Intelligent Design’s Faulty Premise:

Intelligent Design (ID) proponents have become very aggressive in trying to insert their alternative to evolution into the science curriculum. They have a superficial, “reasonable” argument which appeals to the American sense of balance and fairness to “teach the controversy” in the science classroom. The problem is that attacks and doubt-seeding about Theory A does not work to support Theory B. Theory B has to stand on its own. Also, ID “theory” tries to expand the definition of science to include a “designer” or supernatural agent/process. This is an argument, not a theory, as it is understood in science. This “god default” or “well, god did it” is a non-explanation. This argument is so weak, that it will likely result in “blowback” and ultimately hurt religion more than it will science. The real controversies in many cultures throughout the entire world come from religion! Maybe, we should teach the controversies among the different religions as might be done in say a Comparative Religions Course from objective historical and cultural perspectives. Talk about controversy! The fundamentalists of all religions would reject this I’m sure because they already possess all truth and knowledge and every other religion or version is false.

The ID argument from irreducible complexity is a backward premise. Complexity does not evidence intended design, it evidences the opposite! Suppose we are walking with the author of Natural Theology, William Paley, and see a shard of broken plate grass beyond the watch used in his famous example arguing for a designer. The watch is an obvious product of manufacture and Paley argued that it had to have had a designer/maker behind it. But, note that that simple piece of glass had opposing sides that are nearly perfect parallel planes. It is very simple, but it is also a product of intended manufacture. So this is an argument from simplicity.

Paley’s watch contained circular components turning in one of a number of parallel planes. This is quite in contrast to the elliptical orbits found in our solar system. H-m-m-mmm, gee, wouldn’t a good design for the solar system have been nice circular orbits in a single common plane and shouldn’t the revolutions be more precise to make leap years and other exceptions unnecessary? An early 17th century Dutch clergyman and astronomer, David Fabricius, could not accept Johannes Kepler’s discovery of elliptical planetary orbits because the circle is so pure and perfect that reason must reject anything less. So much for ID!

Paley was 180 degrees wrong, complexity does not evidence deliberate design; it’s the opposite. Of course there may be other indicators of intended design, but that is not the point. We should not buy into an ID premise to EXPLAIN the complexity of what we see!

Bob Collins
Spring Lake

To see exactly what he is refering to go to their site.... there is plenty to enjoy there.