[Edit:] This ended up being a monster post. Despite that, I’d be really happy to hear what anybody else has to say about this. Comments are strongly encouraged! 
There was a discussion on an email alias at work recently about intelligent design, and though the original conversation got extremely off-topic, I nonetheless spent quite a while thinking about it. From what I’ve seen, the typical debate seems to end up breaking down to religion vs atheism. Those that support religion are ostensibly religious, and those in favor of evolution or natural selection are typically perceived as atheist. What I don’t understand is why the two groups have to be mutually exclusive.
First–and I want to get this out of the way as quickly as possible–intelligent design is not science, nor should it ever be taught in school as a complement or alternative to evolution as science. Intelligent design’s sole purpose is to bring into science the requirement of a higher being. This mere fact alone precludes it from being science. Instead, it’s a giving up. Rather than actually trying to explain the way things are in physical terms, it’s a weak fallback to an unprovable, untestable, and intrinsically unscientific explanation.
Now, having said that, I don’t know why you have to be atheist to believe in evolution. I’m certainly not. I don’t understand what’s so “unintelligent” about evolution. The idea of natural selection explains a lot of things fantastically well. An organism’s or species’ favorable random mutations will become more common in successive generations furthering that species. It makes sense. It’s almost perfect.
So why can’t a typical Christian, for instance, accept this? Couldn’t it be the case that God created the world in this manner? We don’t have to remove the scientific randomness of it–God doesn’t have to be molding every single human, bug, and bacteria created. He doesn’t have to be actively carrying electricity over copper wires. No, science can explain it. If you believe in God, why not believe that He created things in a rational, explainable way? It would be well within his power.
The problem for me is that convservative religious groups often accept science when it’s convenient and condemn it when it’s not. They’ll write up blog posts from their laptops on their planes about how they didn’t evolve from monkeys. Oh yeah, and I suppose angels are storing those posts magically in the laptops while there’s no internet connection. They’re probably carrying the planes, too. Cell phones? They’re really work through a huge network of angels carrying our voices over vast distances. It has nothing to do with radio waves.
I’m a firm believer in science–real science–though I also mentioned earlier that I’m not atheist. I don’t accept the “general” notion of intelligent design, but I think natural selection is fairly intelligent. I don’t believe it’s too far-fetched to say some higher power designed things to work that way (i.e. it was an intelligent design…). In fact, I think it’s naive to believe that science will ever have all the answers.
The big bang, for example, while a fascinating theory, doesn’t actually explain the beginning of anything. Go far enough in the past and there was a single mass of infinite density, which then began expanding at an exponentially rapid pace? Honestly, what the fuck is that? Where did this magical ball (or point) of mass come from? Even if science can someday explain that, the next question will be what caused the thing that caused the big bang and so on? It’ll be an infinite series of questions and answers with no end.
The existence of life, of our universe, of anything is inherently beyond the realm of our scientific understanding. At the end of the day, taking all real science into account, “Why do I exist?” is still a valid question. That above all else necessitates my belief in a higher power, but it does not negate–nor should it supplant–actual science. And to attempt to do so with frivolous “theories” is a waste of time and a detriment to society as a whole.
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:37 am
yeah, i never really understood why both theories couldn’t partially be true, or why evolution couldn’t be the means to which God created the world. i never really understood why the acceptance of that was so blasphemous or inconceivable. to me, it seems that if one were to believe at least partially in intelligent design or a higher power, that the combination of these two theories would definitely be a considerable possibility.
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Jared, let me first start off by saying this: WOW! You pretty much took the words right out of my mouth. I agree with everything you said. I’ve gotten into this debate several times…but let’s face it, who hasn’t?
I’m not an athiest either, I’m Catholic. I choose to attend a Jesuit university for undergrad. I was involved in campus ministry and attended religious retreats. I believe in God.
I also believe in science. Sure, it isn’t perfect. It never will be. Nor will it give us an answer to every question we ask. Theories and hypotheses, yes. Science does give us those. And that’s what evolution started as: a theory. Remember Charles Darwin? He proposed the evolution of all species from a common ancestor. Then, he carried out experiments and studies. And he proved his theory. Now it is widely accepted as fact.
I agree with you when you say that some people think of scientists as anti-religious. But why? There are plenty of scientists out there who believe in God or a higher being.
