Issue #45
Last Update October 2, 2006
Technology Intelligent Design by Gerry Krownstein December 21, 2005 The recent scathing decision in Pennsylvania by Judge John E. Jones (ironically, a Bush appointee) barring Intelligent Design from science classrooms has not put the lid on attempts by the Christian Right to subvert the teaching of evolution, but it has set them back a bit. Intelligent Design, the weird child of Creationism, has as its basic tenet the thought that life on earth is very complicated, and therefore could not have developed in its present form by natural processes. “When you see a watch, you must assume that there is a watchmaker,” is the essence of their argument. This is an attenuated and disguised form of Creationism, which, following the biblical Genesis story, insists that God created the earth and all of its creatures in six days about 6,500 years ago. The arguments against Intelligent Design have been well aired, but bear repeating. The reasons for the intense opposition to the Theory of Evolution are less obvious, but instructive.
There are three problems with teaching Intelligent Design in the science classroom: it is wrong on the facts, the Designer is not that Intelligent, and it is not science. Despite the contentions of Intelligent Design advocates, the fossil record is very clear on the build-up of complex structures and functions from simpler ones. The eye is often given as an example of a structure nature could not have invented: take away any of its components and it is useless, so how could it have been preserved in more primitive form by natural selection? Actually, examples exist of every stage of eye development, from primitive photo-sensitive patches to lenseless eyes to fully developed lensed eyes; at every stage, the proto-eye confers a benefit on the organism. Nature is also good at taking a structure that performs a useful function and modifying it so that it performs a completely different useful function. Thus, the development of complex structures does not have to have conferred an adaptive advantage in earlier stages for the function for which it is currently used. Nature is the great handyman and tinkerer, making do with what it has.
It is this capacity that makes the Intelligent Designer seem less than intelligent. Examples of less than optimal design abound, including in the eye, where the nerves from the retina, extending in front of it, interfere with the visual field. A more intelligent designer would have led the nerves out the back of the retina, so as not to interfere with vision. Looking at any living organism, we can see traces of the compromises made in developing from earlier forms. Leaving aside the obvious joke about the best argument against Intelligent Design being the existence of President Bush, we see a designer, if such there be, who is not particularly good at his job, but is very adept at improvising.
The real problem with Intelligent Design in the science classroom is that it's not science. Propositions in science have to be potentially falsifiable in the real world. Intelligent Design, that is, the postulate of a designer, however competent, is not falsifiable by any conceivable observation short of the second coming of Christ. Creationists and their Intelligent Design allies claim that evolution is not falsifiable, either, but that is just plain wrong. Physical evidence for the process of evolution is overwhelming. While details of how evolution occurs are indeed the subject of scientific debate, the fact that it has occurred is undeniable.
So why all the heat and light over the Theory of Evolution? Unlike the abortion debate, where the taking of a life can be asserted by reasonable people, evolution has no moral component. The ten commandments do not say, “thou shalt not descend from an ape.” In fact, evolution strikes at the heart of two propositions that are so fundamental to the kind of Christianity advocated by the Christian Right, that it must be defeated lest the religion be exposed as a sham. These two propositions are literal inerrancy and original sin. The concept of literal inerrancy demands that the Bible be viewed, not as a mixture of history, metaphor and myth, but as the word of God, exact and correct in every detail. The creation of the universe is to have occurred exactly as described in Genesis. The six days are six days, not a metaphor for some indeterminate period of time. Evolution, with its reliance on an Earth that is billions of years old, is completely incompatible with inerrancy. Along with evolution, fundamentalists have to throw out most of geology as we know it.
The other problem is that evolution is incompatible with the story of Adam and Eve. Development of humans from earlier primates precludes the Garden of Eden story, and thus Adam and Eve's disobedience and Fall. No Fall, no Original Sin. In the early Church, the debate was over the possibility of salvation through works, through obedience to the Commandments. Unlike Judaism, the Church contended that however perfect a life one might lead, we are all born stained with Original Sin, the disobedience of our first parents. Only Jesus, as Savior, could expunge that sin. If there is no Original Sin, the need for a Christ is diminished, and other routes of salvation open up.
The modern Catholic Church, flexible and subtle, has long since come to terms with both inerrancy and deep time. Fundamentalist Protestants of the Inerrantist school, looking for monarchical certainty in a rapidly changing world, refuse, and thus must fight these concepts to the death.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
New York Stringer is published by NYStringer.com. For all communications, contact David Katz, Editor and Publisher, at david@nystringer.com
All content copyright 2006 by nystringer.com
Click on underlined bylines for the author’s home page.