[Return to Essay List]


Intelligent Design (modified 8/28/04)

An essay evaluating the concept:



Introduction
(Return to Top)

Stated simply Intelligent Design ("ID") is the concept that the universe is designed by an [active \ creative] agent and that there are, perhaps, observable traces, evidence of such design in the product of that work.

This assumes a fair degree of development, capability, education and intelligence on the part of the observer. A "Poison Dart" Frog cannot look at a watch and discern that it is a designed object, and neither could a native person unschooled in the concepts of manufacturing such products ... yet he is capable and intelligent enough to discern the cause and effect (and how to use make of) the frog's venom. There are, in fact, historical documents recording where explorers showed watches and the like to such unschooled natives and the natives thought that they were magical objects rather than manufactured things.

There are also natural formations, crystals and accretions and such, that appear to be the result of biological activity or to be the (fossils or similar) remains of life, when in fact they are naturally occurring formations. A kaleidoscope makes a random jumble of colored beads appear to be an intricate design when looked at in one particular way. An untrained "eye" or one that only looks in a particular manner, could easily mistake these as evidence of something they are not.

The search for the evidence of design must be done by those with the most capable trained "eyes" free of constrained perspectives - the most open and complete knowledge of the physical workings of the universe and all it contains ... matter, energy, life. Anything less will likely lead to mistakes or a lack of understanding to see the actual fingerprints of design.

Without as complete a base of knowledge as possible we could be looking at a watch with the mind of a frog, or we could be like a child, bemused by a kaleidoscope of pattern when there is none ... we could be unable to properly observe and evaluate the evidence before us.


What it should be
(Return to Top)

The concept of ID properly pursued to it's logical end, would use all the available evidence of all the available sciences in the search for evidence of the Designer. The concept of ID properly pursued, would include (but not be limited to) all the actual factual evidence for: physics (from sub-atomic particle, to cosmic inflation and string theories, to a 13.7+ billion year old universe, to the questions of the reality of dark matter and energy), geology (of a 4.55 billion year old earth formed from the stellar debris of previous cosmically generated materials, with layers of material organized by age and distribution by the forces of preceding tectonic, volcanic, sedimentary and other processes), paleontology (the organization of fossils found by the time and lineage relationships, the layered development that builds from single cells 3.5 million years ago to the vast complexity of modern life and finally to the many varied hominid lineages and relationships, to the array of branches of taxonomy and why they are branches and not a web of some kind), archaeology (the world wide variety and diversity of culture and artifact and development from the first humans to present day modern man and the complete absence of any evidence of hominid existence below the iridium layer that covers the earth from the impact event 65 million years ago ending the age of the dinosaurs, to say nothing of the lack of evidence of any "modern" humans before 10 million years ago), genetics (the study of genes, how they work and the genetic trees of life relationships they show), evolution (the documented changes of life with time from those first single cells to modern complexity, the phylogenic trees of life relationships, the process by which life changes, tries new features, adapts to new needs), xenobiology (considering the possibilities and possible variety of extraterrestrial life) ... as well as all the other disciplines of science, and including how all these sciences relate to and confirm one another even though they are based on different sets of data (the genetic tree matching the phylogenic one, the geological age matching the physics and cosmological age, etc.).

The concept of ID properly pursued to it's logical end, must not only look at what current theories are used in the various sciences, but what new ones are being developed. For not only must ID properly pursued use all available information and accumulation of facts, it must use the latest accepted theories that best explain them or develop better explanations (alternate theories) that can be tested against these current existing theories to properly judge their relative validity. It must be inclusive, rational, and willing to look in every corner and cranny of existence.

Denying the facts of any one science while embracing the facts in another would be hypocrisy, especially if done on a presupposition of any particular design, for the very element that is the evidence of actual design could well be the evidence denied.

The development of something complex, such as the human eye, may appear to an unschooled mind as such a miracle of interconnected parts that one would find it hard to understand how the development could occur without divine intervention. But to a mind schooled in biology and evolution, the development of the eye is clearly an easy step-by-step process from a light sensitive skin patch to a fully articulated eyeball with lens, iris, retina and portion of the brain dedicated to assembling the whole mass of signals into a coherent picture and interpreting the result.

