What's Wrong with Intelligent Design?
By Brian Thomas
First off, let me state that this
document is not intended as an attack on anyone's faith or religious beliefs; more on that later. For some background, I am a former evangelical Christian and I am a current scientist (physicist by training, working in the research field of astrobiology). I am well versed in the Bible and Christian theology and have experience with ideas and people from a wide range of Christian viewpoints on ID and the general subject of the interaction of science and religion. I also am a trained and working scientist. I am not a biologist (which is where ID usually comes up), but I have a good understanding of the basic unifying concept of biology (yes, evolution) and can find my way around photobiology journals well enough, so I at least understand much of the lingo.
With that out of the way, my purpose in writing this is to share some thoughts that may help others to
understand this “movement” and its implications for science as
well as Christian theology.
First, let me point out that there are a couple of different “flavors” or “levels” of ID.
In physics/cosmology.
There is little debate in the scientific community that there are a huge number of characteristics of our universe (from the mass of the electron to the speed of light to the strength of gravity) that are surprisingly “fine-tuned” to allow for the existence of life in this universe.
This often comes up in discussions of the “Anthropic Principle,” which in its simplest form basically says, “Well of course the universe is fine-tuned such that we can exist; if it wasn't we wouldn't be here to see that it's fined-tuned!”
Of course, there are those who claim to reduce the situation to coincidence by invoking multiple universes and such, but frankly there is little science and much speculation in those attempts, at least in my view. That said, it can be good fun, and who knows, might even be productive some day.
In biology. This is typically what the term “Intelligent Design” refers to.
There is much more disagreement here as to whether living systems, and particularly their origins, show characteristics of being designed or not. This debate stretches back to Darwin and before and today's ID is a (supposedly) more sophisticated resurgence of the design view.
The basic ID argument is that there are living systems which are “irreducibly complex,” meaning that they could not have come together from their constituent pieces by normal evolutionary means.
Note that the ID arguments here are not commonly accepted in the scientific community.
Now, some problems I (and others) have with ID:
As good as it may sound to people who are looking for a scientific argument for a creator, ID is unfortunately not science at all. Science limits itself to looking for natural causes for natural events. This is a limitation in principle and from experience. In principle, we cannot test explanations which include the supernatural. From experience, we know that our understanding of the world progresses best when we approach it this way. This does not mean that we must deny that the supernatural exists, it just means we don't resort to invoking it when we enounter a problem we have trouble explaining. By its very nature science does not, and cannot say anything (directly) about the supernatural.
ID is built entirely around the claim that there are supernaturally designed living systems, or at least ones whose origins can't be explained through natural processes. Of course, ID proponents argue that they simply look for systems that can't be explained by normal natural processes (ones that are “irreducibly complex”) and leave it at that, but the issue persists that this is reaching beyond science.
The major problem from science's point of view is that taking ID's approach will stifle investigation into areas where it has been claimed that natural processes are not sufficient. This is not good for science -- which means it's not good for curing cancer, solving the energy crisis, etc. ID does not present solutions, does not answer questions - it says you can't solve the problem or answer the question. At best, ID could possibly save some work in an area where we will never be able to find a scientific solution. However, we cannot know ahead of time what the outcome of an investigation will be, and to give up because it looks difficult is foolish.
ID also presents major problems for theology, most importantly that of “the God of the gaps.” Essentially, the problem here is that if (or when, if history is any guide) the unexplainable systems that ID has identified are found to be explainable by natural processes after all, then the ID position is weakened, and possibly people's faith along with it.
This is not an idle problem. This was the fate of many of the design arguments that were popular before Darwin, and many in today's society reject Christianity because they see it as incompatible with the well documented findings of modern science. (Some forms certainly are incompatible, but others are not.) Ironically, some Christians agree with atheists who argue that the conclusions of good science are incompatible with their faith (and so they reject the science). The best solution here for people of faith would be to realize that our scientific understanding of the world is well-founded and does not necessarily have to contradict belief. Of course, if one's belief relies on the universe being 6,000 years old, then there is a conflict, and that person must choose between reality and that particular version of Christianity. There are many devout people who realize that these conflicts are not necessary, and have been able to reconcile science and faith.
From a purely evidential standpoint, many in the scientific community have countered ID arguments by devising plausible scenarios whereby systems that may appear too complex to have developed through evolutionary means can actually be explained using normal natural processes. This is an example of the “God of the gaps” problem in action.
Finally, from a purely philosophical or theological standpoint ID can leave something to be desired. My complaint here is directed more at the broader category of “special creationism,” which includes ID, and basically says that God's creative action in the world is in the form of specific creation actions at specific points in time and space (perhaps limited to the first days, or eons, of the universe). For instance, God creates a frog, out of thin air, with no antecedents in the natural world.
This is a major problem, since it can leave one in the slippery situation of never being able to know if the universe was created 10 seconds ago and just made to look that way.
The question Christians should think about is, what is more glorifying to God, what makes God more powerful and in control, even what is more biblical:
God makes the universe and then lets it run mostly on its own (through natural processes) but fiddles and fixes here and there?
Or, God at all times, everywhere, is the cause of every apparently “natural” process that we study, and hence creates everything, all the time?
While I am no longer a Christian, I personally prefer the latter view (the most accurate description of my current point of view is pantheist), and it seems that this view is actually quite compatible with the story told in the Bible (see especially Colossians 1:17 and Hebrews 1:3 and note that much of the creation language in Genesis 1 is in the form of “let there be”, “let the land produce”, etc.).
Finally, let me conclude with some general thoughts on the relationship between science and Christianity...
Science (even evolution!) is not the enemy of Christians, though it has been portrayed that way by some. The real “enemies” are those who try to use science (particularly evolution) to get rid of God entirely. Much ground has been lost by agreeing with atheists that science disproves God and then attacking science instead of countering the improper philosophical use of science. The acceptance or rejection of the existence of God is not a question that science can answer, in and of itself. One may legitimately state that the findings of science have led one to hold the opinion that no God exists, but it is an improper use of science to state that science has disproven the existence of God. Of course, the converse is true as well, and is the mistake that “creation science” adherents make.
Science cannot, by its very nature, say anything directly about God's existence or nonexistence, though we can make inferences from what it does tell us about the world. Some will interpret the data in favor of a Creator, some against, but this is interpretation of the findings of science, not science itself.
It is not necessary for one to reject science (even evolution!) to be a Christian, though some believers may have to adjust their thinking and conclusions about the specific details of their faith, especially how they approach scripture. This shouldn't be a fear for people of faith -- if faith is worth having, then it should be able to survive the expansion of our knowledge of the natural world. After all, it's not the first time believers have faced this sort of conundrum; Copernicus comes to mind as one example which gives (most) people of faith no trouble today.
So, hold on to your beliefs if they are important to you, argue for your positions (respectfully, please!) but don't waste your time and energy putting down unnecessary stumbling blocks in the path of those who seek to know the world, and perhaps God as well, with their minds intact.
© 2008 Brian Thomas