Sooner or later everyone asks the question, “Where do we come from?” The answer carries profound implications. Until this question is answered we cannot solve another fundamental question that is key to ethics, religion and the meaning of life (if any): “Are we here for a purpose?”
There are two possible answers: the universe and life and its diversity – natural phenomena – are the product of 1) a combination of only natural laws and chance (the “naturalistic hypothesis;”) or 2) a combination of law, chance and design – the activity of a mind or some sort of intelligence that has the power to manipulate matter and energy (the “design hypothesis.”) The latter produces purpose, the former does not.
The naturalistic hypothesis is supported by theories of chemical evolution (with respect to the origin of the universe and life) and by Darwinian evolution (with the respect to the origin of the diversity of life.) The design hypothesis is supported by the purposeful characteristics of exceedingly complex natural systems that are frequently described as “fine tuned.” Each hypothesis is densely laden with philosophical and religious baggage, and clear thinking is required in order to separate the science for the philosophy, the evidence from the implications and reality from imagination.
William Harris and John Calvert in their paper entitled “Intelligent Design: The Scientific Alternative to Evolution” (www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/NCBQ3_3HarrisCalvert.pdf) explore the substantial scientific controversy that exists about our origins that cannot be resolved without objective consideration of Intelligent Design (ID) and its challenge to evolution, and that a resolution of the controversy is enormously important to our worldviews about science, religion, ethics and morals. In discussing the issues, Harris and Calvert make several propositions: 1) that the most important, defining characteristic of Darwinian evolution is that it is an unguided, unplanned and purposeless process; 2) that ID is science and not religion; and 3) that there are profound religious, ethical and moral implications associated with each origins theory.
This response is to the letter (Un) Intelligent Design Debate (tSW 6-11) in which the author show himself to be incredibly ignorant of, or just plain foolhardy, regarding a major paradigm shift that is going on in science today.
Scott Weber and Koosah, his Intelligently Designed Alaskan Husky, Bend
This article appears in Jun 19-25, 2008.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Animals, bow down to gods; Human Beings, do not.
There is no intelligence, in the “theory” of intelligent design. It’s just another bed-wetting adolescent fairy tale to explain away the dark.
Evolve. Or, preferably, die out.
Have a little tolerance Ten. So someone looks at a topic differently than you do. Chill out. Take it easy.
You dont have to call them names and wish them dead.
Take you own advice and keep evolving. Maybe you will become more tolerant and respectful of others.
I’m not going to read your entire article; I’m sure it contains all the usual talking points.
All I’ll say is in response to your subject line:
No, it’s not.
Evolution is a theory in the scientific sense, a proven hypothesis. ID is a hypothesis that has not been even remotely proven, so it is not a scientific theory. ID has more basis in religion than science.
If you want to believe in a higher power, great. However, don’t try to force your religious views on science. Just because you may “believe” something doesn’t equate it to truth.
The reason ID is not “scientific” is that it is an untestable hypothesis; it can never be either proven or disproven by evidence. All the “evidence” I have ever seen for it is not really “evidence” at all, but merely argument, e.g., “Certain structures in nature display ‘irreducible complexity’; ergo they could not have evolved from earlier, less complex structures; ergo an Intelligent Designer must have designed them.” Or as Mr. Weber puts it: “The design hypothesis is supported by the purposeful characteristics of exceedingly complex natural systems that are frequently described as ‘fine tuned.’รข ย Note the huge assumptions in that sentence — that these “exceedingly complex natural systems” have “purposeful characteristics” and they have been “fine-tuned.” Are these “purposeful characterisyics” and “fine-tuning” really objectively THERE, or do Mr. Weber and other ID’ers simply see them there because they WANT them to be there? (Not to belabor the point, but it is circular logic to argue that the universe must have been “fine-tuned” to produce human life because, obviously, if it wasn’t we wouldn’t be here to talk about it. If amoebas in a pond could discuss theology they would no doubt claim the environment of their pond had been “fine-tuned” for the existence and well-being of amoebas.)
Argument without facts is mere meaningless conjecture. Meaningless conjecture is not science. Weber (or his dog) complains that Darwinian evolution “is an unguided, unplanned, purposeless process.” If that is true, so what? This is the very reason that is the impetus for the pseudo-religious to grasp at the Sun God myth and other fantastic fables invented and retold around ancient campfires by ignoramus.
Reality is simple chaos whether one appreciates it or not. Who ‘guided’ the three year old into the path of an eighteen wheeler? Who ‘planned’ that? What was the ‘purpose?’ To punish the parents? Why was the three year old punished as well? Pure bullshit. There are no answers because there is no guide, no plan, no purpose. Up to this point in history, spontaneously arising phenomena is far more logically explained by science than by some idiot looking in an empty box with no bottom side, a box constructed by the needy, for the needy, out of nothing but the fear of dealing with the true nature of reality.
As inherently logical creatures, we are born to think. As humans, we are only given two ways to attain, or grasp, the reality of our predicament. One, is by thinking. The other, is by not thinking. Neither method supports ID.
The Great Mystery is logical. The Question must be logical. The Answer will be logical.
“Weber (or his dog) complains that Darwinian evolution ‘is an unguided, unplanned, purposeless process.'”
It’s common for creationists to say that evolution is a “random” process, but really it’s anything but. Genetic variations occur; those that are adaptive survive; those that aren’t adaptive are weeded out. This process is no more “random” than a horse breeder selecting the fastest horses or a dog breeder selecting the dogs that have the longest ears or whatever other characteristic the breeder is looking for. (Weber’s “intelligently designed Siberian husky” was “intelligently designed” by breeders to have a thick coat, a strong body, high energy and great endurance to work as a sled dog in the Arctic.) The difference is that in evolution it’s nature doing the selection and in animal breeding it’s the breeder. The natural result of this natural process is an organism that’s well adapted to its environment (because if it wasn’t, it wouldn’t survive long). The creationist insists this couldn’t have happened without a designer, but there’s no logical need to assume a supernatural designer — natural selection provides an adequate explanation.
“The Great Mystery is logical. The Question must be logical. The Answer will be logical.”
Why assume there must be an Answer? Maybe there are many answers. Maybe none.
Ditto Chance,
“No, it’s not”
Mr. Weber, I believe that you are wrong. I believe that we were all created by the giant flying spaghetti monster. The proof is unassailable. I believe it. I read about it in an old book, written by peoples who lacked any understanding of the surrounding world. Because I believe it and I read it, therefore, it must be true.
Right?
“This process is no more “random” than a horse breeder selecting the fastest horses or a dog breeder selecting the dogs that have the longest ears or whatever other characteristic the breeder is looking for.”
Sorry HBM, you’ll have to use a different analogy. This one implies intelligent design. In this example a mind is behind the choosing.
HBM: All accumulated scientific knowledge acquired to date indicates our universe is a logical one… millions of logical questions have been answered by millions of logical answers… This experience track record indicates that logical questions have logical answers… It is illogical of you to postulate that there could be many logical answers to a single question or none at all… You ignore the entire scientific model when you are this irrational… but, it comes as no surprise to me that you are irrational… I’ve known that for years… You have provided ample evidence all over these threads of your inability to be rational, many, many times.