To one astronomer the universe may appear a morass of chaos with no discernable order or purpose, while another may look at it as a maximizing of diversity, creating opportunities for the seeds of life to sprout in as many wondrous and myriad ways as possible. A universe where, on one small planet of such opportunity, the life we know started from the cosmic seeds of amino acids that were created by the giant nova death of the first superstars -- the chemical building blocks of life which are now known to pervade the depths of the universe with the potential to seed life wherever sufficient opportunity can be found. A universe, in short, primed and loaded for the multiple evolution first of life and then of the intelligence to understand it.

The task at hand would be to understand the universe to the most complete scientific degree possible and then look for what would be evidence for design.

The concept of ID properly pursued also should not be based on any set of preconceived notions of which or what god or flavor of creation may have been involved, but to incorporate all religious views, to look for common trends and experiences, for failing to do so is to bias the observer in the same way that leaving out any one of the sciences would limit the perceptions.


What it should not be
(Return to Top)

Not taking the concept of ID to its logical end would mean that leaps of faith would be needed to reach conclusions rather than logic, and as soon as that is required the scientific validity of the concept goes out the window and you get into the "god designed it that way to fool you" scenarios and ridiculous spirals of circular reasoning.

Not taking the concept of ID to its logical end would mean that whatever is discussed is imperfectly realized, that some vital clue may have been missed, that the discussion is no better than Ptolemy with epicycles on epicycles on circular orbits around the earth: an erroneous view based on a limited information and a wrong belief.

In this regard it appears that the concept of ID as it is commonly used is not being properly pursued - from Wikipedia.com: Intelligent Design (click):
The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that life and living things show signs of having been designed. ID's primary argument is that life is too complex to have simply "happened."

Advocates of ID believe there is empirical evidence that an Intelligent Designer has been at work in the history of life, and that macroevolution of life, and particularly the evolution of humans, has been guided by that Designer. Members of the "intelligent design movement" are typically Christians (primarily Evangelicals, plus one prominent Unificationist), but ID itself does not specify the identity of the Designer.
(bold in the original)

The focus of ID as commonly used has obviously been limited to only some scientific and religious inputs, and this is clearly narrow-minded and headed in the wrong direction. There appears to be an a priori assumption in the popular usage, that life on this planet was the main purpose of the whole universe wide design process, when there is no valid reason to conclude such a [biosphere egocentric] thing. There also appears to be an a priori assumption that humans on this planet are the ultimate end result of that universe wide design process, when there is no valid reason to conclude such a [species egocentric] thing.

Advocates of ID can say that they don't specify who or what [the designer] is, however for it to accomplish what they claim, it must be able to act invisibly across interstellar distances or to periodically appear on earth, act, and then disappear at will without leaving any traces thereof, and be able to do either while violating time constraints for the speed of travel for all natural objects. That to me is supernatural behavior, and any being capable of supernatural action is de facto a god of some flavour. So whether you call the [active \ creative agent] a god or an supernatural alien is just a matter of semantic gamesmanship.

This is emblematic of the false positions one gets into with the a priori assumptions of earth life in general and human life in specific being of any great importance in the grand scheme of things. This is typical of ID as it is commonly used.

The focus of ID as commonly used is a very narrow and limited view: precisely what it should not be.


Is Intelligent Design a faith?1
(Return to Top)

Yes. It assumes supernatural action by one (or more) designer(s), god(s) by definition (see particularly #2), of the universe. The actions of this designer are no different in concept than the supernatural actions attributed to the gods of various pantheons within the concept of many early religions. Which god(s) are involved and how active [it is\they are] in the day-to-day happenings of the universe or whether [it is\they are] even concerned with any of the life forms that evolve is not specified, but is open to be discovered. There is no dogma, no "Church of the Great Designer(s)" and no set of formalized ceremonies, offerings or suggested supplications, so it is not a formal religion, but it is still a statement of faith.

In fact, when you compare the two you will see that ID, especially when properly pursued, is a form of Deism, a religion that also has no dogma, no church and no set of formalized ceremonies, offerings or suggested supplications:

From Wikipedia.com: Deism (click):
Deism is the belief in a God based on natural religion only. It is concerned with those truths which humans can discover through a process of reasoning, independent of any divine revelation through scripture or personal revelation.

Some Deists hold the belief that the universe was created by a God who then made no further intervention in its affairs, often expressed by the metaphor of the "Divine Watchmaker" who created a mechanism so perfect as to be self-regulating. Others share the theistic outlook that God is still active today. Deists do not believe in miracles or revelations.

