Friday, October 28, 2005
The Arguments
Because I just know people are curious, here lies an argument or two against the idea of intelligent design, and no, they're not jokes either.
The chief argument against the idea is a refutation of the notion that the complexity and marvellous design of the known universe calls for a plan to be behind it all. That's really just nonsense, if you think about it. If evolution is responsible for the origin of species (and that's what Darwin said, by the way; he didn't invent the idea of evolution, which taken on its own is pretty much self-evident; watch a party for a few hours and you'll see what I mean) then it's only reasonable to expect the resulting species to wonderfully fit into their environment. The world works the way the world works: no other outcome would be possible, given the starting conditions, than what we now experience. Also, some things in the universe are not particularly intelligent. You can rationalize all you want, something like a season of repeated killer hurricanes is not a good thing for humans, although it does help keep the universe balanced, a concept many take as a spiritual higher good.
But, more importantly, assuming for the sake of argument that there is a creator behind it all, what's wrong with the theory of evolution? The creator maybe has some plans that are bigger than humanity, and maybe those hurricanes are there to further some divine purpose of which we may only guess. Okay, maybe. But what in heck is so wrong about figuring out how the creator is going about his business? If you take the Jewish creation story about the fall of innocence to be true, at least metaphorically, then we are way beyond being able to go back to the garden; we've eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; we have gained the ability to think and judge theories. If we can't go back to innocence, then the only way out of the place in which we find ourselves is to keep on thinking and learning and becoming more and more like the creator, which is actually what the ancestors of scientists (the philosophical ancestors that is) believed that they were doing, even back in ancient Greece. If god has a plan, might not that plan include using evolution to continuously come up with new forms of life that can survive in an ever changing environment? God may be everlasting and unchanging, but the universe isn't, so where's the problem with discovering that the creator, if there indeed is one, built in a coping mechanism for the life herein?
So, the trouble with intelligent design is that 1: it isn't necessary and 2: it doesn't preclude evolution as the origin of species. In the first place it refutes the arguments of those pushing it in schools. In the second case it simply wastes everyones' time. Either way, why bother with it at all?
The chief argument against the idea is a refutation of the notion that the complexity and marvellous design of the known universe calls for a plan to be behind it all. That's really just nonsense, if you think about it. If evolution is responsible for the origin of species (and that's what Darwin said, by the way; he didn't invent the idea of evolution, which taken on its own is pretty much self-evident; watch a party for a few hours and you'll see what I mean) then it's only reasonable to expect the resulting species to wonderfully fit into their environment. The world works the way the world works: no other outcome would be possible, given the starting conditions, than what we now experience. Also, some things in the universe are not particularly intelligent. You can rationalize all you want, something like a season of repeated killer hurricanes is not a good thing for humans, although it does help keep the universe balanced, a concept many take as a spiritual higher good.
But, more importantly, assuming for the sake of argument that there is a creator behind it all, what's wrong with the theory of evolution? The creator maybe has some plans that are bigger than humanity, and maybe those hurricanes are there to further some divine purpose of which we may only guess. Okay, maybe. But what in heck is so wrong about figuring out how the creator is going about his business? If you take the Jewish creation story about the fall of innocence to be true, at least metaphorically, then we are way beyond being able to go back to the garden; we've eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; we have gained the ability to think and judge theories. If we can't go back to innocence, then the only way out of the place in which we find ourselves is to keep on thinking and learning and becoming more and more like the creator, which is actually what the ancestors of scientists (the philosophical ancestors that is) believed that they were doing, even back in ancient Greece. If god has a plan, might not that plan include using evolution to continuously come up with new forms of life that can survive in an ever changing environment? God may be everlasting and unchanging, but the universe isn't, so where's the problem with discovering that the creator, if there indeed is one, built in a coping mechanism for the life herein?
So, the trouble with intelligent design is that 1: it isn't necessary and 2: it doesn't preclude evolution as the origin of species. In the first place it refutes the arguments of those pushing it in schools. In the second case it simply wastes everyones' time. Either way, why bother with it at all?
