This is the first post in a 3-part series looking at Intelligent Design  (ID).  In this post I discuss the essence of ID.  

The current debate surrounding ID is overly influenced by emotions.  We often see emotions rise to surface in people’s comments on ID.  There are believers who claim that anyone who attempts to silence ID is a godless scientific materialist.  And there are scientists who claim that anyone favoring ID is a delusional and irrational IDiot.  As it turns out, they are both wrong.  There are theistic scientists who firmly oppose ID, and there are rigorous scientists who favor ID.

It is always a good idea to up front about your personal biases when discussing divisive issues, so here are a few of my biases.  First, I am a theist. Second, I regret the rise of secularism in science that began with the Enlightenment.  Third, I strongly believe that religion belongs in our Sunday schools and not in our secular schools.

Here is a question: If people want to learn about the Mormon Church, who should they talk to?  You will probably agree that they should talk to Mormons.  More specifically, they should talk to Mormon missionaries.  Likewise, if people want to learn about what ID is all about, they should talk to ID proponents, especially those who are tasked with educating others on ID.  For this reason I went to the Discovery Institute to learn about ID.  The Discovery Institute is the leading “think tank” on intelligent design.

Here are seven points characterizing the ID movement, followed by some comments from me.

1.   The basic tenet of ID is that there is undeniable evidence pointing to intelligence in the design of nature.  

--- I agree that creation points to God.  I don’t see a problem with this claim. 

2.   ID is a scientific enterprise.  

--- This claim depends on whether ID fits the traditional definition of science, and whether it satisfies the traditionally accepted criteria for being called a science.  I am not sure if ID satisfies these criteria - honestly, I am skeptical.  The next post will focus on this issue.

3.  ID is not creationism.

--- From what I’ve read so far, I tend to agree -  I have found no biblical narratives in ID.  Even if ID is an outgrowth of the creationist movement, it is unfair to classify it as such if it has truly separated itself from creationism.  IDers say they are not pushing creationism, so let’s give them the benefit of the doubt.  As long as they are not planning a bait-and-switch on us, I have no problem here. 

4.  Evolution should be taught in schools.

--- Yes, IDers are pro-evolution in the sense that they claim that it belongs in science curriculum.  

5.  Science education needs to consider the weaknesses behind evolutionary theory. 

--- I wholeheartedly agree.  Far too many evolutionists have gone around claiming that evolution is irrefutable.  These sorts of claims are disingenuous.  Microevolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, macroevolution has not.  Sure there is evidence supporting macroevolutionary processes, but don’t insult my intelligence by telling me that it is a certainty.  If have posted comments on this issue in this blog (listed in the "evolution" category).

6.  Teaching ID in schools does not violate the separation of church and state.

--- I am not a constitutional lawyer, but it all depends on whether you define church as referring to a belief in God or organized religion.  I don’t think that believing in God is a religion in the way that Mormonism, Catholicism, and Protestantism are religions.

7.  Teachers should not be forced to teach ID. 

--- The Discovery Institute does not want ID politicized.  They say that if ID is to gain credibility, it should be done through the scientific process, not political fiat.  I wholeheartedly agree.

Lastly, the Discovery Institute is advocating a reserved approach to getting ID in school education.  They do not like the approach taken by the Pennsylvania Dover School District in 2004.  That school district required teachers to read a statement favoring ID.  In the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial that followed, a conservative and supposedly religious judge named John Jones ruled against the school board.  I think these events have made the Discovery Institute more cautious – in fact they now urge teachers to avoid mentioning ID and to focus instead on the weaknesses of evolutionary theory.

I hate to see ID politicized.  Politicization and federal mandates are not what science is about.  If ID has legitimate scientific claims, then let’s see what it’s got.  If it is a rigorous and promising line of research, then it will slowly work its way into the scientific community and gain credibility.  If it is not promising and rigorous then it will die and go the way of alchemy.  Unfortunately it may never get a fair shake because so many in the scientific community are anti-anything-resembling-god (a point brought out in Stein’s movie Expelled).  What are you atheists so afraid of?

In the next post I will discuss whether ID is scientific by looking at whether ID satisfies the traditional definition of science.  

