INTELLIGENT DESIGN PART 2
In the last post, I discussed a number of the problems with intelligent design theory. Many Christians view it as a viable alternative to Darwinism, but I noted the fact that it really isn't a coherent scientific theory, merely a set of objections to Darwinism. Unfortunately, the majority (possibly vast majority) of scientists – including Christian scientists – object to it. Moreover, conventional scientists continue to find ways to overcome the objections that Intelligent Design has raised. Evidence keeps appearing that seems to confirm the Darwinian theory, as well as the Big Bang Theory, thus weakening the case for ID.
The second key problem I have with Intelligent Design is that I see absolutely nothing "Christian" in it. It's a theory that can be embraced by anyone with religious inclinations. It seems to be equally applicable to Muslims, Hindus, Unitarians, and Deists. In other words, even if one built a strong case for ID, it would not reinforce any of the unique claims of Christianity, merely that some god-like agent intervened to create the universe as we know it.
The best example of this I can think of is traditional Deism. Deists believe that God created the universe, but that He no longer participates actively in the creation. Some have made the analogy of the great watchmaker who, having created a magnificent timepiece, is content to sit back and admire his creation. However, as the timepiece operates on its own, without the need for its Creator to intervene, the creation is perfect. As such, the Creator no longer has a role to play in His creation.
Deism emerged in the 18th century. Many of the founding fathers of the USA were themselves Deists. Thomas Jefferson is one of the best know of the early Deists. As Jefferson lived and died before the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species, the third president of the USA likely would have believed both that God was actively involved in the creation of the universe, but then chose to play the role of "admirer of his great creation". Thus, Jefferson and the other Deists likely would have adhered simultaneously to Deism and Intelligent Design. Christians, of course, reject the concept of Deism. This then creates the peculiar situation of many modern Christians defending a theory (Intelligent Design) that could easily have been embraced by those who were opposed to many of the precepts of Christianity.
In contrast to this, let me suggest a different form of "Intelligent Design", one that both accommodates accepted modern science and also fits into the traditional Christian narrative. My version of Intelligent Design includes two key elements: 1) the evidence of "design" shown by the six scientific constants of Martin Rees, as well as Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.
Martin Rees is a well known Britist physicist. He has identified six scientific constants that were present from the moment of the Big Bang onward. What is interesting about these six constants is that even very slight changes in any one of the constants would have prevented the creation of the world we know. I commend to you Rees's book titled The Six Numbers. The existence of these scientific constants is acknowledged and accepted by scientists of all persuasions, including atheists and the religiously inclined. Moreover, everyone acknowleges that if the constants changed even slightly, life as we know it could not exist.
Many Christians take the presence of these six constants as evidence of design by God. It seems to be pretty good evidence, though even Christian scientists will readily agree that there is no way to prove this to be the case. On the other hand, atheists and others will dismiss this as evidence of design, saying only that the constants emerged by chance. Unfortunately, neither side can either prove its own case or disprove the case of the other side.
At the same time, one can make the argument that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is also a form of design, arguably an indication of Intelligent Design. Of course, atheists don't believe there is a God, so no atheist will say that Darwin is evidence of ID. It's a fair point, so the various parties will simply have to agree to disagree.
Thus, my argument is that the best evidence of Intelligent Design is the six scientific constants, as well as Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. It can't be proved, at least not now, but it also can't be dis-proved, and no alternative theory can be proved either. Many atheist supporters of Darwin seem to agree that these two elements - the scientific constants and Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection - are all the Intelligent Design that is necessary. I agree.
Why, then, do supporters of traditional Intelligent Design cling to the theory? Many have argued that the real problem with Darwin is that his theory eliminates "purpose" in the world. It seems to say, in effect, that the world emerged without purpose; and Christians tend to have a real problem with notions that the world was created in any way beyond the hand of God, or that there is no purpose. In upcoming blogs, I'll discuss why Christians can still believe in the idea of purpose to the world, even if it was created in a way that is consistent with what Darwin described.
