THE QUANDARY OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN
The debate raging about the place of Intelligent Design in the science classroom skips over the real issue at heart: the truth of the origin of life. For some people, the issue is settled. For these, it is either a random event fashioned by chance over an immensely long period of time — for others, a purposeful act by some superior intelligence. Most people are probably not so categorical.
It is more than likely true that the theory of Intelligent Design has no place in the science classroom. But in what classroom would it have its place? The problem with Intelligent Design is that many people feel that it has no place in public schools at all, regarding it as a religious teaching, and thus invoking the principle of the separation of church and state. So, that leaves evolution as the only point of view about the origins of life being taught.
But what if life really is the product of intelligent design? What would be the proper public forum where this point of view could be presented to students for their consideration? As with many issues, the debate devolves into one confronting legalistic principles with ethical ones. The adversaries of Intelligent Design invoke the separation of church and state — the proponents, the basic unfairness that their point of view should have no publicly sanctioned forum, as does evolutionary theory. Caught in the crossfire — as is so often the case — is truth.
Micro and Macro
There are actually two notions of evolutionary processes at issue, and when scientists say that evolution is a fact they should have in mind mostly microevolution. The central thesis of general evolutionary theory is that the accumulation of micro evolutionary changes, which have been observed, lead to macro evolutionary ones, which have not. For many, this amalgam of an empirical process with a logical one is not an issue, and the one affirms the other. As it is, the macro-evolutionary hypothesis is, itself, the currently understood theory of evolution. Anyone who is familiar with the theory of evolution, however, would be aware of its inconsistencies and its lack of convincing explanations concerning many of the features and functions of living things, upon which deficiencies the case for intelligent design is made. Nevertheless, there is always the promise that with further research and reflection these shortcomings will be explained away. It would require a measure of faith, then, and patience to hold to this point of view as the process of science works its way to greater understanding. This is not unreasonable, and the accusation that evolutionary doctrine is also a faith system is not wholly merited. Nevertheless, it demands a moral and intellectual investment of some conviction, which is not without its risks. These risks are philosophical and, consequently, societal and ultimately political. A worldview devoid of God leads down a wholly different path.
What’s It Worth?
Equally important is the question of the true scientific value of the macroevolutionary hypothesis. Does it really increase our understanding about the mechanisms of living organisms? In that sense, would it really make any difference at all how we got here? Do any theories about the origins of life do anything else really, except to satisfy our curiosity? It would not be too bold to say that any knowledge and technological advances in the sciences had been achieved without much help from the macroevolutionary hypothesis, it not having been indispensable for progress in bio-technology the same way, for example, that the theory of electro-magnetism was indispensable in electronics. The macroevolutionary hypothesis has only contributed to our understanding about how macroevolution might work, but not much to our understanding about how anything else works. Scientists, for example, would have, in all likelihood, still discovered the inner workings of the cell and to manipulate them whether or not the macroevolutionary hypothesis existed. This cannot be said about the theories concerning electrical or nuclear technologies. In that respect, evolutionary theory is as sterile as intelligent design.
With that in mind, if intelligent design were simply an agenda masquerading as science, then evolution with respect to the macroevolutionary hypothesis could be, also. Both push an agenda, but neither has had any practical, scientific real world effect, nor have they contributed to a fruitful understanding of the workings of organisms. Both are merely explicative or try to be, as to why anything exists as it does, the one seeing purpose in existence, the other seeing none. It is interesting to note, though, that all the advances in the biological sciences have relied exclusively on the principle of intelligent design and not on the evolutionary one. No new vaccines or genetically modified organisms and such have ever been produced by evolutionary processes, and if such things do exist, it is because people have intelligently sought to produce them. Ironically, scientists themselves, may be in the process of demonstrating the very validity of ID theory.
The Worldview Necessity
What evolutionary theory and intelligent design both do is imply a worldview — what those who like these sorts of things call a paradigm. Their true utility would be social and political, then, rather than technological. For the one, it would propose a secular, quite likely humanistic, worldview where there is no necessity for God or anything like Him; for the other, God’s necessity is unavoidable. The social and political consequences of either of these worldviews would certainly condition society’s future, and the battles raging in the political arena arise from that awareness. Up to now, the jury is still out about the truth of either worldview, and neither may ever be affirmed as an incontrovertible fact. The secular, humanistic worldview promoting evolution has, however, a publicly sanctioned forum to express itself, which will undoubtedly influence the jury. The theistic worldview does not. That would have the effect of producing many more humanists than it would theists. Depending on one’s point of view, this is either a good thing or a bad thing.
Though the adversaries of Intelligent Design invoke the separation of church and state, this supposed separation only makes sense in its strictest interpretation: there shall be no governmental establishment of religion, and this is meant as the establishment of any institutional religion. This, however, is not likely applicable to a worldview in general. The idea of a creator God, then — or just intelligent, creator beings — can be more accurately viewed as a particular worldview, being in this respect similar to the secular, humanistic one insofar as they both promote a certain philosophical outlook; for the one, a world in which God exists; for the other, one in which He does not. The idea that invoking an intelligent designer in one worldview makes it religion, and the absence of such in the other makes it secular, is to twist the criteria. They are neither; both are equally philosophical worldviews. There should be no constitutional objection, then, if competing worldviews were simply exposed for study but not actively promoted, and certainly not legally established. As it stands now, the worldview implied by evolution can be considered as governmentally promoted insofar as it, only, is permitted expression, while other competing worldviews are not.
