The Paradox of (Un)Intelligent Design

FROM THE ARCHIVES (Daily Nebraskan columns)

The paradox of (un)intelligent design

Jeremy Patrick (jhaeman@hotmail.com)

The Daily Nebraskan

February 12, 2001

"A habit of basing convictions upon evidence, and of giving to them only that degree of certainty which the evidence warrants, would, if it became general, cure most of the ills from which the world is suffering."
--Bertrand Russell, from "Why I am not a Christian"

Like zombies in a horror movie, some ideas are slain repeatedly only to rise from the grave for yet another try at success. Creationism, the idea that the earth and every living thing on it were created instantaneously by God, is one such idea. Although the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional to teach Creationism almost two decades ago, supporters of the idea have not given up.
Kansas' removal of all mention of evolution from educational guidelines (though reversed in a recent election) is one example of their continuing power. A new movement is on the horizon, however, that promises to reinvigorate the controversy over science, religion and their respective places in our educational system.
The "intelligent design" theory holds that everything in the universe was designed by an intelligent being, not the result of natural processes. Like Creationism, intelligent design theory is embraced by only a tiny handful of scientists. But unlike Creationism, the proponents of intelligent design avoid base appeals to religious fervor or references to the Bible. Instead, their position is argued on certain scientific critiques of evolution and other evidence they believe proves that our universe could not be the result of chance.
It's still too soon to decide the merits of this theory. Books like Phillip E. Johnson's "Darwin On Trial" argue that the fossil record fails to support evolution, and Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" argue that the biochemical and genetic make-up of life is too complex to be the result of natural processes. Both are fascinating reads and deserve consideration by evolutionists. On the other hand, the intelligent design movement has gained few followers in the scientific community and rarely succeeds in getting its ideas published in peer-reviewed journals.
Whether this reflects the scientific community's obstinacy to new ideas or simply its rational assessment of the merits of intelligent design theory only time will tell.
The most interesting thing about any movement, however, is the difference between its stated goals and its real motivations. On its face, the intelligent design movement simply pursues scientific truth through the best evidence available. In reality, however, most proponents of intelligent design theory believe it is a way to cure the primary ill they associate with belief in evolution: loss of faith in God. Design theorists are "overwhelmingly Christian." The 10-year-old Discovery Institute and its offshoot, the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture, "are at the center of the intelligent-design movement." (OWH, 1/22/01)
The Institute sponsors intelligent design conferences and its scholars write articles, which they publish in special intelligent design journals. According to its mission statement (entitled "The Wedge Strategy") the goal of the Institute is not the pursuit of scientific truth, but "to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."
T.H. Huxley said, "Logical consequences are the scarecrows of fools and the beacons of wise men." Let us, just for a moment, assume that intelligent design theory is 100 percent correct and that the universe and everything in it was created by an intelligent being. What follows logically from this?
Will the Discovery Institute succeed in convincing rational people that God exists and, in turn, change their behavior? In a word, no. The Institute has placed its urge to proselytize over an objective scientific search for truth.
Even if we knew that there was a designer, we would have absolutely no information about this designer. We wouldn't know if the designer was a race of advanced extraterrestrials (which some intelligent design theorists believe), a sentient computer, a collection of gods, one god, a beneficent god or a malevolent deity.
David Hume, speaking through the voice of Demea in his "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion" said, "While we are uncertain whether there is one deity or many; whether the deity or deities, to whom we owe our existence, be perfect or imperfect, subordinate or supreme, dead or alive; what trust or confidence can we repose in them? What veneration or obedience pay them? To all the purposes of life, the theory of religion becomes altogether useless."
Supporters of the intelligent design movement who simultaneously believe in the classic omnipotent yet beneficent God logically commit themselves to believing, like Voltaire's "Candide," that this is the best of all possible worlds. In a world where millions of infants starve to death, a third of the world is engaged in war and natural disasters (like the recent earthquake in India) kill thousands of innocents everyday, this idea is laughable. Ironically, if the earth is the result of design, the designer appears either unintelligent or purposefully malevolent.
Bertrand Russell said it best: "Apart from logical cogency, there is to me something a little odd about the ethical valuations of those who think that an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent Deity, after preparing the ground by many millions of years of lifeless nebulae, would consider Himself adequately rewarded by the final emergence of Hitler and the H-bomb."
The debate over evolution and intelligent design is important and deserves to continue. At the very least, it forces evolutionists to defend their belief with evidence instead of authority, and it may even lead to new understandings of our universe.
For now, however, I tend to agree with Russell: "The world in which we live can be understood as a result of muddle and accident; but if it is the outcome of deliberate purpose, the purpose must have been that of a fiend. For my part, I find accident a less painful and more plausible hypothesis."