march from monkey to man, will the intelligent design folks ever admit that they're wrong? Well, so far, It has...and they haven't. Ultimately, it's faith that makes someone believe that there was some intelligent, all-powerful entity behind the machinations of evolution. If not, we'd be seeing the experimental evidence otherwise. If not in publications like Nature or Science (we're told those publications are involved in a conspiracy against God), then at least in a few of the thousands of journals of varying reputation. I'm not a scientist, but I know enough about science to know that it would be pretty hard to design an experiment that would prove the hand of an Intelligent Designer behind life on Earth, if in fact that's what the I.D. folks wanted to prove. In fact, it's not. They only want to find justification for their own beliefs. It has nothing at all to do with science.
For the Intelligent Design crowd, it's got to be God or nothing. Anything besides the Judeo-Christian model of a bearded patriarch up in the clouds putting in a six-day work week beginning with "Let there be light" is not going to go down with the James Dobsons of this world.
I have enough belief in science that I accept challenges to conventional wisdom. Opposing theories are always welcome, but let's see the evidence. And let's go where the data takes us. If there are real scientists who want Intelligent Design to be examined side-by-side with the theory of evolution, they have to start by establishing some common ground with the scientific world. For example, if they were to admit that the Earth is definitely more than 6,000 years old, that fossils actually exist, and that carbon-dating techniques are in fact useful, it might go a long way toward convincing the vast majority of scientists that they really are trying to get to the truth. But first they have to convince us that they're not just mouthpieces for those who would mandate religious belief. The history of creationists trying to undermine science has created a lot of mistrust among scientists. And the burden of proof, as always, is on those who claim that everything we know is wrong. It's more than a cliche that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
And it might not turn out the way the religious Right expects. As a theory, there is something compelling about the notion that there must have been some "input" from outside the system for such incredibly specialized organs such as eyeballs to have come into being.
Before we look at this issue, let's get one thing straight: The religious extremists who want "Intelligent Design" to be taught in classrooms have no desire for the discovery of truth behind nature. They only want God to be presented as a fact to students. They don't care a whit for understanding, for clarity, or for any of the reasons scientists do what they do. The supporters of Intelligent Design just want their own religious beliefs to be validated by making them part of scientific curriculum.
Let's say, after decades of research into some hypothetical intelligence behind evolution, that we discover life on Earth to be descendant from extraterrestrial sources. Will the Creationists embrace this discovery? If it turns out that some advanced spacefaring race seeded the Earth with the beginnings of life, will the current proponents of "Intelligent Design" be satisfied? If experimental research establishes time and time again that there was no "designer" behind the march from monkey to man, will the intelligent design folks ever admit that they're wrong? Well, so far, It has...and they haven't. Ultimately, it's faith that makes someone believe that there was some intelligent, all-powerful entity behind the machinations of evolution. If not, we'd be seeing the experimental evidence otherwise. If not in publications like Nature or Science (we're told those publications are involved in a conspiracy against God), then at least in a few of the thousands of journals of varying reputation. I'm not a scientist, but I know enough about science to know that it would be pretty hard to design an experiment that would prove the hand of an Intelligent Designer behind life on Earth, if in fact that's what the I.D. folks wanted to prove. In fact, it's not. They only want to find justification for their own beliefs. It has nothing at all to do with science.
For the Intelligent Design crowd, it's got to be God or nothing. Anything besides the Judeo-Christian model of a bearded patriarch up in the clouds putting in a six-day work week beginning with "Let there be light" is not going to go down with the James Dobsons of this world.
I have enough belief in science that I accept challenges to conventional wisdom. Opposing theories are always welcome, but let's see the evidence. And let's go where the data takes us. If there are real scientists who want Intelligent Design to be examined side-by-side with the theory of evolution, they have to start by establishing some common ground with the scientific world. For example, if they were to admit that the Earth is definitely more than 6,000 years old, that fossils actually exist, and that carbon-dating techniques are in fact useful, it might go a long way toward convincing the vast majority of scientists that they really are trying to get to the truth. But first they have to convince us that they're not just mouthpieces for those who would mandate religious belief. The history of creationists trying to undermine science has created a lot of mistrust among scientists. And the burden of proof, as always, is on those who claim that everything we know is wrong. It's more than a cliche that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
posted by Nittacci at 1:00 PM
6 Comments:
I agree, this has nothing to do with science. Intelligent design only seeks to have validation for a literal interpretation of the Bible. I don't have a problem with intelligent design being taught, but not as science.
In order for there to be a debate, in any meaningful sense of the word, there must be discernible evidentiary bases from which divergent opinions and interpretations emerge to be disputed.
in the case of ID, there can BE no debate, because there is no evidentiary basis upon which to found truly constestible premises. The final recourse is always to the assumption--never the proof--of a 'first cause' or Primary Agent, or something.
However there is nothing in physics which requires a first cause. Infinity means just that: no beginning, no end. and indeed, the proponents of ID also embrace a similar cosmological point, only personifying infinity under their label "God." they will insist to you that though the universe has a beginning, and presumably and end, God requires neither of those things; which is to say, God = Infinity...how should that which is infinite have a cause, without undermining the claims of infinitude?
and thanks for your kind words over at Eachaton...
I'm glad you admit that the creationsists just want God in the classroom. BUT, intelligent design is not intelligent at all. Not one ioata. Your eye, my eyes too, is a p.o.s. design. It has a detachable retina (sp? too lazy to check on a sunday night). There is also a blindspot and way, way, way too much pressure in there.
Good post. Just passing through, cool blog by the way.
I.D. is really all about getting rid of science education. Teaching students to come up with ideas and to evaluate those ideas will not work in a theocracy. Blind obedience is what they want.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home