INTELLIGENT DESIGN

Joseph Holbrook: Intelligent Design, Joseph Holbrook Journal

THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD HAS FOUR 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.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature. If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified.

The Scientific Method helps to reveal an ever growing understanding about the mechanics of the universe, how it was in the beginning and how it functions now. Religions address spiritual purpose and a variety of beliefs about our role within that portion of the universe we inhabit while alive. Some deal with what they believe happens to us after death. Neither Science nor Religion should try to presume the authority or the expertise of the other. At least not yet.

The literal interpretation of earth's history based on the Biblical story of creation is called "Creationism". Devout literalists (Creationists) believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old, was made in 6 days and contained the same type cows, donkeys, apples and people as it does today. I have often said (and it's too often proven) that people can be talked into believing anything. If this isn't an excellent example of that phrase, I don't know what is.

"Genesis" is a tribal chronicle, a mythological interpretation of God and power and of how we and the rest of the world got here. Similar stories from many cultures are found throughout antiquity. I'm hard pressed to believe the person or people who wrote it even took it literally. I do believe they knew it was about something much too complex to comprehend (at the time), and so... "God did it".

When uninformed, ignorant or in doubt about explanations of natural wonders, early man reverted to unseen Gods or God as "The Answer", or more to the point, "The Explanation". If it seemed to complex to even consider the possibility of understanding, only God could be that complex:   There is thunder. We can't make thunder, therefore God must make thunder. We can't make things grow, so only God makes things grow. The crops were good last year. God must have liked the rituals we performed. We should perform the same rituals this year. We might all be surprised at how many on this earth still think in those terms.

Through the centuries, we've unraveled many of the mysteries that confounded early man. There are, however, still those who insert parables and stories as explanations, where scientific answers have yet to be resolved.

This is not meant as a "God of the Gaps"**argument, I've just always found it philosophically unsettling (and intellectually stifling) that there are those who try to buttress their theological position by teaching naive children (and promoting to confused or undecided adults) that if they believe in God, then they must believe that the world they see today had a pre-designed, instantaneous and magical beginning.   Some even demand that "IN ORDER" to believe in God they have to buy into the lore. Because of blind devotion to a story thousands of years old, there seems to be some sort of an attached piety requirement to separate God from the amazing, beautiful and continually unfolding science of it all. . . and that's just a shame. Seeking to support an ancient legend, they look right past the truly miraculous. Evolution is not anti-God information, and the complete understanding of it (and all other pertinent influences) has not yet been completely revealed by any means.

Intelligent Design (along with irreducible complexity * ) is the most recent of the "religion under the guise of science" proposals.   Proponents proclaim that there is more complexity to life than evolution can explain; so, intelligent design must have preempted everything ...."God did it".... "God designed it". Though for political reasons, it's not stated that way. This is nothing but a replay of "God must be the one making the thunder" all over again.

The biggest problem with Intelligent Design as a scientific theory is... it isn't one. Neither intelligent design nor Creationism fits within the scientific method. Intelligent design might be called a hypothesis by some, but it is not testable, therefore, it cannot become a theory or a law.   Best said: intelligent design, like Creationism, is an opinion or religious belief based on . . . .belief, which is fine, it's just not science.   It would be best considered in a comparative religion, metaphysics, or philosophy class. It's frightening to hear that school-boards anywhere are even considering placement of these religious opinions in the science classroom...but they are. God help us.

Blind faith has it's place, but under the guise of science, intelligent design proponents would like to post a sign in the middle of the road to discovery saying: "No need to try and figure this part out.....God did it".    There is a crucial distinction between belief and knowledge. Religious beliefs are about correcting one's self through a more complete and personal bond with God. Science informs us about the Universe, self-correcting itself by using existing and newly discovered information filtered through the scientific method. To try and insert supernatural beliefs over empirical evidence is an insidious attempt to undermine the entire scientific method and factual approach to understanding. Galileo and others had to deal with the injustices of that approach. You'd think we would have learned by now.

I believe in God. I also believe in the unlikely qualification of mankind to quantify IT with attributes. "God is a Designer" is but one example. Since all parts of the material plane seem to fit together quite nicely and since time goes forward rather than backward, should we now say this is due to "Intelligent Materials Operation Management" and "Intelligent Time Control".    Good heavens people....If the best you can come up with is placing upon God the traits you find laudable in a good Architect or Chief Operations Officer, I dare say it's time you stepped outside the box a little more often. If you believe God to be a supreme being with the same type attributes as man....just bigger and better, what may be undeveloped here is your theory of God... forget Darwin.

A Step Outside

          PERHAPS vibrational attributes of all primary energy strands embody ethereal templates evolved from past and parallel universes. PERHAPS they perform symphonies of evolutionary workmanship and express so many Universes through so many Universal time periods as to render the terms we use to talk about such things, too meager to even qualify as footnotes . PERHAPS Design and sentience itself are but emergent properties of universal or multi-versal evolution.
           Was the "nothingness" that premised our Universe really nothing, or was there a residual receptive plane, a hidden dimensional remnant of a previous Universe with just the configuration to allow our type universe, and us, to unfold?
          PERHAPS it all comes around again and again and again and again. Not in some karmic dance of reward and retribution, but in never ending beginnings and endings, continuing IT's completeness. PERHAPS IT continues through all of the incarnations, mutations and multi dimensional aggregations of universes that are possible. Eternal motion with never ending opportunities, probabilities and properties in infinite spaces and dimensions over infinite periods that we humans humbly mark as eternities.
           We are sentient, integral aspects of the expression as it exists here and now. How could it possibly be more personal, more intimate, more humbling, more exciting.

Of course those few short paragraphs don't qualify as theory either, but even these speculative musings don't preclude the term god from the picture. On the contrary, some methodology may have even been touched upon. There is, however, no insult to science by introducing the primitive chant that..."God did it"..."God designed it". That not only does injustice to the scientific method, but to all that God is as well.    Unraveling the scientific underpinnings of how it all works does not preclude God and I believe it’s inappropriate to try and supplant the process with mystical naivete.

Though a few ancient metaphors might fall by the wayside, such a perspective does not inhibit religious beliefs at all. It includes them. It does depend though, on a willingness to view it all a bit differently.

Maybe it's time to step out of the fundamental box. It's very, very large out here. And all there is... is God. (Joseph Holbrook ©2006 )

* Irreducible Complexity: Popularized by Michael Behe in 1996 (though the concept under other names is much older), irreducible complexity is a term that has made its way to the forefront of the argument for intelligent design. There are as many holes in it as with other pseudo-scientific explanations, but it is definitely worth reading at least enough about it to familiarize yourself with the argument. It's their best shot in the arena of "an appearance of theory". I recommend a couple of articles to place it in perspective.

“Is it the theory of Evolution,

or the theory of God that needs work?”

There is a fundamentalist effort to introduce "Intelligent Design" into the school Science curriculum. Adherents suggest that life is too complex to have arisen from evolution; so something intelligent designed it... that would no doubt be God.

(JOSEPH HOLBROOK)