intelligent design

Intelligent Design (ID)–it’s in the news and on the minds of many. But, as the recent Dover case demonstrates, there are still many misconceptions about the concept of design, and there is strong political opposition, often governed by fear, to the teaching of design within secular educational institutions.

A part of the problem, I think, is that some are skeptical about the motives of those involved in the Intelligent Design movement, thinking that ID is nothing more than a dressed up version of creationism. Thus, or so the thinking goes, ID advocates are trying to sneak religion in the back door and foist their views on an unsuspecting public. Of course there will always be individuals who attach themselves to various views, and not all of these are the most desirable folks to have in your camp. But politicians, of all people, should know this is the case and should not judge the merits of a view on its worst (and, sometimes, craziest) proponents. What truly matters here is that ID is not at all a religious phenomenon in the traditional sense of the word. Though you will obviously find a variety of different religious beliefs among ID adherents, ID itself arises from an examination of the evidence. Indeed, it is truly preposterous to accuse ID advocates of some type of hidden religious agenda. The overwhelming majority of the those in the ID movement are driven by academic motives and a desire to simply follow the truth wherever it leads. The research that has been conducted at a variety of levels is impressive and represents a genuine challenge to the status quo. Indeed, the credentials and the research conducted would never have been questioned had the views proposed been more in line with the dominant view on origins.

What has taken place is nothing short of a rhetorical campaign designed by Darwinists (and not by chance) to create in the mind of the public a view that is a caricature of the truth. There has been an onslaught of unsubstantiated claims and an ongoing effort to present ID and its proponents in the worst light possible. So, you keep on repeating the same phrases (“Those ID advocates are just creationists in scientific garb.”), you continue to make overstatements concerning your own views (“Everyone who knows anything realizes that Darwinian evolution is the only reasonable view.”), and you frame the debate in such a way that ID proponents appear opposed to ongoing research.

The true story of ID is quite different than what is often promulgated in certain circles. Not only are many of the researchers individuals of the highest integrity, not only have they continued to produce a body of work that is substantial, well-documented, and scientifically viable, but there certain general features of ID that challenge the reigning paradigm and may lead to a revolution of sorts in origins research. For instance, ID has produced substantial evidence of irreducible complexity, the idea that biological systems at the microscopic level are so intricately constructed and so interdependent (all the parts working together are necessary in order for the system to actually function) that there is no current (or conceivable?) Darwinian pathway that might have produced such design. Likewise, there is no real mechanism that has been tested and proven that can account for life’s origin and the production of self-replicating systems, which are needed if evolution is to continue. Also, there is a clear absence of many transitional forms. If you plan on going from, say, A to Z, you would expect to find a lot of B’s, C’s and so forth in the geological record, but this is not at all what we see. Then, there is the inability of natural selection to explain some of the more complex aspects of biological change. While natural selection does indeed play a role in micro-evolution, it seems ill equipped to account for the extremely grand examples of design and change.

But why, I ask myself, the need to misrepresent? Why the near dread of anything that challenges the current theory? Why the frantic desire to maintain a Darwinian-only approach? You would think that the mere mention of design will send our institutions into some sort of dark age and that the design inference will spell the ruin of millions. These reactions are, of course, preposterous and not at all an accurate assessment of potential ID inclusion. Even so, this is not the real issue, for is it not the evidence, the best we can see it and interpret it, that should lead the way? Does not the truth form the basis of our theories?

For some reason a truly reasonable and greatly substantiated grouping of discoveries and inferences are disallowed, and I don’t get it. I have my own theories, of course, but I’m also taken aback by the sheer ignorance, hypocrisy, arrogance, and fury that has dominated far too much of the current discussion.

To be honest, I don’t think we should be overly concerned about which view wins the day. So long as we’re being intellectually honest, I really don’t care, frankly, which view is correct or most likely true. If natural selection plus chance plus time can explain everything about our universe, so be it. If Darwinian mechanisms are sufficient to make sense of the world in which we live, that’s okay. If, on the other hand, other forces are evident and if new theories are more consistent with the data, that ought to be fine, as well. Let the truth have its sway.

It seems to me that the propaganda originating in certain circles has proved intellectually debilitating, and rhetoric has blocked the path to academic inquiry and creative scientific investigation. Indeed, if ID is even remotely accurate, when and where, exactly, should we give it a voice? If not in a science classroom, then where? If in a philosophy class, will those opposed to ID also stand against the promulgation of ID in that context, too? And, even if it is allowed to flourish within some non-scientific framework, are we okay with allowing ID theorists to present their case, which is largely scientific, within a classroom that is not a science classroom? While I am strongly in favor of holistic education (with various ideas affecting the teaching of any particular subject), I find it strange that the scientific-based findings of ID would be allowed anywhere except a science classroom. The absurdities continue to abound, and few seem even willing to consider the ramifications.

Then, of course, there is the broader issue at stake. Are we actually willing to allow for the possibility that a body of knowledge exists in the world, something that is based in solid and ongoing research, that is simply not allowed to be discussed? How can truths exist and not be taken up and discussed by the dispensers of truth? Furthermore, do we actually believe that today’s students, those who are already quite adept at discussing various topics that would make many of their parents blush, will be damaged by an open discussion about the possibility of intelligent design? This, once again, is foolishness. Indeed, I think that nearly every young (and old) person is creative and resilient enough to consider varying theories and allow for the examination of competing thoughts. Is that not, in great measure, what education is about? Would it not be a travesty–especially if grounded in misinformation and irrational fear–to ignore whatever insights are available about a subject as grand and relevant as origins?

[Note: the Issue here is not actually evolution, per se, Many ID proponents clearly believe in evolution and are willing--at certain points--to accept some of what Darwin taught. The problem they have, however, is that Darwinian evolution does not explain many of the more profound features of human origins and decent.]