About Intelligent Design

ALTERNATIVE TITLE:  Bait and Switch

ALTERNATIVE TITLE:  Why Politics, Science and Theology Should Be Mixed Sparingly and Carefully.

Traveling to the various places and people I like to visit on Intelligent Design, I’ve noticed some themes developing which I’d like to address.

A variety of the atheistic OD’s I visit have been discussing the debate about Intelligent Design lately.  Because I’ve been involved in reading about ID since early on (I’ve been reading on it for 4 or more years), I’d now like to tell you, as simply as possible, why this debate is stupid, and why no one is free from blame.  (Don’t worry, I have some venom for everyone today.  Read on to be edified.)

First.  Intelligent Design is NOT, has NOT, or will ever be, by itself, a theory of the origins of the universe.  The theory itself is ONLY a critique of Darwinism.   Of the articles and things I’ve read on the ACTUAL THEORY (which by the way, is never put that formally by anyone who is doing the science behind the theory), they are only pointing at what they perceive to be holes in Darwinian Evolutionary Theory.

There are two main components to the ID movement.

The first is the explicit critique of Darwinism–namely, that there are systems that exist in human beings that seem to be extremely resilient to Darwinian evolution, because the parts are all reliant on each other.  Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh, suggested in his book, Darwin’s Black Box, that there are some biochemical systems that could not have evolved.  In evolution theory, in order for something to reasonably believed to be evolved, there must be some expressed benefit in each step of the evolution process for the organism.  With something like a bacterial flagellum (which runs something like an outboard motor, only on the biochemical level), there are literally several parts which work together to function.  Behe suggested that there was no proof to believe that the bacterial flagellum had evolved, first because the pieces of the system serve no purpose apart from functioning together, and second, because there was no evidence (and no research at the time) even suggesting how the pieces would have functioned in a way advantageous to the organism apart from working together in the system.  After making this critique for 95% of the book, in the closing pages, Behe suggests something like Paley’s argument from several decades ago, suggesting that if we see something that does not seem to be able to have evolved, but it does have function together, that it is not unreasonable to suggest that this system did not evolve, but was instead designed.  It is important to understand at this point that Behe gave no name to the intelligence he posited.  He acknowledges his own faith in the Christian God, but is not tied to that view in the book.  He only suggests that evolution might be wrong on these points, and that other solutions, including those that invoke some kind of intelligent designer, might be discussed.

The second part of the ID movement is the implicit critique of the metaphysical assumptions of Darwinism, and the faith system that has surrounded it.   William Dembski, a mathematician at Baylor, wrote one of the early writings of the ID movement, titled, "The Design Inference."  Essentially, Dembski argues from information theory, mathematics and probablity that if we see something that demonstrates a set pattern, and conveys information over a medium, there are criteria that can be employed to make assumptions about the intelligence of the sender of the message.  In the mathematical portion, Dembski suggests that it is far more likely, with the kind of highly complex and coded information we see in things like DNA, which literally code for millions of traits, that these are designed and purposed, rather than accidental.  This is a critique of the "It just happened," mindset of Darwinists, a "just so" solution that has basically removed any competition from the market because all the other options are "just so."  Darwinists forget the first metaphysical assumption they make:  the existence of matter to create all the accidents of the universe they posit.  Dembski’s argument brings that murky issue back to the fore.  Darwinism cannot be a theory of ultimate origins, and any time it is extended to that sphere, it is revealed as being terribly lacking.   We could easily invoke a Big Bang cosmology to go along with Evolution, but even that fusion of two completely disparate theories does not answer the question of origins.  But even if we grant that the theory is coherent, which I do not do except here for the sake of argument, we still have to believe in literally millions of accidents in a "Pascal’s Wager"-like universe where our lucky numbers just came up.   I’ve lampooned this mindset before, but Dembski and the probability portion of this argument point to this with even more distinction.  If we see a system where highly complex, repeated information is being conveyed, it is more likely that it was sent/designed on purpose than it being an accident.

This, in the most basic way possible, is what ID theory is all about.  Note that the identity of the "Designer" is not the issue.  It was never intended to be the focus of study.  The entire purpose of the movement is to point out the implicit faults of the Darwinian model.

Now that we are all functioning with the same understanding of what Darwinism is, I’d like to tell you how this went wrong.

The first area of fault is with misguided theists in this country, most notably among them, Conservative, Evangelical Christians, who are annoyed to the point of revolt with the academic arrogance of atheists and secular scientists, and frustrated with their inability to be heard on the real issues of Darwinism.  Instead of patiently waiting for the scientific community to actually answer the critique that ID brings, they pushed it into the public sphere, trying to get it taught in schools, which necessarily made it a political issue.  At that point, the circus came to town, and in the three rings of public consciousness, people have forgotten what the entire point of ID is–to point at holes in modern evolutionary theory.  Instead it has become a witchhunt for the "Designer" which because of the people who pushed the agenda has been caricatured as a move to get God back into the public schools.  If the Christian community could have just demonstrated a little patience and waited for the scientific community to respond or continue to ignore them, in time, the theory would have stood on it’s own as a critique. 

Second, I blame the media for distorting and sensationalizing this issue beyond all recognition.

Third, I blame politicians for allowing the issue to be politicized.  They should have left it to the scientific community to deal with, and kept out of it.  

Fourth, I blame all the uneducated people, on both sides, who don’t k

now a thing about ID, but still seem hellbent on fighting about it.  I’ve read people criticize Behe’s book, for example, without their ever having read it.  They put words in his mouth, and caricature his opinions, without any idea of what he himself actually said.  I challenge anyone to read Behe’s book.   I think his critique stands on it’s own, and has yet to be answered by the scientific community.  He’s been criticized, demonized, ostracized, and about one hundred things for things he hasn’t even said.  This goes on both sides.  I’ve seen Christians argue for ID without having any idea of what they’re talking about. Please, people, get a clue before you spout off.  Read the actual books before you read what someone else has to say about what someone actually said in their book.  Reading a book review and claiming you know what the book said is dishonest, ignorant, and willfully prejudiced.  That goes for everyone.

Fifth, I blame the secular and scientific communities for refusing to give ID a fair treatment.  Since the day Behe’s book was published, this has not been about his point, it has been about a dogmatic refusal to acknowledge that Behe may actually have a point.  Scientists who write anything about ID at all are not accepted to write articles for referreed journals, and then the secular and atheist community calls ID a pseudo-science because it’s not published.  Please.  Grow up.  Take the idea seriously, and if it’s wrong, PROVE IT.  Once you prove it wrong, the debate ends, and Darwin is vindicated.  Again, I will throw down the gauntlet:  Prove that the critique of evolution that ID brings is false.  Do that, and you can have all your dogmatism and elitism back.  Delusion is not a solution.  Let’s really delve into this, and one way or the other, prove this.   I honestly would be fine if it was proven that ID was impossible or wrong.  But this refusal to take it seriously only makes me suspicious that the scientific establishment is taking this tack because it cannot answer the critique.

In short, this entire public debate is being conducted by people who don’t have the first idea of what ID is, what it can logically be expected to do, and what it’s purpose is.  Let’s all start thinking rationally about this, and then move forward and look for real proof.  The spin doctoring doesn’t answer the questions, and it only confuses the points more.  Let’s find a real solution, and put this to bed, one way or the other.  I only want us to find the truth of the issue.