.Sections

.Front Page

.News

.Student Life

.Science & Environment

.Arts & Entertainment

.Etcetera

.Opinion

.People & Places

.Women's Life

.Military Matters

.Lifestyles

.Sports

 

.Archives

.About Us

 

 

by Keith Lockitch

 

Advocates of intelligent design try to portray themselves as a modern-day Scopes, victims of a dogmatic pro-evolution establishment that will not allow their scientific view into the schools. But the central issue is whether intelligent design is, in fact, a genuine scientific theory or merely a disguised form of religious advocacy, creationism in camouflage.

Proponents of intelligent design aggressively market their viewpoint as real science, insisting it is not religiously based. Writes one leading advocate, Michael Behe: “The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself—not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs.”
Proponents of intelligent design claim that Darwinian evolution is a fundamentally flawed theory—that there are certain complex features of living organisms evolution simply cannot explain, but which can be explained as the handiwork of an intelligent designer.

Their viewpoint is not religiously based, they insist, because it does not require that the intelligent designer be God. “Design,” writes another leading proponent, William Dembski, “requires neither magic nor miracles nor a creator.”

Indeed, design apparently requires surprisingly little of the designer’s identity: “Inferences to design,” contends Behe, “do not require that we have a candidate for the role of designer.” According to its advocates, the designer responsible for intelligent design in biology could be any sort of creative intelligence capable of engineering the basic elements of life. Some have even seriously nominated advanced space aliens for the role.

Their premise seems to be that as long as they don’t explicitly name the designer—as long as they allow that the designer could be a naturally existing being, a being accessible to scientific study—that this somehow saves their viewpoint from the charge of being inherently religious in character.

But does it? Imagine we discovered an alien on Mars with a penchant for bio-engineering. Could such a natural being fulfill the requirements of an intelligent designer?

It could not. Such a being would not actually account for the complexity that “design” proponents seek to explain. Any natural being capable of “designing” the complex features of earthly life would, on their premises, require its own designer. If design can be inferred merely from observed complexity, then our purported Martian designer would be just another complex being in nature that supposedly cannot be explained without positing another designer. One does not explain complexity by dreaming up a new complexity as its cause.

By the very nature of its approach, intelligent design cannot be satisfied with a designer who is part of the natural world. Such a designer would not answer the basic question its advocates raise: it would not explain biological complexity as such. The only designer that would stop their quest for a design explanation of complexity is a designer about whom one cannot ask any questions or who cannot be subjected to any kind of scientific study—a designer that transcends nature and its laws—a designer not susceptible of rational explanation—in short: a supernatural designer.
Its advertising to the contrary notwithstanding, intelligent design is inherently a quest for the supernatural; only one candidate for the role of designer need apply. Dembski himself, even while trying to deny this implication, concedes that “if there is design in biology and cosmology, then that design could not be the work of an evolved intelligence.” It must, he admits, be that of a transcendent intelligence to whom he euphemistically refers as “the big G.”

The supposedly nonreligious theory of intelligent design is nothing more than a crusade to peddle religion by giving it the veneer of science—to pretend, as one commentator put it, that “faith in God is something that holds up under the microscope.”

The insistence of intelligent design advocates that they are “agnostic regarding the source of design” is a bait-and-switch. They dangle out the groundless possibility of a designer who is susceptible of scientific study in order to hide their real agenda of promoting faith in the supernatural. Their scientifically accessible designer is nothing more than a gateway god, metaphysical marijuana intended to draw students away from natural, scientific explanations and get them hooked on the supernatural.

No matter how fervently its salesmen wish intelligent design to be viewed as cutting-edge science, there is no disguising its true character. It is nothing more than a religiously motivated attack on science, and should be rejected as such.

Keith Lockitch is a Ph.D. in physics and a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, CA. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

 

 

 

Kalamalama, the HPU Student Newspaper. All rights reserved.

Web site designed and maintained by Robin Hansson.

Untitled Document