Intelligent Design

So I was discussing the concept of “intelligent design” with a friend and afterward I decided to do some basic research on who was saying what about whom in this debate. Yes I know there are more topical debates going on out there but this one seemed interesting and sort of fun. What I found was two groups of people willing to attack, slander and ruin the careers of others with out listing to what the other has to say.

First let me define some terms as I understand them. Evolution is the theory of how life came to be as it is that holds up under the laws of current science. Creationism is the theory of how life came to be according to the Bible. On these terms there is little debate. Where things get dicey for me is with the term “intelligent design”. What the two words suggest, when used to discuss the origin of life is “made by a higher power”. What BOTH sides of this point missing debate use it to mean is “Creationism”. This irks me because this misuse of a great term doesn’t allow for any third or forth view points and doesn’t allow for a meeting of the minds on the debate.

What “intelligent design” should mean is that there is a higher power the created life. I happen to believe this. However I also believe that said higher power used evolution or something similar to create us. He/she/it used evolution as a tool to create life in all its wonder and glory. In its true form, “intelligent design” allows us to discus how the divine created us with out separating our selves from the observable clues. If this version of “intelligent design” was what was being proposed in ANY of the web pages I read, I would have written happy notes to the person who wrote it.

However that is not what I found, instead the old Creationism vs. Evolution using the term to mean Creationism. The attacks they made on each other were the same old attacks, I have been hearing for years. I hate this debate. I hate it because if you accept the idea that gods “day” might be a couple of million years long then Genesis is an excellent metaphor for the way scientists think things came to be. If either side would concede this then the debate would be over and the world would be much more peaceful. I also hate it because it is an Atheists vs. Christians debate in which all other views are tossed to the side like they don’t matter. As I member of neither camp with views that I hold as least as strongly as any one I have met from both does, I find this insulting and demeaning. I would ask the two camps to treat me with respect but as you don’t respect each other I am probably hoping for to much. This is a debate in which both sides look down on the other with out any higher ground to stand on.

I will say this however; when it comes to misusing this term I am more likely to forgive the Christians then the Atheists. “Why is that Bradleyman?” I hear my dozen or so readers ask. Well because they are believers in the Bible so the god of said bible is the intelligence they are expecting. Regardless of whether you are talking about a Christian who believes in the Bible literally or as a divine metaphor, the intelligence in “intelligent design” is going to be the one they worship. This is going to be true for any religion. A Wiccan would think or the intelligence as being the God and Goddess. A Muslim would think of is as Allah. If you believe in a creator you are naturally going to see the intelligence as that creator, so when you are debating something like “intelligent design” it is only human and natural to see it as your version in you head. However the Atheists don’t have this excuse. If you are using cold hard science as your foundation, you should not be assuming the intelligence in “intelligent design” is the Christian intelligence. The term in no way implies a specific religion. Acting as if the intelligence must be the one from the Christian Bible is not scientific and it is discrimination against all other religions.

I do think evolution should be taught in schools? Yes, in a science class the current models of how the world works according to science should be taught. Do I think “intelligent design” should be taught alongside it? If by “intelligent design” you mean present the idea that things this complex suggest there is intelligence behind it, then yes. If you mean any specific religions creation story, then no, at least not in a science class.