« FYI: Love Holy Trinity Blessed Mission (LHTB) | Main | Just a hassle? Perhaps, but… »
September 27, 2005
Intelligent Design: Science or Philosophy?
The merits of "Intelligent Design" (ID) are being decided this week in the State Courts of Pennsylvania due to a local school board's attempt at introducing science textbooks suggesting an alternative theory to Darwinism.
Intelligent Design posits an external unnamed creator/agent which is responsible for the seemingly unexplainable complexities or "design" in nature. Proponents see this as an equally plausible theory in light of gaps in evidence supporting Darwin's claim of trans-species evolution. Opponents view ID as merely a revamped version of biblical Creationism.
Though hardly quite as dramatic, the trial commencing this week inevitably conjures up images of the 1925 Scopes/Darrow trial which resulted in the scientific monolpoly of Darwin's evolutionary theory.
Theory is theory, and it is undoubtedly true that hard-core proponents of Darwinism often treat his theory as indisputable fact (and is that not that crux of the upcoming judicial decision?). But allow me to ask the following question despite such exclusive allegiance to evolutionary theory:
How can reference to a Creator possibly function as a scientific theorum?
Science by definition focuses primarily upon material causes which can be experienced and repeated. Theories of course apply, but only to the extent that they can be proven true.
Science, for example, cannot accommodate "metaphysics" since there is no tangible access to anything outside the physical realm. There is no debate on this point by anyone. How then can a Creator/agent outside of nature possibly be referenced by science? It simply cannot.
Thus let's imagine that the Pennsylvania courts allow Intelligent Design to be taught as an alternative to Darwinism. Where would such a theory be introduced? Would it simply be used to support the possible cause of evolutionary theorists' hypothesized Big-Bang? If so, how has ID counteracted the theory of evolution? Or would it suggest the logical/scientific plausbility of the creation account in Genesis 1? Then how in the world do we "scientifically account" for the fact that Genesis suggests vegetation on the Earth (Day 3) grew prior to the existence of the Sun (Day 4)??
Where exactly does Intelligent Design fit into even contemporary Christian conceptualizations of Science? Does it even fit in?
It seems to me that Intelligent Design is merely being proposed as an alternative to the Holy Grail of Darwinism. Simply look at how Darwinists hysterically convulse at the mere suggestion of an alternative theory. But that convulsion IS NOT scientific either. It is simply ideological. For example, they can posit only a "spaghetti monster" juxtaposed their presumedly unassailable theory. What close-minded fools.
Thus ID is simply set up to FAIL against the culturally assumed ivory tower of a mere theory wholly advocated by society. ID is not and can not compete with "science". It can only presume to compete with the irrational allegiance given Darwin's theory. And if this merely boils down to a vote between a popularity of theories, LET ME PREDICT the outcome.
So be it. ID is not science, nor is Darwin's theory. Darwinism is wholly incapable of explaining the "Big Bang" and I presume the only question this politically-correct version of ID can possibly hope to answer is "how" the Big Bang was caused. (It's answer is: an unnamed Intelligent source.).
So God Caused the Big Bang? Great. Now what?
Updates:
- Michael McGough: The theology of intelligent design Christians must ask: What sort of creator is the creator?
- Theologian says intelligent design is religion
Posted by sdf at September 27, 2005 08:15 PM
Comments
The universe is no more than "random mayhem" held together by gravitational stresses, there is no rhyme nor reason to any thing out there so why try to explain it with "titleing". Stories and parables from the bible dont explain it with the myths that they spew and neither does science with their theories that have not been proven.The only answers we have are just speculation,which is not an answer.I do know that shit stinks and so do all the stories and theories from religions and science
Posted by: tom gray at October 26, 2005 12:24 PM
ID is a reation to that which is not understood. It truly is an abomination, as opposed to radical creationism, which while not factually valid in its literal approach to scripture, is at least consistent. ID posits the understanding of natural phenomena as "The Designer (God) did it". As a Christian, I do not dispute that God did it, but I do dispute the denigration of God to the level of an anthropomorphic technician. The question we are trying to answer with science is not "Who?" but "How?".
As a theological website, I would expect better than a post like this. This post seems to believe the strawman of "teach both sides". I say teach all sides, including the demotion, by ID, of the triune Godhead to the level of a mere craftsman, stripping that which is to be worshipped of all his glory for the sake of our comfort and security.
Posted by: Dr Kevin at February 7, 2007 12:07 PM
Almighty is infinite. How can the finite man
understand the Intelligent Design intended
by the infinite?
The Upanishads say that soul does not consist
of any material, since any thing created with
material is subject to annihilation. A soul
consists of consciousness. The Advaita theory
says that a soul is a piece of the Infinite
Soul. Almighty is Infinite Consciouness.
Posted by: Prof. V. Siva Prasad at March 19, 2007 04:54 PM
Square water melons and genetically engineered food are samples that once in a while, life is created. Not a proof, but a plausibility.
Posted by: Jim Thio at October 14, 2007 04:00 AM
Intelligent Design, Incompetence Design, Guided Evolution, Pure Evolution. Which one do you believe in?
Posted by: Jim Thio at October 16, 2007 07:37 PM
