Let's ask ourselves perhaps the most pertinent question in Intelligent Design theory; one that nobody seems to be able to answer: What is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, and how may it be empirically tested?
Not one person yet has been able to answer this one simple question, and I openly challenge anyone who is within the sound of my electronic voice to provide an answer.
Evolution has been tested time and time again. It has been the prevaliling scientific theory to explain the diversity of life on earth for over 150 years; ever since Darwin was tromping around the Galapogos Islands. The fossil record supports it; modern genetics supports it... In fact, to date, not one study has been performed which contradicts evolution.
But let's suppose, hypothetically, that one had. One day a scientist stumbles upon irrefutable evidence that evolution simply cannot be the mechanism by which life on earth arose and diversified. Let's presume, just for the sake of argument, that tomorrow, we find out that the theory of evolution is wrong.
Guess what? The theory of Intelligent Design still wouldn't be a scientific theory.
See, according to the IDiots out there (although they don't explicitly say so, their strategy so far makes it quite clear) hacking holes (whether real or perceived) in the theory of evolution equates to proving Intelligent Design.
This is, of course, bullshit. No scientific theory is accepted until they at least have a solid falsifiable hypthesis and have either supported or disproven it. Frankly, where Intelligent design is concerned, it is very possibly impossible to falsify an act of God; and since She isn't coming forward to tell us how She dun it, Intelligent design will have to be viewed as it is by the scientific community: pseudo-intellectual crap.
Now, I know that the tone of this posting is a little harsher than I usually use, and I apologize, but the simple truth is that I see Intelligent Design as a slap in the face to everything I've decided to dedicate my professional life to. To take religion, specifically the book of Genesis, cloak it in pseudoscience, then try to force-feed it to high school students as if it were an accepted scientific theory; that is something I simply cannot accept. As a scientist, I simply cannot look upon Intelligent design with anything less than utmost contempt.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
On the contrary, depending on how one defines the term, I absolutely believe in God. If you are asking me if I believe in God in the Burning Bush, Light on the Road to Damascus, Voice From On High sense of the word, the answer is probably "no." I do, however, believe that there exists a fundamental governing mechanic to the universe; a unifying principle, if you will, which would, by definition, be unfalsifiable. On occasion, I call this unifying principle "God."
Organized religion, on the other hand, is another matter. I don't believe in it. I see religion as a way of trying to understand something that you don't have an explanation for just yet; but the problem is that its explanations haven't changed in 500 years; to the point where they will actively deny all evidence that contradicts, or appears to contradict their particular view of the universe. To provide an extreme example: to accept full-blown Young Earth Creationism (basically, that the universe is a mere 6000 years old, and that all life on earth was created by God as it is right now), one would have to completely ignore everything we know about physics, genetics, microbiology, palaentology, anthropology, cosmology, astronomy and comparative anatomy. Some more moderate Young Earth Creationists (those who actually decide to address the evidence rather than just pretending it doesn't exist) alternatively claim that either a) the scientists are lying in some massive Athiest conspiracy; b) God mad the world and the universe look old (while actively ignoring the question of why, exactly God would want to do that), or c) that the Devil planted evidence of evolution in the universe specifically to make all of us turn away from God. Are all three possible? Yes (except possibly (a); if I were part of some massive worldwide conspiracy, I'd probably be getting paid a hell of a lot better than I am now). Can any one of them be observed empirically? No. So its unrelated to the science of evolution.
The whole point of the last couple of postings I've made on the subject (take a gander at this posting where I address exactly that question) is that the theory of Evolution says nothing whatsoever about whether or not God exists. Whether or not God had anything to do with Evolution is about as related to the question as how FM radio works.
The point is that God, by definition, is an unobservable entity, so Science simply doesn't worry about whether or not She was involved, because there's no way of empirically observing him or her. However, it should be noted; many very strongly Christian people have no difficulty reconciling the theory of evolution with their Christian beliefs. My infinitely-better half, for example, is Catholic; very strongly Catholic, in fact; and fully accepts the view that the universe is on the order of 15 billion years old, and that biological evolution has occured in the earth's history on a geological timescale and continues to this day. The point is that once you delve into God, Allah, Yaweh, Vishnu, Shiva, the Earth Mother, or whoever your particular supreme being of choice happens to be, you're no longer in the realm of Science, but in the realm of Faith. Most people of Faith are perfectly willing to accept that their belief in God is faith and not science. What I find insulting about Intelligent Design is that they exploit the average person's ignorance of Science to sneak religious dogma into the public school system through the back door. I don't teach Science in Sunday Mass; why should religion be taught in Science class?
Actually, there's a scientific philosophy known commonly as "God of the Gaps." The short version is that any scientific theory, no matter how well-formulated or supported, is incomplete. Taking our example of Evolution; does evolution explain everything? Nope, but nobody's claiming that it does.
For example, we still don't know what caused life to exist on this planet in the first place. Abiogenesis is a purely speculative field. Stretching backwards, according to Einstein, the one thing we can never know is what the state of the universe was at the instant of the Big Bang. At that time, the curvature of spacetime would have been infinite, and therefore it is impossible to determine what the initial conditions are of the universe based upon what the conditions are right now. The best data we have can give us a rough idea of what the state of the universe was a tiny fraction of a second after the big bang, but not at that instant.
The point is that there is an ultimate limit to what science can tell us. The scientific method can take us pretty far. Very far, actually. Maybe to the point of the Big Bang; but there's always something that, no matter how many experiments we perform, no matter how many measurements we take, we simply won't know. Science may be able to suggest how the universe came to exist; but it won't tell you why it bothers existing in the first place. What caused the Big Bang to occur? What made the first random atoms and molecules floating around on our (at the time) somewhat inhospitable planet combine to form what we now call "life?" Science may never be able to answer these questions.
And that's where faith steps in.
Post a Comment