November 12, 2005

Intelligent Design: In The Classroom - Scientific Perspective

Should or should not students hear arguments for Intelligent Design in the classroom? This has been a question repeated again and again over the last decade, maybe even more (since my lifespan is lacking so far).

I propose to allow teaching for both Intelligent Design and evolution.

Now, one would say that evolution deals with the how and why, while Intelligent Design deals with the who. I would say this is false because if the who is true, then the how and why will verify this truth. In other words, if God exists, then the world will contain evidence which points to God.

Now, one will say, "you can have both Intelligent Design and evolution. So where's the problem?" The problem exists where evolution is mentioned nowhere in the Bible. It clearly states that God created the main animal groups "according to their own kind". One of these groups, nay, the chief of these groups was man, distinctly made "in the image of God."

Now, one will say, "you have diverted from logic and argued from a religious vantage point. As we are dealing with the scientific, your religious points have no merit." However, I have not diverted from logic, or the scientific, but merely stated the presuppositions to my position. I maintain that no man comes to his/her belief system outside of presuppositions. In other words, it is impossible to separate who we are from what we think.

Moreover, I have merely stated above that evolution and Intelligent Design (Biblical) can not co-exist. Therefore, I am free to support my position outside of evolution, and attack evolution by itself.

Common evidences cited against Creationism: Galapagos Finches, Amphibians, Hominids (but a few).

1. The Finches: evidence of speciation, or commonly referred-to as "Microevolution". Intelligent Design is commonly debunked as a straw man, in which it denies microevolution. However, This is simply not true. The Creationist has long accepted this truth.
In fact, the evidence for the Galapagos Finches affirm the Creationist's vantage point, for it affirms the lack of Macroevolution. Every adaptation in the finches already existed in the genetic code, but certain genes were preferred over others. This, however, does not account for large leaps (over large amounts of time) in the evolutionary process.

2. Amphibians: a distinct species. Again, the genetic code will allow for variation within major groups of animals. But does an amphibian have the capacity to change how it is born and develops over time? Leave tadpoles outside of water, and they die. Unless some new genetic information is introduced into the system, the system remains the same.

3. Hominids: these findings could very well be subtle variations within species of primates. How thoroughly has this possibility been investigated before asserting the hominid evidence? Looking at the extreme variations in shape in size of human skulls today, is not the same true for primates?


One can see how these evidences can also support the vantage point of Intelligent Design. Let me go further and now state that Intelligent Design has the advantage, because we have a anthropologically sound document which states this theory, and is backed up by scientific evidence. Evolution was originally founded on a negative argument, that is, against Intelligent Design, searching for an alternative to Christianity.

The former has indicated that Intelligent Design at least demands acknowledgement in the classroom as more than a religious myth. It is an intelligent worldview and is backed up by science, logic, and history. I have only dealt with the scientific ramifications. I will deal with the logical and historical merits in a later point in space-time.

1 comment:

The Major said...

I found your response to my writing most interesting. I was a little disappointed that you did not go into more detail on the amphibian and hominid explanations. I can see you provide an explanation for the "Why?" but your argument is still deficient in explaining the how in theological terms.

To quote you: It (the Bible) clearly states that God created the main animal groups "according to their own kind". One of these groups, nay, the chief of these groups was man, distinctly made "in the image of God."

It is possible to infer why God created animals and man from the Bible. One inference is that it was because it pleased him to do so. These passages seem to only state what God created them into. Notice the "in the image of God" one in particular. These still do not explain the method by which God did so. The method would be the how. You have still left it as possible that evolution was the method.

I would also like to say that the example of Galapagos Finches does not prove that macroevolution has NOT occurred or is NOT occurring. It does prove microevolution is occurring as you freely admit. It also provides evidence that macroevolution might be occurring since over the course of a long enough time period the changes in the genes of a species could accumulate to such an extent as to make that species unrecognizable to its former self millennia ago. It is not hard to see that larger changes in the genome could be possible. In order to have irrefutable evidence regarding the existence or nonexistence of macroevolution one would need to wait several thousand years and compare data with genomes collected now. Right now one can be skeptical of macroevolution since a person can’t actually see it. I just thought it worth mentioning the current evidence tends toward the existence of macroevolution not its nonexistence.