The Search For Truth
We return to the question, then,” What if life really is the product of an intelligent technology?” To exclude the question from any publicly sanctioned forum under the pretense that it is religion is to bypass the larger issue: the truth of our origins. One should not let dogmatic a priories blind one in the search for truth, but rather one should go where the evidence leads. By exploring this question with intellectual honesty a worldview can be equitably fashioned, out of which decisions affecting the choices for the desired society can be made. Perhaps the science classroom is not the proper forum to discuss the issue, but up to now there has been no place in the schools to do so. From this writer’s experience, students were not introduced to philosophy until the college level. By then, a lot of one-sided indoctrination in favor of evolution would have occurred. Students should have the opportunity to be exposed to differing worldviews if only in the interest of fairness, but more importantly, in order to have a well-rounded educational experience, and, perhaps, to make up their own minds about what to believe. So what if Intelligent Design is not science. Might it just be true? That is the issue one should address.
The debate raging about the place of Intelligent Design in the science classroom skips over the real issue at heart: the truth of the origin of life. For some people, the issue is settled. For these, it is either a random event fashioned by chance over an immensely long period of time — for others, a purposeful act by some superior intelligence. Most people are probably not so categorical.
It is more than likely true that the theory of Intelligent Design has no place in the science classroom. But in what classroom would it have its place? The problem with Intelligent Design is that many people feel that it has no place in public schools at all, regarding it as a religious teaching, and thus invoking the principle of the separation of church and state. So, that leaves evolution as the only point of view about the origins of life being taught.
But what if life really is the product of intelligent design? What would be the proper public forum where this point of view could be presented to students for their consideration? As with many issues, the debate devolves into one confronting legalistic principles with ethical ones. The adversaries of Intelligent Design invoke the separation of church and state — the proponents, the basic unfairness that their point of view should have no publicly sanctioned forum, as does evolutionary theory. Caught in the crossfire — as is so often the case — is truth.
Micro and Macro
There are actually two notions of evolutionary processes at issue, and when scientists say that evolution is a fact they should have in mind mostly microevolution. The central thesis of general evolutionary theory is that the accumulation of micro evolutionary changes, which have been observed, lead to macro evolutionary ones, which have not. For many, this amalgam of an empirical process with a logical one is not an issue, and the one affirms the other. As it is, the macro-evolutionary hypothesis is, itself, the currently understood theory of evolution. Anyone who is familiar with the theory of evolution, however, would be aware of its inconsistencies and its lack of convincing explanations concerning many of the features and functions of living things, upon which deficiencies the case for intelligent design is made. Nevertheless, there is always the promise that with further research and reflection these shortcomings will be explained away. It would require a measure of faith, then, and patience to hold to this point of view as the process of science works its way to greater understanding. This is not unreasonable, and the accusation that evolutionary doctrine is also a faith system is not wholly merited. Nevertheless, it demands a moral and intellectual investment of some conviction, which is not without its risks. These risks are philosophical and, consequently, societal and ultimately political. A worldview devoid of God leads down a wholly different path.
What’s It Worth?
Equally important is the question of the true scientific value of the macroevolutionary hypothesis. Does it really increase our understanding about the mechanisms of living organisms? In that sense, would it really make any difference at all how we got here? Do any theories about the origins of life do anything else really, except to satisfy our curiosity? It would not be too bold to say that any knowledge and technological advances in the sciences had been achieved without much help from the macroevolutionary hypothesis, it not having been indispensable for progress in bio-technology the same way, for example, that the theory of electro-magnetism was indispensable in electronics. The macroevolutionary hypothesis has only contributed to our understanding about how macroevolution might work, but not much to our understanding about how anything else works. Scientists, for example, would have, in all likelihood, still discovered the inner workings of the cell and to manipulate them whether or not the macroevolutionary hypothesis existed. This cannot be said about the theories concerning electrical or nuclear technologies. In that respect, evolutionary theory is as sterile as intelligent design.
With that in mind, if intelligent design were simply an agenda masquerading as science, then evolution with respect to the macroevolutionary hypothesis could be, also. Both push an agenda, but neither has had any practical, scientific real world effect, nor have they contributed to a fruitful understanding of the workings of organisms. Both are merely explicative or try to be, as to why anything exists as it does, the one seeing purpose in existence, the other seeing none. It is interesting to note, though, that all the advances in the biological sciences have relied exclusively on the principle of intelligent design and not on the evolutionary one. No new vaccines or genetically modified organisms and such have ever been produced by evolutionary processes, and if such things do exist, it is because people have intelligently sought to produce them. Ironically, scientists themselves, may be in the process of demonstrating the very validity of ID theory.
