Intelligent Design

Today I attended a lunch time talk on Intelligent Design. It was billed as a discussion between two speakers, so I was looking forward to a debate. Instead, it was like the opposite of a hockey game; I went expecting a fight and a nuanced agreement broke out.

The first speaker described the theory of Intelligent Design (ID) in simple terms: it's like looking at phenomena (like Mt. Rushmore) and declaring "that was obviously designed". Because, of course, first impressions are important and determinative, like seeing the face of the Madonna on a cheese sandwich.

He then argued that ID was not science, and should not be described as an alternate to evolution; ID theory is a discussion about origins of biological complexity, which could be changed and optimized by natural selection over time. In fact, ID could be billed as an alternative to atheism, so it could be brought into school in a philosophy class.

For some reason, both speakers compared ID proponents (Discovery Institute) to Galileo - a bearer of revolutionary new ideas who is being prematurely vilified. Perhaps we should give ID its opportunity to mature, at which point it will be accepted as new scientific theory?

The problem with this comparison is that Galileo was proposing a new theory which better explained how the universe worked; ID can't provide any guidance on how to study new phenomena or move the state of engineering or production forward. You can't take the concept of intelligent design and use it as an axiom for any new hypotheses or theories. In addition, Galileo wasn't trying to use state power to sell his new theory to school children; he (and all the other scientific revolutionaries they like to compare to) had to convince adults of the correctness and utility of his ideas.

Finally, the first speaker suggested ID be brought into schools as an exercise to teach children how to think critically. If children are presented with ID and with evolution, perhaps they'll do research, discuss the relative strengths of the ideas, and make up their own minds. Except that anyone who's taught or even been around at least K-8 students realizes that they're just not equipped yet with the background and knowledge (never mind the desire or readiness) to think critically about science or math. They're in foundation-laying mode, where they need to learn tenets and facts which are commonly accepted and from which they can make more sophisticated conclusions. ID gives them no tools for that, and at that developmental stage, it's inappropriate.

This argument is also hardly convincing for bringing ID into high schools either. There are so many other classes (social studies, English, etc) in which critical thinking can be taught, using so many other interesting topics, historical or from current events. Students don't need the false controversy of ID vs Evolution to develop critical thinking skills.

The second speaker asserted that it's wrong to dismiss the idea of an intelligent designer because science, by its nature, is never complete; it has room for new theories. The rebuttal to that assertion is that the concept of an intelligent designer by its nature precludes further scientific inquiry (except, perhaps, into the nature and/or existence of the designer). If you decide there is an intelligent designer who is responsible for any "irreducible" complexity, you complete all your theoretical systems with the God closure.

Random thought: can you imagine ID applied to math? Let's see, that concept is irreducibly complex, so I guess an intelligent designer just gave it to us. Move along!

The second speaker also made a reference to the possibility that keeping ID out of school curricula is potentially censorship. That doesn't seem like a reasonable assertion; I don't think anyone is attempting to stop ID personnel from promulgating their ideas in public debate, or in private schools, or even as a topic of current events. What ID antagonists object to is making ID instruction mandatory in publicly funded schools, especially in the science classroom.

In all, I found no compelling argument for mandating ID instruction in public schools. The theory of "intelligent design" is not science; it's the opposite of science, and as such does not belong in that curriculum. And if it's just a debate topic or a current event, it doesn't need to be part of any state-sanctioned curriculum.