Deism was popular among thinkers of the Enlightenment such as Voltaire and the Founding Fathers of the United States of America.

Thomas Jefferson is perhaps the most well known and outspoken of the American founding deists. Thomas Paine was also a deist, The Age of Reason being one publication which particularly expressed this view. Benjamin Franklin seems also to have shared components of this view.
(bold in the original, see webpage for links to other pages)

Once you compare [what ID should be] and [what Deism is], you will see they are similar beliefs, and that the statements of Deism are more inclusive, complete, open and honest than what is commonly presented as ID. Deism can involve fewer assumptions about the level of supernatural activity of the "designer" than ID does, therefore ID (especially as commonly used) is a weak form of Deism (it relies more on "he did it" to explain things). It is very simple logic:
all A (Deism) = Religion
all B (ID) is a weak subset of A (or "all B < A" in normal logic symbology)
Therefore all B = Religion
This is not a matter of redefining religion but of recognizing it in the supernatural actions attributed to the design agent in ID.

To make it clearer, perhaps we need to ask the question that ID proponents dread and avoid: the problem of "who designed the designer(s)" because I feel it is very relevant to the issue of whether or not ID is a faith. I claim (here and elsewhere) that ID is de facto a form of faith, and now let us evaluate the alternatives to see the result:

  1. Nobody\nothing designed the ID designer(s), it\they evolved naturally through totally natural processes. In this case ID defaults to natural laws and processes, including evolution, just as if we didn't assume a designer (so it would be irrelevant to pursue), and continued belief in ID is then based on faith, OR
  2. Nobody\nothing designed the ID designer(s), it\they have always existed from the beginning of time. In which case they are god(s), being necessarily supernatural to have lived an immortal existence that must also have been non-material before particles coalesced from the cloud of plasma energy at the beginning of time. Belief in them is belief in god(s) and thus a form of faith, OR
  3. A god or gods designed the ID designer(s), and empowered them to do the designing. With this version the designers become "angels" or demi-gods doing god(s)’s bidding, and, because god(s) is\are now firmly included, ID again ends up being a form of faith, OR
  4. Other previous ID designer(s) designed the ID designer(s) to replace\assist them. Now move up to that level and repeat the sequence again (computer programmers will recognize this as a “DO LOOP”). If there is no other answer than an endless cycle of designers, then this too is a supernatural (see #2 above) cycle akin to the Hindu faith of infinitely recurring universes, all the designers are gods by default, and ID again ends up being a form of faith. (This is the "turtles all the way down" version).
Ergo, ID is de facto a form of faith. Q.E.D.

Note that this is a logical construction and therefore is dependant on the inherent truth of the statements to be a valid proof of the conclusion. Absent any refutation of the truth of these statements and the validity of the proof, this means that ID is a form of faith. Whether you accept it or not is irrelevant to the validity of the logical proof.

Where it should be taught in school
(Return to Top)

Because ID is a form of faith, it cannot be included in any public school science class and still be in compliance with the constitution and consistent decisions of the Supreme Court.

Besides, [Deism\ID] has no input to what science should cover other than to be as open and inclusive as possible. As such, it has nothing to add to any science class. Science is used in the proper pursuit of [Deism\ID], not the other way around: physics uses math in its study of the universe, but the theories of physics are not taught in math class. The statement "god did it" (or "god may have done it" to be fair to atheists and agnostics) does not help in understanding any of the scientific theories and facts.

Properly pursued [Deism\ID] is a religious philosophy. Thus the place for it in school would be in a religious philosophy class, an elective class. This class could also cover the history of deism and how it helped in the formation of the values embodied in the bill of rights and the constitution of this country, as well as covering the basic principles of logic and rational thought.

Properly done such a class would have to discuss how all religions relate to scientific knowledge (ie - comparative religion rather than any single faith) and a complete understanding of "life, the universe, and everything" (Douglas Adams).


Enjoy
(Return to Top)

(Note: this is an essay and as such represents the opinions of the author. You can e-mail comments to me at RAZD8@yahoo.com)

[Return to Essay List]

Notes:
1 - The section "Is Intelligent Design a faith?" was expanded 8/24/04 and again 8/28/04.

we are limited in our ability to understand
.... by our ability to understand
Rebel A American . Zen [ Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...