From Forethought to Fulfillment

“Intelligent Design” is NOT Science

Currently, there is a debate over whether or not to teach “Intelligent Design” in school systems in the United States and abroad. This argument should not be misconstrued as a religious debate over whether or not there is a god. The issue simply is: whether or not it is prudent to teach “Intelligent Design” as a science. The arguments to follow herein will address key issues one at a time.


Science:
The heart and soul of science is the scientific method. No thing or concept can be considered a science (fact) unless it can be tested and measured through the scientific method, of which, there are the following steps:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
   
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
   
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
   

Note that the observation of a phenomenon—for example, masses of people believing there is a creator—is the first step in the scientific method. However, where “Intelligent Design” fails to be a science is that there is no way to test or measure a “creator.” Some may chuckle at the previous statement and say, “Yes, exactly, you cannot measure God. God is beyond comprehension.” Yet again, that is not the argument. The debate is whether “Intelligent Design” is a science or not. Therefore, according to the scientific method—which is the basis of all known sciences—“Intelligent Design” is not a science. As a matter of fact, teaching “Intelligent Design” undermines all known sciences and the way scientists test and measure our environment in order to create new technologies, etc.


Irreducible Complexity:
The proponents of the idea to teach “Intelligent Design” declare that there needs to be an alternative to evolution, which is taught in schools. The promotional documentation and videos—which is being passed around to the education authorities—suggest that “Intelligent Design” is an actual science, based upon the theory of Irreducible Complexity. In simple language, Irreducible Complexity is the notion that “some things are too difficult to comprehend.”

“Irreducible Complexity” is not a science because it too cannot be tested and measured. [The irony is that “Irreducible Complexity” touches on the realm of the chaos theory.] Furthermore, it is an especially harmful teaching.

It is not surprising that Irreducible Complexity is the premise of the argument for “Intelligent Design,” since the advertising material for the concept was produced and being distributed by fundamentalist Christians. To explain why, look at the perspective of many followers in religion, who are quick to say, “Man cannot understand what is unfathomable” or “No one can comprehend the mind of God.” That is a detrimental mindset. It causes people to become complacent and disables creative thought. Also, it is very common to see its’ effects in fundamental Christians especially, (many of) who chose to not work towards: creating a better future or expanding their knowledge, due to the notion that “some things are too difficult to comprehend.”

It is not a responsible concept to teach children. Children tend to take the easy way out. Therefore, it would be natural if a child chose to substitute their innovate potential for the so-called science of “this is too difficult for me.” Surely teaching “Intelligent Design” would indeed thwart evolution. It very easily could cause an irreparable stalemate on the next generation or two.


Evolution of “Intelligent Design”:
The human mind has an amazing built-in scientific method for reasoning. Some humans seek higher standards for the conclusions that they allow themselves to make. It is, therefore, a process of evolution that the teachings of “Intelligent Design” will trigger many minds to produce a more solid answer for “who or what is the architect?”

The mind naturally seeks to calculate and formulate answers, in order, to create a foundation of “truth.” In doing so, the most logical and quickest conclusion—which the evolution of the teaching in “Intelligent Design” would bring about—is the creator(s) has “alien” origins. Indeed, the teaching of “Intelligent Design” propagated by mainly fundamental Christians would backfire…in more ways than one.


Philosophy:
“Intelligent Design” is a philosophy. If “Intelligent Design” is to be considered at all for teaching material in schools, it should be classified as philosophy. For that is what it is.


To teach “Intelligent Design” as a science is to mass-produce a cattle-mentality. Can you imagine a whole generation or two of people who only listened to commands and refused to challenge the creditability and truth in the statements of their government and religious leaders? …..THAT is true chaos.

posted by yuv_got_mel @ 2/01/2006 07:08:00 PM