Intelligent Design is the idea that life, or even the universe itself, was created/designed by some sort of unspecified intelligent agent. In recent years, many fundamentalist Christian religious groups have pushed for intelligent design to be taught in science classrooms across the United States. They argue that since the intelligent designer isn't specified, the separation of church and state isn't violated.
Although by "intelligent designer" they obviously mean God, it is certainly possible that the designer could be something physical. We might have been created by a powerful alien race or we could even be living in a computer simulated virtual reality. In order to be considered scientific, intelligent design needs to do one big thing. It needs to make testable predictions. All scientific theories not only explain previously observed phenomena, but they make unique testable predictions about what will be observed. Einstein's general relativity not only explained irregularities in Mercury's orbit, it also predicted the bending of starlight by the Sun.
Notice that scientific theories are falsifiable. There are observations that will disprove the theory. For example, evolution predicts things like, "You will never find an octopus with bird feathers, or see a mammal species with insect compound eyes." Natural selection further requires that you be able to obtain body parts through manipulations of previously existing structures. Something like the presence of a single centaur or mermaid in the fossil record would disprove evolution. The existence of humanoid aliens like Star Trek's vulcans would provide a challenge to Darwin's theory.
Religious proponents of intelligent design should be hesitant to equate the designer with God for three reasons:
1. Including God in science would mean that there would be some sort of test you could perform to see whether God exists. I can see it now...the scientist comes out of his lab, holds a press conference, lifts up his beaker, and says, "Sorry everyone, the liquid turned blue...theres no God". If God is to become a subject of scientific enquiry, then he must be something that I can weigh, measure, or cram a thermometer into. What I mean is that God must be quantifiable and definable in some way.
2. God would fall within the realm of empirical study. With empirical knowledge, there is no way of being absolutely sure when you have arrived at the truth about something. I know, for example, that when I let go of a ball it falls. Now, I've performed the dropping ball experiment many times in my life, and I feel extremely confident in saying that whenever I drop a ball it will always fall down, but there is no way to be 100% certain about that through empirical observation. It is possible that I might let go of the ball once and it will fall up.
3. Science is flexible. In science new theories often come along and replace the old ones. You would have to be willing to change your view of God to incorporate new experimental observations. I don't know about you, but I've always thought that truths about God should be absolute, eternal, and unchanging.
I guess it is possible that our universe was created by an intelligent physical being of some sort, but at the moment I see no scientific merit for such an assertion. When it makes a unique testable prediction, then I'll consider the scientific merits of intelligent design. I quote Laplace's reply to Napoleon when asked why he didn't mention the Creator in his scientific works on the universe: "Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là. ("I had no need of that hypothesis.)"
Although intelligent design doesn't belong in the science classroom, I think it would be the perfect topic for a high school class in philosophy. Philosophy is an excellent subject that encompasses topics relevant to science, religion, morality, politics, and being. A high school philosophy class would be an excellent way to encourage critical thinking in young people. Too many people in the United States focus on memorizing enough to pass tests.
No comments:
Post a Comment