A friend of mine sparked my interest in the Intelligent Design debate recently and I have to say its a debate worth getting into. This is not because of the worthiness of the topic, but more the opposite. The debate appears to have an array of layers that most people don’t see.
I believe, and mind you this is supported by amateur survey, that the vast majority of people who believe in Intelligent Design believe in it because they believe in Creationism. Now Creationism as a religious view point is fine, for religious beliefs are not founded to be provable, but to be insightful. I would urge Creationists not to associate themselves with ID with out first researching the topic first.
ID is being dressed up as a scientific theory when it meets neither the national criteria nor the standards of the scientific community for being a scientific theory. Both standards state that it must be disprovable, and I dont see how ID can be. Whether you assume it is a natural or supernatural designer, how can you disprove it? No criteria is provided for this, and it is crutial. They also base their findings on outdated scientific methods. The concept of irreducible complexity which is one of ID’s main supporting ideas states that certain things are too complex to have evolved randomly. They usually cite the human eye and human immune system, both of which have shown their respective missing links.
One of the primary goals of the ID supporters is to teach ID in the classroom along side or in place of evolution. This does not seem advizable with ID in its current state. It does not provide any basis for prediction, or any other benefits to the scientific community. Some say that they should at least mention that evolution is an unproven theory and that ID is an alternative theory. If we do this, then where do we draw the line for alternative theories, and who will make that decision? Others say that we should explain the controversy over evolution and ID, but this sounds like a topic out side the scope of a science class and more suited to a political science class. In my oppinion ID shows more kinship with philosophical thoeries than with science and would be an excellent addition to such a class. Unfortunately most public schools dont teach political science or philosophy, so I dont really see a place for it. I would concede it is worth mentioning in the science class that macroevolution has not been proven and that other alternative theories exist.
Politically the movement seems as though it is pushing ID as creationism, or at least by advocates of having creationism in public schools. These people would likely disagree with me, but I call them as I see them. Granted the majority of U.S. citizen’s are of some Christian denomination, but it is unjust for the majority to enforce its views on minorities.
In short, Intelligent Design in its current state offers little to no benefit to the scientific community, and I would advise people not to side with it uninformed. ID is making a mockery of both science and religion, so I would advise Creationists to stick to their ideas rather than adopting ID.
“A few harmless flakes working together can unleash an avalanche of distruction.” – dispair.org