frazzledgear
Senior Member
- Mar 17, 2008
- 1,479
- 544
- 48
Is intelligent design merely an abstact concept or is there an official, documented dogma that articulates precisely what a believer in I.D. actually believes? If it is merely an abstract concept, how can it really contradict the theory of evolution? Could not the evolutionary process be the foundation of such an intelligent design? The cynic in me views it as a largely failed politcal ploy, concocted by science-hating creationists, but I could be wrong. Any thoughts?
People constantly confuse the theory of Intelligent Design with Creationism -but they are not one and the same and do not derive from the same roots. Creationism is entirely based on religious doctrine posing as a scientific "theory" that is a simple declaration that God created everything -but it is not a legitimate or testable scientific theory at all. Creationism has no place in a science class.
The theory of Intelligent Design is scientifically based and did not come about due to any religious doctrine or due to any religious beliefs by those proposing the theory. It is a theory proposed by numerous scientists in unrelated fields of science and when it has been proposed, it is for an extremely narrow application within those fields regarding highly specific questions. It does not purport to be the right answer for every possible question in the various fields where it has been proposed, just very certain and specific questions. In most fields of science where it has been proposed, it has been proposed as being the best answer for just one or two specific questions. But those fields of science where it has been proposed include nearly every field of science.
For instance, among evolutionary biologists -yes evolutionary biologists, some have proposed that the theory of Intelligence Design best explains the sticky problem of what is called "irreducibly complex systems". (An example of a nonbiological irreducibly complex system would be a mousetrap -from which you can remove one part after another until if you remove even one more part, it won't function as a mousetrap at all. At that point, in order to still function as a mousetrap, it is now an irreducibly complex system. Remove one more part and it is just useless junk.)
One such irreducibly complex system is the the visual system. In most species, at least 34 critical parts must all be present -parts that are formed from unrelated tissues, structures, hormones and chemical production, etc. -or the system doesn't work at all. These necessary changes include part of the brain extending outside the cranial cavity, the dermis transforming to form a globe to encase that brain extension, the transformation of that brain extension to be able to receive light impulses, to the formation within the bone to protect and support the eyes, to the transformation of epidermal tissue in more than four different ways from transparent tissue that is also encased within the globe to the formation of protective covering, to the chemical changes required to carry those light impulses to the brain, AND the transformation of part of the brain itself to be able to decode and understand that message once received in the brain, etc. and I am still skipping many other critical changes that are necessary for vision to happen. It isn't a matter of a couple of bumps on the forehead turning into eyeballs and voila -a critter sees.
The theory of evolution says all the minimally necessary required parts of a visual system came about in incremental mutations over eons, piece by piece until all parts were in place and then and only then and by mere happenstance, were all those mutations exactly the ones required to work together in order to produce a functional visual system.
But in fact, the fossil record undeniably shows that visual systems showed up all at once, fully functioning -and showed up all at once in thousands of unrelated species during the very same and very short period of time (geologically speaking) -not as a result of the gradual accumulation of mutations. And it had to show up all at once fully functioning because a visual system won't work unless all the required parts are in place. So the diehards simply said well it was a MASSIVE one-time but random mutation involving all those different tissues and structures all at once -and oh, just HAPPENED to have meaninglessly resulted in a fully functional visual system and ALSO to have occurred at the very same time in thousands of unrelated species!
The overwhelming majority of mutations are harmful, if not outright lethal to the species and it is accepted that it is the very rare mutation that is neutral and has no effect at all, and the most rare of all mutations are those that are beneficial to the species.
Because the fossil record undeniably proves fully functional visual systems showed up all at once and not piece by piece, if it were really due to evolution and random, meaningless chance - it had to have been an event never seen before or since -the MASSIVE but totally random simultaneous and totally BENEFICIAL mutation of dozens of unrelated tissues and structures in a species while it was also occurring in thousands of unrelated species at the same time -that all just "happened" to meaninglessly produce fully functional visual systems. Easy to see why more than a few scientists find that explanation a difficult one to swallow.
So more than a few evolutionary biologists have proposed such an event is so statistically improbable to be a result of random, meaningless chance step in evolution as to be among the LEAST likely answers. And that the theory of Intelligent Design -which means it was an intentional change and not a random event -best answers this phenomenon.
Like any scientific theory, this theory can be tested for accuracy. Scientists test theories for accuracy by TRYING TO PROVE IT IS WRONG. Which means there must be MORE scientific research in order to see if there is a better answer that fits the known facts. Because the theory of evolution totally fails to do that for many very specific questions within several different fields of science - including this one. Some people have a real hang-up about evolution, as if the only possible choices are evolution or God and there can't possibly be ANY other answers to the questions we just don't know. Hogwash. The theory of evolution is a significantly flawed theory and that only means we still haven't gotten it right. Which means we keep looking instead of demanding people worship at the altar of evolution.
There are other theories under consideration at this moment trying to prove there is a natural explanation for this specific phenomenon as well as other theories proposed to explain the other specific questions in other fields of science where it has also been proposed. It isn't even a case of ID vs. evolution -but one of many theories vs. evolution. While ID focuses on the improbability of certain phenemonon being random events, other theories attempt to find a natural explanation while acknowledging it is very unlikely to be due to random chance.
One theory hypothesizes that the earth underwent a one-time, super intense cosmological exposure that affected similar tissues in unrelated species and resulted in the massive simultaneous (yet still entirely beneficial) mutations of similar tissues in all those unrelated specied -that just happened to have resulted in producing functional visual systems during the same period of time -and they are looking to see if there is any evidence to back that theory up since such exposure would still leave residual evidence it hit the earth. But if even if that theory is correct, it means visual systems were NOT due to random, meaningless steps of evolution, but entirely the result of a specific event.
The theory of Intelligent Design is just one of many new theories -one that postulates that very specific phenomena and events are statistically improbably due to meaningless, random chance and if random chance is ruled out, that only leaves purposeful intent. But it is just one of many new theories scientists have proposed and are researching - some of which also agree that random chance is highly improbable but still a natural event such as the above theory, some that still hold on to random chance mixed with specific events - and none of them are "evolution" per se. How many have your kids learned about? Or have they been taught that evolution is the only answer to questions like why visual systems suddenly showed up and a "proven" fact -when it is no such thing.
By teaching kids that scientists are still struggling to answer some of the most perplexing questions, we all benefit by it because it can only increase our scientific knowledge -and it may be one of those kids whose curiosity is sparked that makes a big contribution to our knowledge. But letting them know the truth -that we are far from having the answers will never decrease our scientific knowledge.
If the theory of ID is the wrong answer for the specific questions it has been proposed, only MORE scientific research can possibly prove it wrong -and we all gain by that discovery. But, knowing they face the ruin of their careers and reputation if wrong - no scientist has proposed the theory of ID as the best answer to a specific question or phenomenon in their field of science until they were utterly convinced there was no possible better explanation for it.