Intelligent Design Is An Unintelligent Concept

By Allen J Duffis
Published: September 29, 2005

     The proposal of “Intelligent Design” as an alternate concept of the beginnings of life on this planet is, at best, pseudo science. Based on a literal interpretation of the “Book of Genesis”, upon careful examination the proposal is not even legitimate religious dogma. In essence, the concept is bankrupt of any real meaning other than as a political end run around “Darwin’s Theory of Evolution”.

     Charles Darwin’s renowned and scientifically respected work (“The Origin of the Species” – published 1859) has stood the test of time. And in its wake has manifested more than enough proofs to hold it’s ground within the scientific community at large as legitimate science.

     Darwin is however being vigorously attacked by the Neo-Conservative Christian Right, because they view his work as a challenge to their religious beliefs. And those beliefs are rooted in the principle of ‘absolute acceptance of biblical scripture without question’.

     Darwin’s work on the other hand is rightfully presented, as “Theory”, for the concept of scientific theory, in and of itself, is representative of the ‘Empirical Process’ that drives the very engines of science. And the basis of ‘Empirical Thinking’ holds that - nothing in the universe is perfect: with the notable exception of Mathematics.

     It should be noted, however, that “Theory” as concept has an excellent track record. All of the scientific achievements we enjoy today are the byproducts of the “Theorization Process”; practiced diligently, within a disciplined system of checks, balances and rational challenges by their initial discoverers and their peers.

     In retrospect, it is the history of how we humans got from sea to cave dwellers, to here as a technically advanced civilization forging into space. And the time proven discipline for this harnessing of the human intellect is called Science.

     If one rips away the pretensions of educational equality put forth by the “Intelligent Design Movement”, what is exposed is and out and out attack on Science. Their campaign is simply a replay of the Scopes Monkey Trial of eighty years ago. That’s right, the Neo-Conservatives Religious Right have, once again, declared “War on Science”.

     In Dover, Pennsylvania, several parents have initiated a court action, challenging the local school boards attempts to force the inclusion of “ID” in the 9th grade curriculum. Meanwhile, 14 other states have legislation pending to impose the same “ID” inclusions in their schools.

     Let no one be misled, this is a bold first salvo in a war that is most certain to spread should they be successful with this early fledgling assault.

     What makes the process of Scientific Theory so successful is that it does not have to be perfect. There is no requirement that theory, in its initial formative stages, be able to answer all questions brought against its credibility. It has only to be able to lead the way to refinement that may, in the end, change the initial theory entirely. In other words, Scientific Theory is a continually ‘evolving’ process.

     A perfect example would be Sir Isaac Newton’s Three Laws of Motion, published in 1687. These laws governing the motion of pebbles to planets held up for hundreds of years. Until that is, we were able to observe discernable discrepancies when applied to high velocity sub atomic particles. And in time, these laws of Newton gave birth to the field of Quantum Mechanics.

     Science you see thrives on change evolved from Theory. And Darwin’s Theory of Evolution spawns from the same pool of scientific intellect that allowed us to land on the moon.

     Change however is not acceptable to religious fundamentalist. They demand a fixed constancy that dictates biblical scripture be intellectually digested as literal truth.

     They believe that a supreme entity created the planet Earth and all of its creatures, including humans, in six days. And they are not talking days as expressions of hundreds of millions of years, for if that were the case there would be very little Darwin conflict with the biblical “Book of Genesis”. Instead, they are talking days of the 24-hour variety.

     Extreme Western Religion (with emphasis on Christianity) has always had a disciplined mechanism for dealing with challenges to its fanatically protected dogma. It is known as the concept of Heresy.

     In 1616 AD such a charge by the Catholic Church was leveled against the famed astronomer, Galileo. It was instituted to dampen the public impact of his writings, which dared question the church’s teachings that the Earth was the center of the universe.

     To understand the concept of heresy one simply has to envision a court trial, in which the prosecution or defense says something that the jury is not allowed to hear. The judge immediately instructs the jury to disregard what was said. Of course, they can’t.

     Religion’s sacred task has always been to prevent the jury (their followers) from hearing anything that challenges the recognized central beliefs of the church. And in past times, they have gone to extremes to do so. The “Inquisition” is one of the best examples of such extremes. Now there is Darwin.

     In todays's world, heresy, even for the Vatican, is impossible to enforce. So the church has chosen the philosophical route of 'fight your adversaries with their own tools'. Which in the case of "ID" means presenting the concept as real science.

     They have chosen to replace the book of ‘Creationism”, with a new title that advances their religion limited viewpoint of the origin of life on Earth. And they are presenting it as a viable alternative companion to valid scientific theory, namely “Intelligent Design”. But the ploy may not work as they have envisioned it.

     To effectively advance, Science and Scientific Theory has to be continually debated, and in such a forum viewpoints are encouraged to change. To the Christian church, however, change is heretical in nature and, as such, is anathema to Evil.

     Therefore, there can be no doubt that should these Neo-Christian forces succeed in forcing the concept of “ID” into the American classroom, they will almost immediately try to relieve the subject of exposure to debate. For such open debate of their beliefs would be equivalent to opening the fabled Pandora’s box.

     Imagine the questions that might spew forth from young inquiring minds in such an environment: If a Supreme Being made humans, where did the Cave Men come from? How did all the races of man evolve from one man and one woman? Why were no dinosaurs or Pterodactyls on Noah’s Ark? Why were there no prehistoric creatures in the Garden of Eden? And what caused the extinctions of so many species?

     The Christian church will never, willingly, allow such debates to take place. To contain such queries, they will most certainly push to limit “ID” to question mark status within the teaching curriculum. But then again, how does the jury disregard what they have already heard?

     Which brings us to President George W. Bush, who has weighed in on the subject, stating that schools should present both concepts when teaching about the origins of life.

     Think about that for a moment in the light of reason. This man is the greatest argument against Intelligent Design.