Unintelligible Design
Jan. 28th, 2006 01:20 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kingandyThis article on a poll regarding what should be taught in schools regarding the origin of man has already been posted elsewhere, but I'm intrigued enough to comment myself.
Alright, so, Creationism is the theory that a omnipotent, pan-dimensional being reached down to Earth and created and every species on it, and they have remained unchanged since then. (Which, on the positive side, would not take long to teach in schools. "Today, the origin of species. God made us. The end, go out and play.")
Evolution is the theory that the random process of genetics produces a generation of creatures with varying characteristics - some of them more likely to survive, such as greater strength or fingers, and others that may be more of a hinderance, like lungs that thrive on ammonia or limbs that fail to work. And that those with unfavourable characteristics are less likely to survive to pass on their genes to the next generation, and therefore, over time, the species on average improves.
So ... what exactly is Intelligent Design? If it doesn't involve either a Creator God or natural selection ... what is it? Does it just say "We came from somewhere, clearly somebody was involved but we're not saying it also created the universe, perhaps it was aliens"? If a teacher is instructed to teach Intelligent Design but not creationism, what, exactly, do they teach?
Is it a hybrid of the two other theories, such that does not deny the existence of God but neither denies the volumes of supporting evidence for evolution? I suppose it could boil down to "God created the Universe and designed evolution into it" or "...and occasionally gave evolution a little nudge in one direction or another". Is it an explanation for the way evolution produces functional organisms? Or, in fact, is Creationism merely a subset of Intelligent Design?
I ask because, with little else to go on, I'm vaguely worried that it might be something I believe in.
Over 2,000 participants took part in the survey, and were asked what best described their view of the origin and development of life:What I found interesting is not that ID is growing in popularity (it's still lower than 17%), but rather that Creationism is a separate thing. I've always assumed it was another word for the same thing.
- 22% chose creationism
- 17% opted for intelligent design
- 48% selected evolution theory
- and the rest did not know.
Alright, so, Creationism is the theory that a omnipotent, pan-dimensional being reached down to Earth and created and every species on it, and they have remained unchanged since then. (Which, on the positive side, would not take long to teach in schools. "Today, the origin of species. God made us. The end, go out and play.")
Evolution is the theory that the random process of genetics produces a generation of creatures with varying characteristics - some of them more likely to survive, such as greater strength or fingers, and others that may be more of a hinderance, like lungs that thrive on ammonia or limbs that fail to work. And that those with unfavourable characteristics are less likely to survive to pass on their genes to the next generation, and therefore, over time, the species on average improves.
So ... what exactly is Intelligent Design? If it doesn't involve either a Creator God or natural selection ... what is it? Does it just say "We came from somewhere, clearly somebody was involved but we're not saying it also created the universe, perhaps it was aliens"? If a teacher is instructed to teach Intelligent Design but not creationism, what, exactly, do they teach?
Is it a hybrid of the two other theories, such that does not deny the existence of God but neither denies the volumes of supporting evidence for evolution? I suppose it could boil down to "God created the Universe and designed evolution into it" or "...and occasionally gave evolution a little nudge in one direction or another". Is it an explanation for the way evolution produces functional organisms? Or, in fact, is Creationism merely a subset of Intelligent Design?
I ask because, with little else to go on, I'm vaguely worried that it might be something I believe in.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
The case for "Don't Know"
Date: 2006-01-30 01:45 am (UTC)However, I am happy that the more open explanation does strike a chord. I am perturbed by the general feeling that because some stupid people believe something strongly, the entire broad concept should be dismissed as stupid.
I have always found evolution dubious as a universal theory; reliance on external environmental pressures with denial of the possibility of direct influence always seemed iffy to me. I recall a 3D artist who "evolved" patterns, personally selecting his favourite of six computer-generated offspring through several iterations of "evolution", not realising that this wasn't natural selection. Thus if I had to pick one model of life creation, it would be "Intelligent Selection". This I think would be categorised as Don't Know on the Horizon poll, although as an agnostic "Don't Know" is itself the most accurate statement of how I believe species are created.
My biggest problem with the poll is the question itself. I feel it is presumptive to suggest that all life has been created in the same way. Indeed, the "one creative force" concept is Judeao-Christian: many prior belief systems had individual gods with their own portfolio.
Many species alive today were created by man - via breeding or DNA pick'n'mix. Man has also designed (through the medium of fiction) many creatures and abilities that have not actually been randomly created in nature. Intelligent Design is not without a seed of plausibility; where it falls down is the "it's really clever so something clever *must* have created it" logic. Any given lifeform may have been created by chance, design, evolution or a combination of the three. Unlikely is not impossible.
However, whilst my entire position is founded on the belief that a lack of proof does not deny a possibility, I fear the real goal of Intelligent Design is to undermine the importance of proof.
Organised religion promotes an unprovable being called God, gives him the unprovable credentials of Creator Of The Universe, and states without proof that they are representives of this God. Conformance is rewarded by a heavenly afterlife, the existence of which is conveniently not proven until it is too late. Happily for organised religions, all conformance is in our tangible provable world. Religion provides unproven feel-good answers to big questions. Religion is not completely evil; it provides pleasure and a framework for many people's lifes.
For those dubious of organised religion, it is indeed worrying to find oneself in any level of agreement on a subject like creation. But it's not something where you *need* to pick a side. Even science is proceeding both with the the theory that life evolves, and the theory that life can be created by design. Life exists, and however it came about it's worthy of respect and admiration.