More Intelligent Design Rantings 


I just happened to notice this article on The Sandspur, a college newspaper from Florida. It contains so many ridiculous misunderstandings of evolution and intelligent design it makes me wonder how they could even print such stuff. Seriously.
The theory of evolution has been a source of debate since Charles Darwin introduced it. It has created a rivalry that ceaselessly surfaces in the media, the entertainment industry, churches, classrooms, and even everyday conversation. The question is always this: evolution or creation?

Did man evolve from a monkey, who evolved from a reptile, who evolved from a fish, who evolved from a blob of protoplasm, who evolved from one single cell from which all life has subsequently evolved? Or did God create man?
First things first - the theory of evolution generally stays away from the question of the exact origins of life. It specifically deals with the way changes to groups of organisms happen over time to create new, distinct organisms.
I have always wondered-why not both? Why can't it be that living beings have changed over time but that they have changed under the direction of a superior being?
Well, sure. It could be both. It could also be that we popped into existence last Tuesday or that the Pink Unicorn from Saturn created us from one of her hooves. The problem with all these could have scenarios is that there isn't really any proof one way or the other. It's all about faith, which doesn't give us much to work on, scientifically speaking.
Finally, someone agrees with me because this is the logic behind the latest theory about what we are all doing here. The theory is called the Intelligent Design Theory, and it claims that life is too complex to evolve independently of some controlling force-like God. There is now an official theory on the table that may allow scientists and those who believe in the biblical Creation story to come together and accept a common ground.
This statement is both factually incorrect and wildly optimistic at the same time. First, intelligent design doesn't work with or cooperate with evolution. As intelligent design is taught, evolution as we know it to occur doesn't enter into the process at all. That is a prime tenet of ID: evolution is too complex to have occurred naturally - it needs a helping hand.

Second, ID isn't a theory. There is nothing testable about it. There has not been one study done or even proposed that can help prove or disprove ID. Proponents of ID handwave a lot on this point, but it all boils down to faith. Faith that someone or something created life and helped it along. Again, it's main tenet is that evolution could not have occurred naturally. That is, ID doesn't give you anything to work with in establishing a new scientific school of thought - it's all about tearing down evolution as a theory.

Third, that this "ID Theory" is somehow going to get everyone to the table to start talking is the most dangerous of the assertions. The fact that the author thinks that this "theory" brings everyone together lends extreme credibility to ID that it doesn't deserve. It is equivalent to saying that the Flat Earth Society has come up with a new version of geometry that reconciles the spherical earth with a 2D version, and it's will allow scientists to meet and sort out the differences. In other words, it's a bunch of crap.
As a Christian, I am of course biased on this matter. However, I do not see how someone can accept that life has evolved in the way that it has without guidance. If you put all of the parts of the car into a box unassembled and shake the box for six billion years, will you get a car? Of course not. You will get a box of parts. Nature, from the intricacies of a large ecosystem down to the biological functions of the smallest cell, is perfectly assembled. That sort of perfection does not occur by chance. It's one of many ways that we can unmistakably see God here among us.
Oh man. Where to start with this load of BS. The author has dragged out the old "box of parts" metaphor that has so long been discredited. I'm not going to even bother. Read this if you're interested. And perfectly assembled? Hardly.

Now, Rollins College doesn't seem to be some sort religious school - it looks like a small liberal-arts type place. So I'm surprised that someone like the author is still confused on this topic. It frightens me that someone could be in a place of higher education, and still is getting basic scientific principals mixed up. It's possible she hasn't had the education needed for this yet (Freshmen! Sheesh!) but still - what is she doing writing an article like this with absolutely no background on the subject? And apparently without doing any research whatsoever. It doesn't even qualify as a good opinion piece - it's just completely inaccurate.

Let me reiterate - stuff like this is dangerous. It lends credibility to an absolutely absurd "theory" where none is yet deserved. People should be free to express their opinions - but please - critical thinking is required here. Too many uninformed people making decisions is how this crap got into schools in the first place. ID is not a replacement for the theory of evolution. ID is not an appropriate "add-on" to the theory of evolution. It has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with pushing God into the classrooms. Muddled and incorrect explanations of this stuff (like the quoted article) don't help at all.

Link to TalkDesign.org, a good place for information regarding intelligent design.
 

 

Posted: Tue - February 22, 2005 at 02:26 PM          

©