For me, I think of the complexity of life itself. Life was born out of a primordial ooze of proteins and amino acids. When they “met” something caused that first “spark” of life. Could it have been purely some random convergence of material? As a scientist I cannot exclude that possibility. But then I think of how simple life began, single-celled organisms that then evolved into us–humans. As complex as our genetic structure is, it also seems a bit hard to believe that there isn’t some being pushing some buttons, so to speak.
I could go on and on, but It’s a quarter ’til 10, and I’ve been up since 4 a.m. I’m beat, I hope this makes some amount of sense when you all read it.
April 24th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Ya know, one of us should really befriend some right-wing, gun-toting, anti-choice, conservative and invite him/her to visit Shouzer.com. That way, we could have some debate instead of this repetition of one another.
But anyway, for my response, I’ll try to focus only on the governmental aspect as it pertains to teaching each theory as equal in a public school. To be frank, it quite simply is illegal to do so. The U.S. Constitution mandates that there be a separation of church and state. Teaching these theories alongside one another violates the law. One theory is based on fact, that has been researched and proven for nearly two hundred years. The other theory, is nothing more than a request for one to have faith. Neither federal or state government is in the business of instructing a person’s faith.
Sure, scientific explanations are imperfect and leave many questions unanswered. To me, this is where my faith plays the role. It’s how the two coexist. I don’t feel like we have a God of confusion. But, I also believe that for those things we can’t explain on our own, that he asks us to trust him. Just because we have faith, doesn’t mean we should avoid research and discovery. If so, we would have negated to find the x-ray, or penicillin.
Lastly, I’d like to say that I think religious folks and atheists get way too caught up on this issue. To the religious: This just isn’t an issue which salvation depends upon and the offering of different perspectives certainly isn’t a sinful act. To the atheists: We get it. You don’t believe in a higher being. But that certainly doesn’t make a religious person less intelligent.
The two theories can, and should coexist. Except in a public classroom, of course.
April 24th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
I’m surprised you found a such a sharp divide between the two sides. Scientists did not ‘invent’ evolution; in one way or another, they ‘discovered’ it. I’m no expert on the theory of evolution, but most of the fundamentals seem to me so grounded in factual, concrete, and tangible evidence that they really aren’t something one has the option to accept or deny; it’s just the way it is. It doesn’t seem too far-fetched for this Christian to integrate evolution into creation.
April 24th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
thanks for thoughtful comments. i’m glad to see most everybody commenting agrees with me.
hark, i’m not sure what you mean by ‘a sharp divide between the two sides’. which two sides? evolution and intelligent design? science and religion?
April 24th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
i took what you said to mean there wasn’t anyone debating who was religious and believes in evolution. so there was a division of the two groups (evolution/atheist v. creation/religious) with no middle ground. i was surprised there wasn’t anyone who believes as we all do.
May 4th, 2008 at 12:23 am
A few years ago, my brother was given a pamphlet entitled “The Atheist Test,” which I have been carrying around in my wallet ever since, as it’s a great conversation piece. For those of you not lucky enough to see it, I’ll share with you some of the “tests” given in the book:
Do you know of any building that didn’t have a builder? (yes or no)
Do you know any painting that didn’t have a painter? (yes or no)
Do you know of any car that didn’t have a maker? (yes or no)
The question that these were intended to answer is, of course, that there is a higher being who created the universe and man. However, the argument is begging the question. It is obviously true if we have man-made objects (buildings, paintings, cars),
then these objects were made by man. However, the real question does not pertain to objects that man has created.
The above questions (and the rest of the pamphlet) are laughable, and I would think that any person with a brain could see that. However, this pamphlet was distributed by people who believe it to be unquestionably reasonable; indeed, on the Wikipedia page for the author (Ray Comfort), he is described as being experienced in debating atheism.
Sure it’s reasonable to believe that evolution is a byproduct of an intelligent design, but nothing is reasonable against unflinching ignorance. Corinne said that her dad (and Jared’s dad :)) quotes a line from a philosopher saying something to the extent of “you can’t argue with a cabbage.” I think that’s really the case here. There are too many people who are easily swayed by fallacious arguments (you can watch any political debate and awe at the volume of ad hominem and emotionalist arguments), and are unwilling to believe to change their minds.