 


Comments

Rob Osborn

Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:20:58 pm

I liked reading your analysisof the ID movement. I am a proponent of ID because it does not limit science but expands it into new fields of frontier. I personally see no real problem of teaching evolution or ID in the school system together as it has great possibilities of expanding our understanding. We should all agree that evolution (micro-evolution) definately does have a place in science and research. But we should not put limits on theorizing about origins of life and especially the origins and make-up of intelligence.

Personally i believe modern science has failed us on explaining that my intelligence has come about through a long series of gene copying mistakes. I know they try to avoid God in their teachings but I do believe that intelligence is not just a random series of mistakes in the gene pool.

One of the things I like to read about and marvel over is how cells work and some of the theories on their unique "intelligence" that they appear to have and use. Everything from communication to reading genetics data to carrying out complex plans. It just literally amazes me how everything that makes up a living body works- it is so very complex- a body literally composed of billions and billions of biological factories that work in unison and create just miraculous feats that by our standards dwarfs all of our computers and their abilities.

ID to me is a good turn from creationism where it seemed to just draw out the ultra conservative Christian hardliners and make some kind of political statement rather than try to actually teach! ID represents a new frontier in advancing science capabilities. ID deals a lot more in the advancement of technology and lerning how cells work over our origins anyway. As we do more and more research into cellular biology we are finding out that cells have intelligence and even can appear to think to some degree for themselves. We may find as we soldier through in this new field that cells experience feelings just as our own consciousness experiences feelings. We are talking about the intelligence factor in genetic engineering! Not just how to make disease go away but how to make our genes work better- to make better copies, how to understand their level of intelligence and in essence do therapy on genes themselves.

In order to understand this new field of research we should not be so quickto either discard evolution or ID because scientists from both sides can bring valuable information that can lead us into tomorrow. Debating our origins may just end up being a fruitless debate in the end- we may never factually know how we originated until a later time when Christ returns or even after that. When we finally do find out it will be like- uh, ok, that totally makes sense. And then we will move on. It won't be a thing of "I told you so".

One more item of interest that has been brought to light is this- Suppose we were to create a machine or contraption that could see "spiritual matter", how would this effect the debate on ID/Evolution? What if we found out that genetics in spiritual matter (don't know how else to represent it, eh eh) were composed of were made up of feelings lined up in sequences representing thoughts and ideas and that this spiritual matter had the ability to effect the physical genetics of our bodies in their reproduction and copying phase- that feelings and ideas about spirituality were passed through our genes. Where would that field of science be directed? At what point in our scientific discoveries are we going to find a connection with God and spirituality and be unable to shake that truth?

Will science then recognize the hand of God as an essential part of science or will the hand of science alway turn a blind eye to deity? Religion itself as an organized group should not run our science classroms, but when and if we find the hand of God in our scientific discoveries, I would hope that the scientific world would welcome such an marvelous ray of light!

 

Dave

Fri, 12 Dec 2008 9:52:55 pm

Rob,

Thanks for your ideas. Certainly, as our understanding of human genetics and cell biology has progressed, more and more scholars have pointed out that the amount of wisdom and information required to build and maintain biological systems in the human body is enormous. Two authors that come to mind are MIT grad Gerald Schroeder ("The Hidden Face of God") and Dr. T. Lee Baumann ("God at the Speed of Light").

Regarding science's inability to detect things like spiritual matter, I like what philosopher Grover Maxwell had to say. He claimed that science's inability to empirically validate something has no ontological significance whatsoever - rather it is reflection of our current state of knowledge and technical instruments.

It seems you have given some thought to the mind-body/spirit problem, specifically how they interact. Very interesting. Please let me know if you have any thoughts on the nature of primordial intelligence and its relationship to spirit.



 

Rob Osborn

Sat, 13 Dec 2008 12:15:05 am

I just replied in a very vewry long thread only to have it disapear! Anyway, I will give the much shorter version-

We are composed of three separate substances so to speak. 1. the light or intelligence in raw form. 2. the spirit body which comprehends and makes sense of the intelligence. and 3. our physical bodies which are utilyzed by the spirit to put timed sequences coupled with feelings and emotions to the ideas and actions genertaed by the spirit.

