Intelligent Design

I went to public school until fifth grade and at that point my parents decided to move me to a private Jewish school where I could learn Hebrew and religious teachings along with my secular education. The education I received was much better than public schools as my classes were smaller and there was a much greater culture of learning in the school. I also became religious at this school

The only thing that didn’t sit well with me was dinosaurs. I couldn’t figure out how the story of creation left out hundreds of millions of years of dinosaur evolving, eating each other and doing the sorts of things they do. One of my Rabbis told us the definition of the word "day" was likely different back then. Perhaps "day" meant a number of years — or something like this. Hey it was fifth grade; I don’t remember the exact words.

Whatever his exact words, that was good enough for me. I started to keep more kosher, not eat shrimp, mix milk and meat, etc.

Then I went to college and studied anthropology at the University of Connecticut. I couldn’t figure out how evolution and proof that a series of skulls getting bigger and changing over millions of years fit with my religious upbringing. Here I had a story of the world being created and on the other hand hundreds of skulls dating back hundreds of thousands of years.

The point is that science and facts decreased my ability to identify with the story of creation. I subsequently became much less religious as evidenced by the cheeseburger I just ate.

I was reminded of this when I read a story about how President Bush has said recently that he favors teaching intelligent design with evolution — together.

The president specifically said, "Both sides ought to be properly taught … So people can understand what the debate is about."

What is Intelligent Design? It promotes the idea that an unseen force is behind the development of humanity.

According to the article, scientists claim intelligent design has no supporting evidence and is an attempt to introduce religion to students. I tend to agree but even if this isn’t the intent that Bush has, it will likely increase the level of religion in this country. I base this on my own education of course.

I suppose it also boils down to how science teachers go over these ideas in class. If they smirk, giggle and wink when teaching this new concept, as I suspect many will, the effect will be no change in the level of religion.

Part of me doesn’t like the fact that the US as a whole is becoming less religious. I am not so concerned with people going to houses of worship and performing rituals as I am about families getting together regularly and people being good to one another. I tend to think religion helps people be better people and in a way I think if President Bush gets his wish, the US will become a better place.

Ideally a world with a single religion that focuses more on how we are similar and less on differences and teaches us that helping each other is the most important thing we can do will one day emerge. But enough rambling on my personal utopia.

Do I feel there is anything to intelligent design? I have a friend who is a religious Jew and when I bring up evolution and DNA strands and mutations he hits me with a higher power using the same building blocks (DNA) to create a slew of animals.

Although natural selection happens in nature all the time, my friend’s definition of intelligent design is not one I can scientifically disprove either.

One day we will have the opportunity to discuss the matter with our kids ourselves and put our own spin on this concept depending on our feelings. I am just tipping you off that the idea seems to be taking hold. At least that seems to be the President’s desire.

  • Dakota
    August 5, 2005 at 11:10 am

    “Although natural selection happens in nature all the time, my friend’s definition of intelligent design is not one I can scientifically disprove either.”
    But can you prove it? Is it true that intelligent design is not based on direct observation, not testable, not predictive, and neither provable nor disprovable? Intelligent Design is not a science in any sense, but a theology, and as such, its place is in the church/mosque/synagogue/whatever, not in the classroom. There should be no consideration of “intelligent design” alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.

  • Rich Tehrani
    August 5, 2005 at 3:20 pm

    But can you prove it?
    Absolutely not. I cannot. Good points.

  • Lebon
    August 19, 2007 at 3:24 am

    ID is most often and wrongly linked to God and creationism, as opposed to Darwinism and evolutionism. We are there in fact facing an old philosophical problem transposed this time from man to the universe: the difficult and even impossible distinction between what is innate and what is acquired. But the reader of my pages http://controlled-hominization.com/ will perhaps agree that evolutionism is not in contradiction with all forms of ID. As a materialist, I think that the confrontation between both concepts is sterile and that a synthesis is even possible.
    If any great complexity of a feature could not exclude evolutionism, science itself could not reject some forms of ID in the evolution of the universe, at least in some steps of the process. After all, man himself is already a local actor in this evolution, an actor showing little intelligence so far (global warming, life sciences …). He could however be led to play a greater and nobler part if he succeeds to survive long enough (dissemination of life in the cosmos, “terraforming” of planets, planetary and even stellar formation, artificial beings…). The development of this kind of “draft ID” could only be limited by our refusal to do so and by our ability to survive. We would be viewed as gods by our ancestors from the middle Ages, and we would also view our descendants as gods if we could return in a few hundreds or thousands years.
    By his refusal to consider that intelligence could already have played a significant part in the evolution of this universe, man takes in fact for granted that he is the most advanced being. It is in fact just another way for placing himself once again in the middle of everything, as for the Earth before Galileo. This anthropocentric view is not very rational.
    Within the frame of evolutionism, the concept of ID could however be applied to the future man if he manages to survive long enough to be able to play a significant part in the evolution of this solar system, in the galaxy, and why not more. And it could also apply to eventual advanced ET preceding man in this cosmic part, advanced ET who could for instance, thanks to their science, have already played a significant part, even if they were themselves born from random processes.
    Without going back to a controversial God, pure intelligence born from random processes is so far too easily ignored in the evolution of this universe, and I think that this choice has more to do with faith in man’s solitude in the universe than with true science. Even if it appears later that the ID concept has yet never been used by other beings in this universe, what could prevent man from applying it in the future? As with the Big Bang, ID would certainly remain in the field of hypotheses, but science progresses that way, and it would not be scientific to exclude one hypothesis that could be quite credible. ID is too easily discarded and laughed at, somewhat like continental drift not long ago, and a lot of other concepts too.
    Benoit Lebon

Leave Your Comment


 

Loading
Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap