Intelligent(?) Design

[Jyoti and Rob have a few comments on my last post called "The Dilemma". I tried to respond as best as I could. This response of mine, which is in reply to Rob, became too long and so becomes a post. Rob's comments are in blue italics below.

Let me also take this opportunity to say a little something about Rob, whose blog is here. I started reading his blog because he made me think. He is a South Park Republican, something that was new to me at the time. Many of his posts are interesting examples of a South Park Republican's views. His description of himself on the blog is priceless: "Geek, Musician, History Buff, South Park Republican. I don't blindly subscribe to either party's full agenda- just enough of each to piss off the other."]

Rob answered my question about whether deeply religious folks are comfortable in the company of science-minded folks:

Oh, heavens no. At least not the one's I've met. They have too many precious assumptions challenged. That makes them squirm.

Yes, that was my suspicion too.


I guess was referring more to the proponents of Darwinism, as opposed to pure science-minded individuals.Proponents aren't nessearily scientists- Just in need of a handy soap box.

I am not sure who exactly fits the description of "proponent of Darwinism". Does being a proponent of Darwinism prevent you from being science-minded? Some people like Stephen Gould who are scientists by profession are proponents of Darwin's theory of evolution. A much smaller number subscribe to Lamarck's theory. Are they are not science-minded?

It is true that proponents aren't necessarily scientists. However, just as you don't have to be a  mathematician to do math, you don't have to be a scientist to be science-minded. For instance, I am not a scientist by profession, but I nevertheless see the value of the scientific method.

Rob says about scientists:

Science? You're right.. If given enough evidence to test, they would do what they do.. Which is quantify that which is in front of them. In the case of Creationism/Intelligent Design, there's more of a sneaking suspicion than actual empirical evidence.

If I have my theories correct, I believe that Creationism and Intelligent Design are two different things. I am not sure why you club them together. My post referred to Creationism, not Intelligent Design.

Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania who champions Intelligent Design, explains the difference: "Creationism is a theological concept but intelligent design is a scientific theory. One can be a creationist without any physical evidence. That's 180 degrees different from intelligent design."

So there you have it. Creationism does not depend on evidence, in the professor's own words.

And of course, when you jettison the requirement that something needs evidence to be accepted by fair-minded people, the possibilities become limitless.

So much for Creationism.

The professor was not done, however. He went on to make several other interesting statements about Intelligent Design.

He said that he personally believes the designer is God but said that belief is not part of his intelligent design theory.

If you understood the above statement, do explain it to me in some detail. I would much appreciate it.

Meanwhile, let me take a stab at it. The professor seems to be saying that there is evidence of intelligent design but that each of us is free to insert his or her own belief into the slot where the actual designer is supposed to be sitting. Since the professor has opened up the floor, once again the possibilites boggle the mind. John might say, for example, that the designer is a bored alien named Bob from the fourth binary system in the Crab Nebula, while Jim will counter that he has a nagging suspicion that it is Pat Robertson's janitor. 

Now this sort of free association sounds like a very fun activity to do, but it is surely not science, is it? Or is science defined a little differently in the United States than in other parts of the world?

The professor then went on to contradict himself by saying that the theory of intelligent design would be undermined without the existence of God.

He then inserted his foot deeper into his mouth by saying, "You can't say that because you don't have a natural explanation for something now, you won't in future."

Please note that going by this logic, I can say all manner of unnatural things right now, based on flimsy suspicion in the fond hope that the future will take care of making me look less like a blubbering halfwit. I can further insist that said things without natural explanation be taught to impressionable young children in schools using public money. But isn't that kinda the same as saying that our children should be taught about supernatural things in school? In Science class? 

Well, then why not teach the GS Theory, i.e Ghosts-n-Spooks Theory, also? Evidence, you say? Pish-tosh, we know how much value that has. According to Professor Behe, none.

I now know which college my child is NOT going to.

Okay, let's brush aside everything that I just said. Let's wipe the slate clean.

I personally think that there is some meat to the ID theory. Maybe there is a chance that there exists a Great Force--An Unit Law if you will--that describes the complexity of nature as we see it. But why do we assume that this Unit Law is something called God that is also worthy of our worship? It may be a blind, idiot, and mindless force, maybe something like Gravity. Why do we automatically assume that it is a benevolent, kind, and just force that from time to time speaks to us words in Hebrew and Sanskrit. Words that we then furiously scribble down in 500 page books. Why do we assume that this God, when it so pleases him, sends prophets down to earth for our salvation? And what the heck is salvation anyway?

Why do we call this theory Intelligent Design? I know why the good professor Behe calls it so. He says that the complexity of the world cannot be explained by Darwin's theory. Fair enough. He says that the complexity of nature indicates that there is an intelligent creator. Fair enough.

Now, since we are free-associating, this is what I think. I have noticed that the world is not only complex, it is also flawed. Many species are flawed in design and become extinct. Even within a particular survivor species, there exists large differences in natural endowments. This ensures that some individuals within the species are more handicapped than others and don't make it. 

Then why do we call it Intelligent Design? Can I submit a new theory called Brain-dead Design? Can I say that yes, there may be a greater force, but that it is quite likely an idiot. Or at least designs like an idiot some of the times? Can I further insist that this BD theory should be taught to your children, using your tax dollars, in public schools?

Why not?