We thus are "creative and active agents of intelligence". The creative part or the impulse part is what truly intrigues me. We are composed of this "intelligence" that has the ability to create new and completey novel ideas within itself and then comprehend that they are good and productive and from there base even more new and novel ideas from the previous ideas. This is what makes Model-T's turn into blown supercharged Shelby Cobra Mustangs over the sapace of a hundred years! No computer program is capable of that. No DNA program is capable of that! It is something deeper- it is our spirits and the intelligences that they house that is capable of that. This means that the "engine" of intelligence must be thought and idea derived and ran itself! Now that is completely novel! Think about it-

The engine of design inteligence (creative ability) is derived itself from the very thoughts and ideas it creates! The program (if there is one so to say) of intelligence writes itself as it comprehends new ideas. this means, putting logic together, that intelligence itself in its raw form is nothing more than the recorded actions and ideas of ourselves and others! It is our spirit though that comprehends it all and sorts it and makes it all work. All the body does is provide the "emotion" engine aspect, and the working tools (arms and legs) to put ideas and thoughts into action. It completes us.

As for evolution creating thoughtful intelligence through random and mutative processes (leaving spirit matter as nonexistant for the moment), may I dare say that our intelligence would be nothing more than a copy mistake. It would make the greatest phenomenon in all the universe nothing more than a mistake! If intelligence- our perception of it, can be classified as a series of random copy mistakes coupled with some survival of the fittests "mistakes", then nature truly must be designed for that purpose aye? To think that nature could of created something that could comprehend itself would be the greatests of all unfathomable odds!





 

NoCoolName_Tom

Sat, 13 Dec 2008 8:50:34 am

First off, I should say that I am a Mormon human evolutionary agnostic - it doesn't matter to me either way and I lean towards evolution being the method God used to create the human body.

However, I've done much reading and studying of ID and look forward to your future posts on this. I think we're bound to disagree on your next post (is ID a scientific falsifiable theory) but I'm interested in how you approach it. I've never really met a Mormon ID proponent (mostly because most Mormons don't understand the difference between pure creationism and ID - no young earth, animal death before the fall, microevolution and macroevolution under specific circumstances etc) and I am curious as to how you approach ID. I am also interested in how you approach one of ID's central falsifiable ideas of irreducible complexity as some of the examples of irreducible complexity presented over the past few decades have been reduced.

My ONLY big problem with the way that ID is usually presented in the public media is that is it presented as a false diachotomy based on disproving evolution. That's like saying that basketball is the coolest sport because baseball sucks: how in the world does the suckiness of baseball actually have ANYTHING to do with the coolness of basketball. Similarly, ID proponents tend to focus on abiogenesis as a failing of organic evolution (again, in keeping with our analogy, that is like further demoting baseball in favor of basketball by talking about how violent and horrible war is, thus increasing the suckiness of baseball which is slightly related to war because it was invented during the US Civil War.) Abiogenesis and evolution are NOT the same things and actually have surprisingly little to do with each other, but it's always brought up: evolution as a scientific theory does not approach questions on the origin of life.

Please don't get me wrong - I'm not attacking and I don't like to see arguments. I am honest when I say I've never seen a Mormon who both understands and promotes ID (note: it's NOT the same as saying that and intelligent God designed the world) and I look forward to your future posts.

 

Jack

Sat, 13 Dec 2008 10:15:05 am

NoCoolName_Tom,

IMO, the idea that organic evolution has nothing to do with life's origins is rather like ID having nothing to do with God--and both will defend themselves respectively. But (again, imo) the long and short of it is: both will have to reckon with these questions (respectively) one day if their methodologies prove effective--because the logical trajectory of such will inevitably open the door to said questions.

In the case of evolution it would be: You've proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no "God of the Gaps". "How did it all begin then?" would be the next logical question. In the case of ID it would be: You've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there *is* a "God of the Gaps". "Who or what is it then?" would be the next logical question.

Perhaps it may be argued that both disciplines are calculated only to navigate within such strict parameters as to stop at the door of what might be considered an entirely separate discipline. But, I don't think science is that neat--it's a rather messy business. A Physicist, a Chemist, an Astronomer, a Meteorologist, a Climatologist, a Statistician and so forth can all inform and be informed by one another--in some measure.

At any rate, I think what we have sometimes when dealing with the boundaries of a given discipline is really more of a philosophical--or even ethical--question rather than a matter of real limitations. And if bright lines are to be imposed I would hope that it would never have to do with any political motive--though I fear such is the case at times.

2 cents worth from a non-scientist.

 

Comments are closed.
Google Analytics