With so much going on globally regardling the ongoing debate between evolution and Intelligent Design, it was inevitable that the subject was going to pop up again. My boss and I had an ongoing debate on the subject at work, and this is my latest rebuttle. With his permission I will post his reply in the near future.
I’m glad Pope Ratzinger cleared up the Vatican’s position. I still think ID is a load of bunk though. Intelligent Design is dishonest both scientifically and spiritually.
It’s dishonest scientifically because it claims to be a theory, but its more an antithesis to evolution than a theory of its own. I’ll agree they’ve got valid reasons to question evolution. Science knows this, and they acknowledge that it isn’t 100% understood in the fact that its called the “Theory of Evolution” and not the “Fact of Evolution.” I think a good science class should point this out, as well as point out the holes that evolution has left open. But aside from the statement that “certain aspects of life are too complex to have evolved over time” Intelligent Design has no proof, no experiments, no data that fills in the gaps. Instead of offering evidence of another theory, they state that the very fact that we won’t understand it is evidence of a higher being: “well, we don’t understand it, so God must have created it.”
They’re setting their whole movement up to have a large foot shoved directly into their collective mouths when mankind inevitably comes to understand and explain these seemingly “complex” phenomenon as they’ve done in the past. The world is round, the universe isn’t geocentric, bacteria and virii cause ailments and not unrepentant sin, penecillin cures these ailments, not floggings, et cetera. Why not let science do what it does best (explain natural phenomenon) and let religion do what it does (enforce morals, ethics, a sense of belonging, provide emotional strength, et cetera).
Admittedly I wave the flag of atheism and really have NO IDEA what I do or do not believe. I’m spiritually dishonest, and as they say a fox smells its own hole, right? But despite my lack of religious conviction I think I’ve got a pretty good grasp of what faith is. It’s the ability to believe in something without logical proof or validation of it’s truth. I’ve got faith that no benevalent god would’ve created the chaotic world we live in. It’s not faith in the same thing as a Christian, but it’s still faith.
All religions that believe in a creator (”intelligent designer”) are based on faith, right? So why is this an important theological debate? The truley faithful should be secure in their faith regardless of scientific validation for their beliefs. I see the political uproar over Intelligent Design and Evolution as a spiritual battleground in the minds of the Christian masses that are buying into it, not a battle between good and evil, creationism and science, not even religion versus “atheistic naturalism”. It’s a battle for the minds of the faithful that can’t remain strong in the face of ideas that challenge their religious beliefs. Evolution is above all a spiritual test to the Christian, and they’re simply doing what Christians have historically done to opposition, try to destroy it. If you’re one that believes that God tests us, isn’t polluting science just the equivalent of tearing up the test paper and not participating?
The argument could be made against me that its not a theological debate at all, but a scientific one. The problem with that possobility is that Intelligent Design isn’t a falsifiable (testable) theory. How can you test the existance of a creator? Can you take mere existance as evidence of a creator? Can you prove the existance of a creator without knowing the creator’s identity? These are philosophical questions, not scientific.
I’ve been looking everywhere that I can for information and data supporting Intelligent Design. I’ve tried as hard as possible to be non-biased, so I looked for my information on pro ID websites. These sites contained no data backing up Intelligent Design, just the same old anti-Darwinism rhetoric. Some of it is legitamate, some of it has been scientifically been disproven. So they disagree with evolution? That’s fine… they give good reasons. The only other information on these sites had nothing to do with science, but rather marketing ploys and bandwagon appeals to the public.
