Intelligent Design Deserves A Chance
(On the suggestion of my dear friend Kolly, this carries a SATIRE ALERT. If you didn't notice already.)
Few respectable scientists give the theory of intelligent design any serious consideration. There seems to be no reason for this aversion to a perfectly respectable theory. Why is there such objection to it?
Evolution has always been controversial, while almost every culture has a tradition of an intelligent designer. Surely all of these cultures can’t be wrong! If they were, it would imply that new information can explain better than years of tradition. Relying solely on facts for explanation of natural phenomena produces a purely logical worldview that has no bearing on culture or tradition, which could not possibly benefit the impartial, global community of scientists.
It is also disturbing that evolution connects the obviously superior human race to the lesser animal species, such as monkeys, dolphins, and birds. How else, besides being created to rule the Earth, can we justify overusing natural resources and causing irreparable damage to ecosystems? Intelligent design affirms our rightful place as the dominant species on this planet, since we couldn’t possibly be on the same level as the lower life forms.
The scientific arguments behind evolution are also weak. Surely there’s no possible way to explain the evolution of something as complex as an eye though evolution. Even though Richard Dawkins seems to devote a chapter in every one of his books to how the evolution of the eye has been proven to be possible through extremely small random changes to a basic photocell, and there are endless variations on the eye throughout the animal kingdom, this is by no means proof that there isn’t an intelligent designer. Evolution could explain this, but it is also possible that the intelligent designer decided to create all the variations on the eye.
The fact that there is a great amount of proof for the Darwinian theory of evolution does not make it entirely impossible for intelligent design to be the truth behind life on Earth. It can be likened to the fact that, although classical physics reigned for centuries, Einstein’s theory of relativity turned out to be the true theory behind motion and gravity. Even though intelligent design makes no predictions that evolution does not, there’s no reason to place the burden of proof on the “new theory” of intelligent design. Intelligent design has been around since the days of Plato and Aristotle. The fact that Greek philosophy was based on pure logical thought and held the empiricism modern science is based on in contempt doesn’t change that this one theory has a chance of being true and needs to be taught on an equal level with scientific theories.
After all, science education brainwashes captive students into believing that all life on Earth evolved from single-celled organisms, that the universe formed over a period of billions of years in a cosmic “Big Bang”, and other such objective theories. Children have the right to choose whether they believe these strongly empirically supported theories, and offering the unsupportable yet unchallengeable theory of intelligent design is the only way to ensure that the facts of science don’t interfere with people’s beliefs. After all, the right of people to believe what they desire regarding evolution is unalienable and must be defended in all circumstances, and their unproved convictions must be scientifically accepted, just as Holocaust denial is among World War II historians.
Obviously, we must fight to perpetuate this philosophy in science classrooms. By shifting the burden of proof to the oft-challenged Darwinian theory of evolution, it is possible to insert this theory into the classrooms of America and perpetuate what others call delusion, but is a truly viable method of challenging evolution.
Few respectable scientists give the theory of intelligent design any serious consideration. There seems to be no reason for this aversion to a perfectly respectable theory. Why is there such objection to it?
Evolution has always been controversial, while almost every culture has a tradition of an intelligent designer. Surely all of these cultures can’t be wrong! If they were, it would imply that new information can explain better than years of tradition. Relying solely on facts for explanation of natural phenomena produces a purely logical worldview that has no bearing on culture or tradition, which could not possibly benefit the impartial, global community of scientists.
It is also disturbing that evolution connects the obviously superior human race to the lesser animal species, such as monkeys, dolphins, and birds. How else, besides being created to rule the Earth, can we justify overusing natural resources and causing irreparable damage to ecosystems? Intelligent design affirms our rightful place as the dominant species on this planet, since we couldn’t possibly be on the same level as the lower life forms.
The scientific arguments behind evolution are also weak. Surely there’s no possible way to explain the evolution of something as complex as an eye though evolution. Even though Richard Dawkins seems to devote a chapter in every one of his books to how the evolution of the eye has been proven to be possible through extremely small random changes to a basic photocell, and there are endless variations on the eye throughout the animal kingdom, this is by no means proof that there isn’t an intelligent designer. Evolution could explain this, but it is also possible that the intelligent designer decided to create all the variations on the eye.
The fact that there is a great amount of proof for the Darwinian theory of evolution does not make it entirely impossible for intelligent design to be the truth behind life on Earth. It can be likened to the fact that, although classical physics reigned for centuries, Einstein’s theory of relativity turned out to be the true theory behind motion and gravity. Even though intelligent design makes no predictions that evolution does not, there’s no reason to place the burden of proof on the “new theory” of intelligent design. Intelligent design has been around since the days of Plato and Aristotle. The fact that Greek philosophy was based on pure logical thought and held the empiricism modern science is based on in contempt doesn’t change that this one theory has a chance of being true and needs to be taught on an equal level with scientific theories.
After all, science education brainwashes captive students into believing that all life on Earth evolved from single-celled organisms, that the universe formed over a period of billions of years in a cosmic “Big Bang”, and other such objective theories. Children have the right to choose whether they believe these strongly empirically supported theories, and offering the unsupportable yet unchallengeable theory of intelligent design is the only way to ensure that the facts of science don’t interfere with people’s beliefs. After all, the right of people to believe what they desire regarding evolution is unalienable and must be defended in all circumstances, and their unproved convictions must be scientifically accepted, just as Holocaust denial is among World War II historians.
Obviously, we must fight to perpetuate this philosophy in science classrooms. By shifting the burden of proof to the oft-challenged Darwinian theory of evolution, it is possible to insert this theory into the classrooms of America and perpetuate what others call delusion, but is a truly viable method of challenging evolution.
posted by Intelligentsia Jr. at 9:55 AM
0 comments
