Intelligent Design?

A school district in PA has required that the 'flaws' in the theory of evolution need to be discussed, and has approved intelligent design (ID) to be taught alongside evolution. Intelligent design, which many suggest is a repackaging of 'creationism'. Needless to say, both sides are watching the new encroachment of religion into schools.

Creationism II?

Not if you proponents of intelligent design. The problem with creationism, say the ID people, is that it starts with what the bible says and assumes that is correct. ID, on the other hands, starts with no religious predisposition, rather looks at the complexity of life and concludes that it is far to complex to not have the hand of some higher power behind it. It's not religion, it's a scientific process which concludes that there is a higher power.

Scientific Method
Proponents of ID claim that they are, above all, rigorously adhering to the Scientific Method. The complexity of life is observable and ID offers a theory to the origins of life. Walk through a forest and find a rock, and you will just assume that the rock evolved naturally. Walk through a forest and find a watch, and you will instinctually (and correctly) assume that the watch was designed by an intelligence. However, ID proponents admit this 'faith' in intelligence is not enough. You need proof. This is the Achilles heel of ID, for the quest for proof needs to exist for the theory to have any scientific rationality, but how do you prove the existence of the invisible hand behind intelligent design? Well, you create a faith-based approach that looks scientific and call it a 'design detection filter'.

ID starts from the premise that there are only three explanatory causes for any event, pattern or object: chance, necessity (natural law) or design. If you can say that something is so complex as to rule out simple chance and/or necessity as the cause, then design becomes the cause. There are 3 problems with this approach that I see.

1. Having design as the 'default' cause if the other two fails presupposes intelligent design as a cause. Chance and Necessity are, at least, demonstrable. I can spin a wheel to get random results and I can cross specifically breed dogs to get a certain physical characteristic. How do you observe design, without presupposing that it is design you are observing? Natural selection evolved as a theory due to observation of the process, not as a default.

2. If you accept the idea of intelligent design, doesn't that negate the other two options? How do say that giraffes evolved their long necks out of necessity, but their eyes out of intelligent design? Wouldn't one hand have to do both? This would also require ID to expand beyond biology: The intelligence behind our design must, certainly, have designed our environment as well. (More about other sciences in a moment).

3. The possibility this default filter ignores is that we are chance and necessity may combine in ways we are unable to understand, and therefore would be attributed to ID, when in fact it isn't. Our scientific knowledge, while vast, is not complete. 400 years ago, we were the center of the universe - which was attributed to ID. Now, we recognize (because we can demonstrate) that we're not even the center of our galaxy, and that the galaxy formed by chance. Yes, the 'what happened before' question still exists, but ID proponents don't seem to be scrambling to suggest ID in the universal formation.

Why Stop There ?
On of the things that fascinates me is why this ID theory limits itself to biological science. Creationism didn't, per se. Yes, that was the primary focus, but there was also other claims about earth only being 6,000 years old, which must have been an indictment of geological and chemical sciences as well.

ID, I remind you, doesn't claim the earth is only 6,000 years old (because that's a biblical principle), but if the evolution of the eye is too complex to have occurred on its own, why can't the same thing be said about quantum physics? Certainly, some of the more exotic tenets of quantum physics seems to be almost mythical in principal (particles that exist in more than one place, cats that are both alive and dead, ect). Sure we can take a picture of molecules on the atomic level, but we have also witnessed first hand the results of selective breeding, which (to me) would seem to be a vindication of natural selection, even if we haven't found that elusive ape/man link.

In fact, ID seems to go out of its way not to encompass other sciences. Salt crystals? A product of chance and necessity. Which goes toward exposing IDs biggest flaw: It suggests the presence of intelligent design in biology, in part, by overlooking the complexity of non-biological system. Yes, salt as the formation of Sodium and Chlorine seems simple. Positive and Negative ions attracting. But, why do they have those charges? How did the sodium and Chlorine come into existence? Go back to the rock in the forest, for a moment. Yes, a rock certainly lacks the sophistication of a watch, but that rock is the combination of complex events which caused it to be there, in that form. Erosion, heating and cooling, earthquakes, the mineral composition, all are incredibly complex processes which led to the simple rock in the woods. A while back there was quite a stir over the 'face' on mars. Intelligent design! Though, upon closer look, it was complex erosion which left the impression of a design, rather than being an actual design. A watch is a product of intelligent design - ours. However, like the simple rock, it evolved from a complex combinations of things. It is a result of evolution of biology, and intelligence. Man did not just sit down and create a watch. He started by using a club to kill animals, which lead to a lever to lift heavy objects, and so on. The complexity of the watch, is really a complex combination of simple ideas and objects, as is the formation of salt.

As is the evolution of man.

In the end, while ID doesn't rip it ideas from the bible, it still pulls from the biblical idea of a greater hand behind that which we see. It still requires faith in the designer, for it is a face we will never see directly, only attribute things to it that are too complex for us to comprehend without its aid. Ultimately, ID is not too far from the Greeks attributing lightning to a god, it's just moved on to more complex subjects.