Spring Break
A philosophical defense of intelligent design
Steven Wyble
Issue date: 11/8/09 Section: Opinion
Intelligent Design is like the annoying stepsister of the scientific community. It isn't even tolerated. It's teased and poked at and denigrated in the worst ways possible.
Does Intelligent Design deserve this poor treatment? The scientific community would argue it does, because mommy and daddy never pay attention to it anymore, and-
Oh, wait. Let's scrap the annoying stepsister analogy.
The scientific community justifies its mistreatment of Intelligent Design because, they argue, Intelligent Design is not science at all. It's just religion-the annoying neighbor kid that always tries to sneak into the Scientific Clubhouse and be part of the gang.
But Science is a little na've. It thinks it's an adult, but forgets that it's really just a pimply tweener in the grand scheme of the universe (I swear, that's my last analogy . . . I think). Yes, science has progressed by leaps and bounds and in addition to helping us understand the way the universe works by giving us the theory of relativity or the notion of gravity, it has even managed to entertain by producing iPods and the Internet.
But Science has not thus far been able to adequately explain how the universe and everything in it came to exist.
And, like it or not, the existence of God or lack thereof cannot, at this time, be directly explored by scientists. If God exists outside of our universe, outside of our reality, outside of our perception, then it is impossible for us to detect Him because we have no way to detect anything that exists beyond our senses.
But that doesn't mean that scientists can't speculate. Intelligent Design is a hypothesis. It cannot be tested, but that doesn't mean that it can't be explored or that evidence can't be gathered for or against the hypothesis.
Once upon a time, the hypothesis that the earth is round was considered heretical. It was just assumed that the earth was flat, and the evidence seemed so clear cut that to even pose a contradictory hypothesis produced laughs, at best.
Does Intelligent Design deserve this poor treatment? The scientific community would argue it does, because mommy and daddy never pay attention to it anymore, and-
Oh, wait. Let's scrap the annoying stepsister analogy.
The scientific community justifies its mistreatment of Intelligent Design because, they argue, Intelligent Design is not science at all. It's just religion-the annoying neighbor kid that always tries to sneak into the Scientific Clubhouse and be part of the gang.
But Science is a little na've. It thinks it's an adult, but forgets that it's really just a pimply tweener in the grand scheme of the universe (I swear, that's my last analogy . . . I think). Yes, science has progressed by leaps and bounds and in addition to helping us understand the way the universe works by giving us the theory of relativity or the notion of gravity, it has even managed to entertain by producing iPods and the Internet.
But Science has not thus far been able to adequately explain how the universe and everything in it came to exist.
And, like it or not, the existence of God or lack thereof cannot, at this time, be directly explored by scientists. If God exists outside of our universe, outside of our reality, outside of our perception, then it is impossible for us to detect Him because we have no way to detect anything that exists beyond our senses.
But that doesn't mean that scientists can't speculate. Intelligent Design is a hypothesis. It cannot be tested, but that doesn't mean that it can't be explored or that evidence can't be gathered for or against the hypothesis.
Once upon a time, the hypothesis that the earth is round was considered heretical. It was just assumed that the earth was flat, and the evidence seemed so clear cut that to even pose a contradictory hypothesis produced laughs, at best.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Hananiah Perez
posted 11/21/09 @ 8:41 PM PST
WOW, its like the freedom bell had its crack repaired by electrolysis, and is ringing loud enough to shake the ground...and I like it!
Bout time "Phd's" get out of their "pile" and the chicken or the egg debate. (Continued…)
Post a Comment