Intelligent Design

The concept of intelligent design is not new but, unfortunately, it has become associated with religions rather than with science. Now, I know you are thinking that intelligent design, which states that the universe was created rather than evolved naturally, is not science because it involves a created beginning. But the idea of intelligent design is just as scientific as evolution. Neither idea can be proven by any science known to man; both concepts require a belief that what is unknown can be extrapolated from what is known. The major difference in the two concepts is that one does not require any initial intelligence but requires an ending intelligence. The other requires a beginning intelligence, which we humans have yet to physically or scientifically contact or validate.

The view that intelligent design necessitates or presupposes the existence of a deity is not correct. While intelligent design does require the existence of intelligence, the attributes and origin of that intelligence does not necessarily agree with any existing deities, religious or otherwise.

Intelligent design requires only that we look at a complex object and try to understand how the it came to be. Most of us can look at an object and decide if humans had something to do with its development or if it is a product of nature. But when we look to ourselves and life in general, we assume that evolution is the ultimate answer to our being. Why is design by intelligence ruled out?

Let us suppose that a primitive but intelligent person were to come across a very complex object that has many other complex parts in it. That person can safely assume that object came to be in only one of two ways: designed by an intelligent entity or designed by natural means through evolution.

If this person had no understanding of the science required to build such an object, he or she would have to assume that a human could not have constructed this object. Upon inspecting this object, the person would see boards with little bugs on them and with other weirdly shaped objects existing on the these boards. This person would see strands that appears to run between the boards and to strangely shaped sockets. Of course, a modern day person would easily recognize this object as a computer or a television or some other modern electronic device.

This primitive but intelligent person cannot explain how this object came to be because it is beyond his or her experience and knowledge. Because the object is beyond the understanding of this person, he or she has to assume that it came to be through some natural cause, evolution, or that something with greater intelligence and ability created the object, intelligent design.

This person could assume that the individual pieces of this complex object evolved separately and then evolved a way of combining to form the total object. This same person could just as easily believe that this object was created as is by something or someone with intelligence, an intelligence he or she cannot grasp or begin to understand.

Both assumptions are viable to this primitive person but only one is correct. Until that person reaches a level of scientific experience and understanding that proves one or the other concept, he or she is scientifically correct in holding either or both concepts as true and as viable.

Yes, we like to think we are not that primitive person but in so many ways we are. Science has come a long ways in overcoming Biblical concepts of creation and its timeline. Science has proven, to all but the most religious skeptic, that this earth is billions of years old, that humans have existed for at least 600 thousand years if not longer. Science has proven that germs and viruses cause illness rather than evil spirits, that illnesses can be treated without bleeding the sick or performing rituals, unless you are a Shaman of course. Science has done a lot in overcoming the shortsightedness of some religions.

The problem is that most scientists have developed a phobia toward religion. Just as religion is limited in its ability to be a science so is science limited in its ability to be a religion. Science and religion need each other not to support the findings of one or the beliefs of the other but to provide facts and logic in a religious world and to provide hope in a sterile, physical world. One should balance the other; one cannot replace the other. Both are necessary for humans to advance beyond our present status.

Scientists refusing to accept the possibility of intelligent design is just as illogical as religions believing humans are only a few thousand years old or that humans were created as we now look. Science must be open to the concept of intelligent design and religion must be open to the concept of evolution. Each concept can be used to explain the universe but only up to a point. Both concepts have gaps and lack proof of its theories and positions. One does not prove or disprove the other; one is not all facts and the other is not all faith.

Intelligent design should not be a relegated to only religions but accepted as a possibility of science. For science to refuse to consider that the universe operates without intelligence is just as illogical as religions refusing to accept that evolution is not a natural process that has occurred and will continue to occur so long as life exists.

Both sides need to look at their thought processes and consider the possibility that their beliefs are based on a deep-seated fear of the power of the other.

Author: Don Miller
Posted: Feb. 2006

 
 Email the Author          Send a Response