Intelligent Design: “Revenge of the Sith” - Oh to be 1925 again, a time when men were men (righteous and God-fearing), women were subjugated, and scientific theory was required by the state to be in line with Christian religious dogma. But who says we can’t return to those wonderful days? That’s what the Kansas State Board of Education must be thinking because they chose to ignore almost a century of progressive thought and throw Darwin right back into the defendant’s chair and attack him with a new fangled weapon they call “intelligent design“.

Then Pennsylvania got into the act with a proposed bill in the state legislature that would allow “intelligent design” to be taught in public schools. And the battle rages in dozens of public independent school districts across the country. “Evolution can’t be observed and so can’t be proven”, “Evolution is just a THEORY, not a FACT!” rage the Sith in their new battle to win hearts and minds of the easily dupable. But what is this intelligent design theory? Allow me to present a small tour of Internet thought and opinion on ID.

First of all, something called “Creationism” came before intelligent design. There are many forms but creationism is basically a belief that the word of the Bible (specifically Genesis) is literal fact. I.e. the world is only a few thousands years old and all the animals, plants, humans, rocks, and devilish snakes in delicious fruit trees just kind of . . *poof*, sprang forth from nothingness. Hence the world is the way it was at creation. I.e. no evolution. In a conversation with a Creationist Kevin O’Brien ponders why we should accept as fact the nonscientific and often story like and superstitious beliefs of the ancients.

“[T]his is the most blatant example of an underlying anti-science bias in your thinking, that you would require us in the modern world to see the universe as a nation of semi-nomadic herdsmen saw it through their myth and folklore.”

Here is my take on Creationism and why it’s completely logical to believe that God generally avoided trying to teach ancient sheep-herders about the true nature of the Universe, i.e. quantum mechanics, genetics, the “Big Bang”, and (yes) evolution.

The problem of course comes when Creationists try to elevate an ancient creation myth to the status of a complete viable modern scientific theory using the modern scientific method and techniques. This has proven to be next to impossible in light of massive scientific evidence to the contrary but it didn’t stop Creationists from trying to get this taught in public schools on a par with evolution. Then in 1987 the Supreme Court saw though the smoke screen and kicked Creationism out of the classroom. Oh what was a Bible thumper to do? Well, if you can’t beat ‘em . . join em.

Exit “creationism” stage right and enter “intelligent design”. This “theory” accepts most of the proven principles of evolution including genetics, random mutations, and Darwin’s hated natural selection. Essentially intelligent design theory boils down to this; The world is filled with examples of intelligent design that cannot be explained on the basis of random occurrences. I.e. the eye is so complex and perfectly designed that it could only be the work of a superior intelligence and not random events.

OK, so things like DNA and eyes were intentionally designed. If this is supposed to be a scientific theory then how do they prove it? Did they find God’s signature in the lower right hand corner? Proponents of this theory have come up with some concepts;

1. Irreducible complexity - Complex biological mechanisms like flagella or biochemical pathways can’t work if one of their component parts is missing and each component part by itself is useless, ergo, some intelligence must have designed it. However, exceptions to this theory are being found all the time. The human immune system is dependent on molecules called antibodies as well as several types of specialized cells to work. Yet the primitive horseshoe crab has a perfectly functioning immune system using only a single type of cell and no antibodies. Everything can be reducible to more primitive parts. You just have to look hard enough.

2. Specified complexity- Basically this is the belief that some biologic systems are so complex that the possibility of all their constituent parts forming via random processes is almost infinitely small, ergo (you get the idea). This is the old thought experiment of a thousand monkeys all randomly hitting keys on a typewriter. It’s possible that they could produce an exact copy of a Shakespearian play but the odds of that happening are so small that it could take Trillions of years. But evolution does not work like that. Mutations are random but the beneficial ones are preserved in the genome. It is in this piecemeal way that mutations build up over time to eventually form a complex system.

More answers to claims by creationists and intelligent design proponents and their attacks on evolution and modern science (from Scientific American).

With irreducible and specified complexity being unproven concepts this leaves the rest of intelligent design theory as pure conjecture or rather the equivalent of the statement, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” Just replace “beauty” with “complexity” and we see that this is not a scientific theory at all but a philosophy. It’s not even a new philosophy. For 2000 years, thinkers and philosophers have been trying to “prove” the existence of God. The teleological argument by St. Thomas Aquinas closely resembles intelligent design theory.

“We see that things that lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it is directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.”

But philosophy is not science. Philosophy does not prove the existence of anything (with the possible exception of Descart’s “I think therefore I am”). Philosophy is the study of abstract concepts and logic. For example; Philosophy does not prove the existence of beauty or perfection. It examines the concepts of beauty and perfection. In the same context, philosophy does not prove the existence of God, rather it examines the concepts and beliefs in a supreme, omnipotent, creator. Science deals only with things that can be empirically proven therefore intelligent design is not science.

Not only are they stuck without any direct evidence of intelligent design (ID) but also proponents of ID don’t have a viable theory on exactly how God implemented her design into the universe. Any proposed mechanism paints them into a corner. If the universe was designed at the start and put into motion then God is a metaphysical being and thus beyond our ability to prove or disprove her existence beyond that of a concept. If God directly manipulates her creation on the go then where is the evidence for supernatural activity (i.e. a corporeal event completely unexplainable by conventional science)? If any supernatural manipulation of nature is beyond the ability of science to detect then we are back to square one in which ID is just another philosophy. If we can’t directly prove anything about the activities of God then ID proponents must accept the fact that their theory has exactly as much weight as Flying Spaghetti Monsterism!

Lastly, there is the question of what exactly is this stupid argument all about in the first place? Many will say that it’s another attempt by the religious right to convert our republic into a theocracy by subjugating the young and impressionable. However, Daily Kos’ “Hunter” believes it’s just another attempt to leverage the huge degree of ignorance that still exists in our society and use it to justify our fear of science and our need to reduce the world view into the more simplistic terms usually espoused by religion.

It’s a fiction. The whole “creationism” debate is, at heart, a fiction. It’s not about religion, it’s about education, and institutionalizing mental laziness and anti-intellectual prejudices as valid counterarguments to intellectual knowledge, so that the most conceited, uninterested and shallow among us don’t have to think too hard or feel too challenged by intricacies of either their theology or their science.

Most of intelligent design boils down to a simple argument; “I don’t understand how such a complex system could have come about through natural random processes therefore God must have designed it!” This is not science. It’s an appeal to ignorance and a lot of rubbish. Ignorance has no place in our schools.