The Worldview Necessity
What evolutionary theory and intelligent design both do is imply a worldview — what those who like these sorts of things call a paradigm. Their true utility would be social and political, then, rather than technological. For the one, it would propose a secular, quite likely humanistic, worldview where there is no necessity for God or anything like Him; for the other, God’s necessity is unavoidable. The social and political consequences of either of these worldviews would certainly condition society’s future, and the battles raging in the political arena arise from that awareness. Up to now, the jury is still out about the truth of either worldview, and neither may ever be affirmed as an incontrovertible fact. The secular, humanistic worldview promoting evolution has, however, a publicly sanctioned forum to express itself, which will undoubtedly influence the jury. The theistic worldview does not. That would have the effect of producing many more humanists than it would theists. Depending on one’s point of view, this is either a good thing or a bad thing.
Though the adversaries of Intelligent Design invoke the separation of church and state, this supposed separation only makes sense in its strictest interpretation: there shall be no governmental establishment of religion, and this is meant as the establishment of any institutional religion. This, however, is not likely applicable to a worldview in general. The idea of a creator God, then — or just intelligent, creator beings — can be more accurately viewed as a particular worldview, being in this respect similar to the secular, humanistic one insofar as they both promote a certain philosophical outlook; for the one, a world in which God exists; for the other, one in which He does not. The idea that invoking an intelligent designer in one worldview makes it religion, and the absence of such in the other makes it secular, is to twist the criteria. They are neither; both are equally philosophical worldviews. There should be no constitutional objection, then, if competing worldviews were simply exposed for study but not actively promoted, and certainly not legally established. As it stands now, the worldview implied by evolution can be considered as governmentally promoted insofar as it, only, is permitted expression, while other competing worldviews are not.
The Search For Truth
We return to the question, then,” What if life really is the product of an intelligent technology?” To exclude the question from any publicly sanctioned forum under the pretense that it is religion is to bypass the larger issue: the truth of our origins. One should not let dogmatic a priories blind one in the search for truth, but rather one should go where the evidence leads. By exploring this question with intellectual honesty a worldview can be equitably fashioned, out of which decisions affecting the choices for the desired society can be made. Perhaps the science classroom is not the proper forum to discuss the issue, but up to now there has been no place in the schools to do so. From this writer’s experience, students were not introduced to philosophy until the college level. By then, a lot of one-sided indoctrination in favor of evolution would have occurred. Students should have the opportunity to be exposed to differing worldviews if only in the interest of fairness, but more importantly, in order to have a well-rounded educational experience, and, perhaps, to make up their own minds about what to believe. So what if Intelligent Design is not science. Might it just be true? That is the issue one should address.
posted by A Voice in the Wilderness at 1:10 PM
4 Comments:
Discussion of "God"in a classroom IS most certainly a violation of the Constitution. It is not a "worldview" but a theological position.
Am I talking to an expert in constitutional law? Your comments seem to suggest that no discussion that mentions God can be had without it being religious. Would a discussion that strongly suggested that God did not exist also be a theological position? I find your position unsupported. If one looks out at the world with the idea that God made it, or that God did not make it, how are either of them not worldviews? But I'll agree with you on this point: talking about God is like sex; once you start down that road it can get really out of control.
absolutely, i.e. "also be a theological position". yes, it would, in my opinion. a-theism
& you might want to read a bit of constitutional law yourself and take the other position into consideration
no comment on your last sentence.
To alvarodecampos
Whether one labels the fact of our situation "world-view" or "theological position", one is still talking about the same thing. This is just a quibble over labels. That you agree that both points of view are in the same class, which is the important point I wanted to make, and not different classes makes it irrelevant how you wish to label them. But I quote Dr. Anne Carson Daly, a writer and former professor of English who lives in the Washington, D. C. area. She graduated from Mount Holyoke College, magna cum laude, with a B. A. in English and History, and earned her M. A. and Ph.D. in English Literature from Johns Hopkins University. Dr. Daly has taught English Literature—including courses on C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien--at the University of Notre Dame and at Georgetown University. She has published many articles; delivered numerous lectures both here and abroad; and has appeared frequently on television and radio. Read at least the first paragraph to see that I'm not alone in the use of that label.
"Whether we realize it or not, all of us possess a worldview. A few years after birth, we all gradually formulate our philosophy of life. We make one of two basic assumptions: we view the universe as a result of random events and life on this planet a matter of chance; or we assume an Intelligence beyond the universe who gives the universe order, and life meaning. So each one of us embraces some form of either Freud's secular worldview or Lewis's spiritual worldview.
Our worldview informs our personal, social, and political lives. It influences how we perceive ourselves, how we relate to others, how we adjust to adversity, and what we understand to be our purpose. Our worldview helps determine our values, our ethics, and our capacity for happiness. It helps us understand where we come from, our heritage; who we are, our identity; why we exist on this planet, our purpose; what drives us, our motivation; and where we are going, our destiny."
Post a Comment
<< Home