Intelligent Design, a counter-productive exercise

Sometimes what we do in support of an idea does more to undermine our position than help it. Intelligent Design is an incredibly good example. I recently published an article titled A class on Intelligent Design. The idea was to follow the process of applying the basic principles of science to the theory of Intelligent Design. I wrote the article as a real time exercise, in that I didn't plan what was to be said, I followed the natural progression of scientific investigation which is the heart of teaching science. I guess it's not common knowledge, although I had thought that it was, the science is not taught like English, Algebra, Literature, or any other subject.

When teaching those subjects, the intent is to provide students with a basic understanding of what has been determined to be correct in the use of language, what has been shown to be true in mathematics, what has been written in the past, and so on. In science, although their are certain facts that are related, even those are subjected to experimentation to provide proof positive. For example, students are not simply told that water freezes at 0 degrees Centigrade or 32 degrees Fahrenheit, they are given water, a thermometer, a method to cool the water, and told to perform the experiment themselves, following the scientific method. The idea is to learn about scientific investigation as well as scientific facts, hypotheses, and theories.

If Intelligent Design is taught in a science class, where students questions and observations are never dismissed out of hand, the question of "What is the 'intelligence' behind Intelligent Design?" will have to be addressed. Even in a college or university setting some students, by virtue of their upbringing, will be subjected to a necessary, however painful, examination of things they have taken as truth all of their lives. As an example, here are extracts from my previous article.

Science has established that the earliest animate life on earth was in the form of microbes. We know that later there were small life forms in the oceans. After that there were fish, of sorts, and eventually land animals. We have evidence that there were land animals that walked on all fours and had a physical structure somewhat like man. Later, we have evidence of the first hominid, a creature that walked upright and had the basic structure of man. Knowing only this much, and based on these observations, what is the first hypothesis we can form?

I propose the hypothesis that the intelligence behind Intelligent Design was experimenting with the creation of living creatures. Based on that hypothesis, I predict that there will appear on earth, more hominid life, each time more refined than the last. Since all of this is in the past anyway, it’s a good bet that I will find evidence to support my hypothesis. And, of course I do. At different times there were the Cro-Magnon, the Neanderthal, and eventually, Homo Sapiens. We have evidence that the same type of increasing complexity can be seen in reptiles, birds and plants. So the theory now is that the intelligence behind Intelligent Design made man through a process of experimentation.

This is not a proof, it is simply following the principles of scientific investigation to a logical conclusion, and then stating a theory which fits the evidence. The problem is this, the conclusion is contrary to belief. My daughter wrote, "Dad, . . . I like the article, but to think we are part of an insensitive experiment is not settling to well with me." The truth is that the only basis behind intelligent design is that our own intelligence is incapable of coming up with any other answer for our existence as highly developed biological machines. However, it should be noted that evolution and Intelligent Design are not mutually exclusive except for when the bible is taken literally. It is only the highly structured dogma of a fundamentalist religion that is insisting that Intelligent Design is a contrary theory. But, a theory it is not. Creationism, which is what the backers of Intelligent Design really want to pursue, cannot stand up to scientific investigation, it is a religious belief.

As a religious belief, Creationism belongs in Sunday School, not public school. Intelligent Design adds nothing to the scientific, investigative curiosity about the nature of our universe, and as such is a waste of time, energy and resources much better spent in providing our children with the tools necessary to succeed in a multi-cultural and multi-religious society. With all that students have to learn in a few short years between Kindergarten and graduation, I can only hope that a science teacher can say to his or her class that whether or not there is an intelligence behind evolution, this is what we know about how evolution works.

I am personally dismayed to the point of anger over the polarization of our society by those who, for the sake of church revenue or just personal fame, would tear us apart. Lewis Carroll wrote, "The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of may things. Of shoes, and ships and sealing wax, of cabbages and kings." These things are proper subjects for a public school classroom. Religion is not.

Comments can be emailed to guy@sturino.com.