Intelligent Design
From Tractatus
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
Galileo Galilei
Contents |
Prologue
One argument which is made against Intelligent Design is that it is not science, because it is not falsifiable; it makes no testable prediction. If this were true, then Intelligent Design would be independent of scientific theory, it could be either true, or false, and nothing we do can determine which.
I don't particularly like the independence argument, because once you argue that a statement is independent, you have established only that you cannot argue further. because you cannot argue futher, you can't use this argument to convince someone with a different opinion.
I think that what is missing is relevence. For an argument to be relevent, it must allow for the possibility of convincing someone. Specifically, it must allow for the possibility of convincing someone who does not believe the conclusion. The tragedy is that an argument can be true without being relevent.
I find it depressing when otherwise rational people go on about their own Truths, without considering that to convince they must first accept the other's axioms in order to remain relevant. When I hear what is supposed to be an argument, which can only possibly convince someone who believes the given conclusion already, I blame the author.
This is my complaint with arguments over Intelligent Design.
A Parable
So, I am driving down the road, listening to an argument which goes like this:
These Intelligent Design people are such idiots. They are so ignorant. There are no possible grounds on which someone with an IQ of 70 could believe that. etc.
Since this argument immediately, and willfully, insults the only relevant audience, it fails the test for relevence.
Constructive Arguments
Another Parable
So, I am walking in a field, and I come across a rock. I examine it, and I discover that the shape seems to be very unusual.
I realize that this rock is just the right shape to let me open a tin can, while I am standing on my head. Cool!
I pause for a moment, and realize that this is a staggering coincidence, and clearly, the rock must be a tool made for this purpose. I know that can opener's are extremely useful, and hard to live without. Upsde down? As a devoted student of anthropology, I immediately address the obvious question.
The civilization which made this device must clearly have had tin can's, and so must be similar to my own. But why would they need an antipodean device? There does not seem to be any physical reason that such a device would be required. Well, perhaps. But it seems more likely that there is some social reason that they opened cans while standing on their heads.
My opinion
This is exactly how I feel about Intelligent Design. It is a device made for opening tin cans in Australia. I feel the question is the motivation of the user, and not the item itself. By extension I also question the design of the item itself.
A little background. I was introduced to Creationism by reading the journal Origins because my father was a member of the Biblical Creation Society. I do not object to a harsh critique of Darwinism's oddities (I especially liked their discussion of Darwin's Finches). They published this article on the subject. I feel that reading a Creationist journal over the course of many years entitles me to an opinion on the matter.
Getting back to the design of that rock. I cannot help but feel that Intelligent Design is a custom-made tool to promote Creationist Theology, but, avoids the baggage of the necessary conclusions of that argument.
The distinction that I make is that in a Creationist argument, the conclusion is the identiy of the creator. But, in an intelligent design argument, the argument is truncated just before the obvious conclusion so that the sensibilities of the Constitution are not offended. This is disingenuous. Beginning the argument, knowing the desired conclusion, and not completing it displays the weakness of the author. Get a backbone, and argue for the Creator you believe in.
If the authors truly believed that they were willing to accept any of the possible `conclusions' (Aliens created mankind, the Giants, Krishna, Prometheus), then the argument would be genuinly motivated.
But, [shrug] the lack of genuine motivation in other's arguments is really their own problem, not mine.
A complaint
What makes Intelligent Design truly pernicious is that it is used by the strong to manipulate the weak.
Although I have no humility myself, I believe that it is a virtue. When making a decision in which you are not an expert, you should seek out the advice of an expert and take it.
Intelligent Design carefully makes itself dificult to contradict. As a result, it preys on those who should be taking the advice of experts, and makes them think they can ignore it.
Challenging the presumptions of Darwinism is a fine use of citical thinking skills. However, undermining the educational system, by encouraging school boards to ignore common practice is a direct attack on the very critical thinking skills contrarian Science demands. These politicians are powerless to defend themselves from the deceptive arguments used by greater minds.
I do not blame the powerless, they are clearly ill-equipped for office. I blame the great, and those who side with them.
Notes
not falsifiable