Not so intelligent, by design
By R. David Brown
Intelligent Design (ID) is a new label for an old argument that proposes a “designer” at work in creating the complexities of life. It attempts to take gaps in evolutionary science and inserts, by implication, the concept of God, claiming that complexity of the human biology and the natural world can only be explained by some sort of outside, intelligent influence.
The design theory actually pre-dates Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859), with one of the major proponents being the English theologian William Paley. Paley came up the Watchmaker Analogy (1802): If we find a watch in a field, we infer that it was not created by natural processes acting blindly, but rather by human intellect and design. Further, the natural world has ample evidence of a supernatural creator. This theory was virtually swept away with Darwin’s ground breaking work.
As science progressed beyond Darwin’s observations some, most notably the religious community (and for obvious reasons), remained committed to the concept of design. Most recently it has reemerged as the pseudo-scientific ID, and seeks to exploit the scientific community’s inability to explain every aspect of every discipline, especially in the area of molecular biology. In effect saying, if it is so complex that it can not be explained right now, there must have been an intelligent or divine hand at work behind the scene.
Despite the fact that the overwhelming majority in the scientific community reject ID and its component concept of irreducible complexity (see Michael Behe), it has become a fiery issue in recent years and now is being tested in the courts. Proponents of ID are primarily seeking its inclusion in the science curriculum at the secondary education level, arguing its merits as a scientific theory rather than religious belief. Great care has been taken to avoid language that would place ID in the more accurate category of Creationism.
It is my opinion that ID is nothing more than dressed up teleological argument and a blatant attempt to inject God into the classroom. When confronted, advocates for ID claim that it is a scientific theory offered as a reasonable alternative to evolution. Unfortunately, ID does not have any supporting empirical data and therefore can not be treated as a viable scientific theory.
Drunk on the success of electing an evangelical president and the emergence of moral values as a central issue, Christians now feel it is their religious duty to bring God back not only the public square, but also to the classroom. There is a reason that a belief in God, or designer, is called a faith – because it can not be physically, scientifically or otherwise proven to exist.
ID belongs in the home or church. Leave the classroom for science.
___________________________________________
Additional reading:
------------------------
William Paley's Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity - here
Michael Behe - here
Intelligent Design Network - here
Talk Origins - here
Discussion on Philosophy Forums - here
--------------------------
technorati tag: Intelligent Design
Intelligent Design (ID) is a new label for an old argument that proposes a “designer” at work in creating the complexities of life. It attempts to take gaps in evolutionary science and inserts, by implication, the concept of God, claiming that complexity of the human biology and the natural world can only be explained by some sort of outside, intelligent influence.
The design theory actually pre-dates Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859), with one of the major proponents being the English theologian William Paley. Paley came up the Watchmaker Analogy (1802): If we find a watch in a field, we infer that it was not created by natural processes acting blindly, but rather by human intellect and design. Further, the natural world has ample evidence of a supernatural creator. This theory was virtually swept away with Darwin’s ground breaking work.
As science progressed beyond Darwin’s observations some, most notably the religious community (and for obvious reasons), remained committed to the concept of design. Most recently it has reemerged as the pseudo-scientific ID, and seeks to exploit the scientific community’s inability to explain every aspect of every discipline, especially in the area of molecular biology. In effect saying, if it is so complex that it can not be explained right now, there must have been an intelligent or divine hand at work behind the scene.
Despite the fact that the overwhelming majority in the scientific community reject ID and its component concept of irreducible complexity (see Michael Behe), it has become a fiery issue in recent years and now is being tested in the courts. Proponents of ID are primarily seeking its inclusion in the science curriculum at the secondary education level, arguing its merits as a scientific theory rather than religious belief. Great care has been taken to avoid language that would place ID in the more accurate category of Creationism.
It is my opinion that ID is nothing more than dressed up teleological argument and a blatant attempt to inject God into the classroom. When confronted, advocates for ID claim that it is a scientific theory offered as a reasonable alternative to evolution. Unfortunately, ID does not have any supporting empirical data and therefore can not be treated as a viable scientific theory.
Drunk on the success of electing an evangelical president and the emergence of moral values as a central issue, Christians now feel it is their religious duty to bring God back not only the public square, but also to the classroom. There is a reason that a belief in God, or designer, is called a faith – because it can not be physically, scientifically or otherwise proven to exist.
ID belongs in the home or church. Leave the classroom for science.
___________________________________________
Additional reading:
------------------------
William Paley's Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity - here
Michael Behe - here
Intelligent Design Network - here
Talk Origins - here
Discussion on Philosophy Forums - here
--------------------------
technorati tag: Intelligent Design
posted by Political Zen at 9:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home