EVOLUTION YES. INTELLIGENT DESIGN YES.
Abdul - Kadir O. Etuazim
August 21, 2005
It is amazing, and at times shocking, to witness how useful energy is dissipated over resolvable issues. The row over evolution or intelligent design in science classes, on the origin of life, is as amusing as it is disconcerting. Man is adept at creating a problem out of a seeming innocuous incident or state of affairs. Of all the worries of the 21st century, the debate might seem to be inconsequential.
However, extrapolating the impact of the result on man’s future necessitates input from all. Scientifically minded and deeply religious heads must be turning in their graves. The two sides to the debate adopt a black or white position. They are not interested in stepping back and dispassionately appraising the other side’s points. In other words, grey areas are inexistent.
We are at the threshold of losing all the gains made with the coming of the age of reason. Conversely, there is also a high risk of returning to an age of anything goes, because the deterrence of accountability to a higher force would have been jettisoned. Either way, the outright victory of any side is disturbing. Unchecked, the product of any of the scenarios would make the present war on terrorism a child’s play in the next 50 years.
It is no longer possible for any group of religionists – no matter how powerful – to impose divinely inspired explanations/interpretations on everyone. There are enough persons willing and quite capable of countering such moves at every turn. Similarly, the pinhead logic of rejecting any thesis not backed by empiric evidence ought to be viewed more with pity than annoyance.
Accordingly, the stance of either evolution or intelligence design is preposterous. There is a middle ground. It is this: evolution and intelligent design, together, offer reasonable insight into the origin and continuing development of life. This has no bearing with political correctness or faith induced acquiescence. Rather, the position would stand on its four when subjected to analysis by any reasonable person.
Holding on to evolution, while discounting any role of intelligent design, omits a vital link in the chain of the theory. What is responsible for the various life forms to structure; separate; multiply; and exhibit other predictable tendencies? It is not enough to launch a nuclear option to forcibly win this argument. The essence of reason should not be to benchmark all phenomenon on empiric evidence alone. There is another aspect waiting to be explored and understood.
The context of the argument – academic – should be very clear to all. Proponents of evolution are yet to explain the force(s) behind all the activities of the process they present as the only position. It is not enough to gloss over inexplicable or unexplored experience by deploying obscure language. For example, what programmed and ensures the continued workings of all cell life? Why is there so much order in the movement of planets in our universe?
Brandishing religious texts as the only source of authority on the debate evokes memories of the past when religious hierarchies hectored the public into accepting illogical thoughts as unquestionable truths. Time was when the church decreed the earth to be stationary and the sun orbiting it! It is also on record that the earth was also decreed to be anything but spherical. It is an affront on the provisions of the holy books to ban the right to ask questions.
The intelligent design protagonists cannot explain a logical link between their theory of creation and the reality that there are Asians, Africans, Europeans, Arabs and others on earth. In addition to a landscape of different animals and plants God created two human beings only. How can this be logically explained without borrowing a little from evolution?
Invoking the religious fiat of faith is not tenable in this argument. With a prevalence of such outlook, the successes recorded in science and technology would have been stuff of fiction series only. Beliefs alone should be confined to the domain of religion. The issue at stake goes far into molding future generations that would be charged with surmounting life’s challenges.
Consequently, a symbiotic version of both schools of thought should be imparted in schools. It is high time we stopped creating divisions based on unnecessary zero sum game approach to debates. There is no need to convince anyone opposed to the existence of a force in nature to the contrary. Equally, it will be futile to induce an implacable intelligent design guru to the merits of the evolution theory.
However, extrapolating the impact of the result on man’s future necessitates input from all. Scientifically minded and deeply religious heads must be turning in their graves. The two sides to the debate adopt a black or white position. They are not interested in stepping back and dispassionately appraising the other side’s points. In other words, grey areas are inexistent.
We are at the threshold of losing all the gains made with the coming of the age of reason. Conversely, there is also a high risk of returning to an age of anything goes, because the deterrence of accountability to a higher force would have been jettisoned. Either way, the outright victory of any side is disturbing. Unchecked, the product of any of the scenarios would make the present war on terrorism a child’s play in the next 50 years.
It is no longer possible for any group of religionists – no matter how powerful – to impose divinely inspired explanations/interpretations on everyone. There are enough persons willing and quite capable of countering such moves at every turn. Similarly, the pinhead logic of rejecting any thesis not backed by empiric evidence ought to be viewed more with pity than annoyance.
Accordingly, the stance of either evolution or intelligence design is preposterous. There is a middle ground. It is this: evolution and intelligent design, together, offer reasonable insight into the origin and continuing development of life. This has no bearing with political correctness or faith induced acquiescence. Rather, the position would stand on its four when subjected to analysis by any reasonable person.
Holding on to evolution, while discounting any role of intelligent design, omits a vital link in the chain of the theory. What is responsible for the various life forms to structure; separate; multiply; and exhibit other predictable tendencies? It is not enough to launch a nuclear option to forcibly win this argument. The essence of reason should not be to benchmark all phenomenon on empiric evidence alone. There is another aspect waiting to be explored and understood.
The context of the argument – academic – should be very clear to all. Proponents of evolution are yet to explain the force(s) behind all the activities of the process they present as the only position. It is not enough to gloss over inexplicable or unexplored experience by deploying obscure language. For example, what programmed and ensures the continued workings of all cell life? Why is there so much order in the movement of planets in our universe?
Brandishing religious texts as the only source of authority on the debate evokes memories of the past when religious hierarchies hectored the public into accepting illogical thoughts as unquestionable truths. Time was when the church decreed the earth to be stationary and the sun orbiting it! It is also on record that the earth was also decreed to be anything but spherical. It is an affront on the provisions of the holy books to ban the right to ask questions.
The intelligent design protagonists cannot explain a logical link between their theory of creation and the reality that there are Asians, Africans, Europeans, Arabs and others on earth. In addition to a landscape of different animals and plants God created two human beings only. How can this be logically explained without borrowing a little from evolution?
Invoking the religious fiat of faith is not tenable in this argument. With a prevalence of such outlook, the successes recorded in science and technology would have been stuff of fiction series only. Beliefs alone should be confined to the domain of religion. The issue at stake goes far into molding future generations that would be charged with surmounting life’s challenges.
Consequently, a symbiotic version of both schools of thought should be imparted in schools. It is high time we stopped creating divisions based on unnecessary zero sum game approach to debates. There is no need to convince anyone opposed to the existence of a force in nature to the contrary. Equally, it will be futile to induce an implacable intelligent design guru to the merits of the evolution theory.
Print
Email
