T
The Bellman
Guest
The latest strategy by creationists to force their religious beliefs on all is known as "Intelligent Design" (or "ID"). Basically, it states that organisms are too complex to have evolved via evolutionary theory, and therefore must have been created by an intelligent designer. Although the idea does not state it explicitly, this intelligent designer is, of course, the christian god.
Unlike normal creationist efforts, intelligent design is not overtly christian. Although clearly religious in origin, it does not draw upon scripture as evidence, instead presenting itself as a purely science-based idea. For this reason, it is known as "ID theory". While it is, of course, a theory in the general sense of the world, it seeks to legitimise itself by blurring the line between the general meaning of the word and the scientific meaning. While it is a 'theory' in the general meaning of the word, it is not a scientific theory, because it:
- does not explain any facts or phenomena,
- has not been tested,
- is not widely accepted, and
- cannot be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
However, since it claims to stand upon scientific, rather than religious grounds, it can and should be refuted on those same purely scientific grounds. Fortunately, this is rather easy to do:
- ID claims that evolutionary theory cannot account for the coming into being of certain organisms. However, the organisms cited can, in fact, be accounted for quite easily by modern evolutionary theory.
- ID claims that because evolutionary theory cannot explain the origin of (some) organisms, they were therefore created by an intelligent designer. Even granting (for the purposes of argument) that evolutionary theory cannot explain the origin of some organisms, this does not take into account the possibility that advances in evolutionary theory or other sciences will discover a natural method by which these organisms could have come into existence.
- ID is self-fulfilling. As soon as we point to a specific phenomena and cite an intelligent designer to explain it (because naturalistic science cannot), no further efforts will be made to discover the naturalistic causes of the phenomena (since it has been established that an intelligent designer created it). Thus the phenomena will always be held to be evidence for an intelligent designer, fulfilling itself.
- ID is limiting. If ID were the governing paradigm, humanity would never have discovered anything about the natural world. Every phenomena for which there was not an instantly available natural explanation (such as rain) would have been labelled "too complex to happen via naturalistic causes" (since our knowledge of natural causes was extremely limited) and, therefore, intelligently designed. Research into those naturalistic causes would never have taken place.
- ID cannot propose any objective criteria for what is "too complex to have happened via naturalistic causes". In the end, their claims always come down to "I think that organism is too complex...therefore, it was created by an intelligent designer." There is - and can be - no objective criteria.
Apart from the above scientific reasons, ID is also rather bad theologically. It uses the "god of the gaps" argument..."god exists because of these phenomena which we cannot explain without postulating a god." As soon as, through scientific advances, we CAN explain the phenomena in question, another reason to believe in god's existence ceases to be. The "god of the gaps" has long been recognised to be bad theology.
So another creationist effort is seen for what it is - unscientific and clearly designed to allow religious beliefs to become permissible scientific explanations. Fortunately, it is rather easily seen to be religiously-inspired, and can - and will - be ranked with other creationist strategies, as a religious belief, not a scientific one, which is unsupported and unsupportable by science.
Unlike normal creationist efforts, intelligent design is not overtly christian. Although clearly religious in origin, it does not draw upon scripture as evidence, instead presenting itself as a purely science-based idea. For this reason, it is known as "ID theory". While it is, of course, a theory in the general sense of the world, it seeks to legitimise itself by blurring the line between the general meaning of the word and the scientific meaning. While it is a 'theory' in the general meaning of the word, it is not a scientific theory, because it:
- does not explain any facts or phenomena,
- has not been tested,
- is not widely accepted, and
- cannot be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
However, since it claims to stand upon scientific, rather than religious grounds, it can and should be refuted on those same purely scientific grounds. Fortunately, this is rather easy to do:
- ID claims that evolutionary theory cannot account for the coming into being of certain organisms. However, the organisms cited can, in fact, be accounted for quite easily by modern evolutionary theory.
- ID claims that because evolutionary theory cannot explain the origin of (some) organisms, they were therefore created by an intelligent designer. Even granting (for the purposes of argument) that evolutionary theory cannot explain the origin of some organisms, this does not take into account the possibility that advances in evolutionary theory or other sciences will discover a natural method by which these organisms could have come into existence.
- ID is self-fulfilling. As soon as we point to a specific phenomena and cite an intelligent designer to explain it (because naturalistic science cannot), no further efforts will be made to discover the naturalistic causes of the phenomena (since it has been established that an intelligent designer created it). Thus the phenomena will always be held to be evidence for an intelligent designer, fulfilling itself.
- ID is limiting. If ID were the governing paradigm, humanity would never have discovered anything about the natural world. Every phenomena for which there was not an instantly available natural explanation (such as rain) would have been labelled "too complex to happen via naturalistic causes" (since our knowledge of natural causes was extremely limited) and, therefore, intelligently designed. Research into those naturalistic causes would never have taken place.
- ID cannot propose any objective criteria for what is "too complex to have happened via naturalistic causes". In the end, their claims always come down to "I think that organism is too complex...therefore, it was created by an intelligent designer." There is - and can be - no objective criteria.
Apart from the above scientific reasons, ID is also rather bad theologically. It uses the "god of the gaps" argument..."god exists because of these phenomena which we cannot explain without postulating a god." As soon as, through scientific advances, we CAN explain the phenomena in question, another reason to believe in god's existence ceases to be. The "god of the gaps" has long been recognised to be bad theology.
So another creationist effort is seen for what it is - unscientific and clearly designed to allow religious beliefs to become permissible scientific explanations. Fortunately, it is rather easily seen to be religiously-inspired, and can - and will - be ranked with other creationist strategies, as a religious belief, not a scientific one, which is unsupported and unsupportable by science.