Viewpoint: Intelligent design is complex: Judge for yourself
In October, 2004, the School Board in Dover, Penn., drew up a new policy for the high school biology curriculum, in which the following statement was approved in a 6-3 vote: “Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design.”
What ensued was a yearlong skirmish over the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, the power of the Religious Right and the intelligent design (ID) movement. What became lost in these debates were many facts as well as certain complexities about the relationship between science and religion. A few journalists and newspapers of record tried for clarity, but many more did not.
First, ID theory posits that specific life forms demonstrate an “irreducibly complex” structure that natural selection (the undirected mechanism working on random variations of genes for achieving organism survival and fitness) alone cannot explain.
Second, ID is not a theory of cosmic origins or an interpretation of physics. It is a theory about biochemical and biological structures: Bacteria, the eye, the brain.
Third, since it was popularized by Michael Behe in Darwin’s Black Box, ID has been correctly diagnosed as a theory with religious motivations because it posits divine direction over nature.
Fourth, ID is not the only theory that posits an overall direction in nature, but it promises that empirical studies can detect and demonstrate design.
Fifth, most religious traditions, including Christian traditions, do not require God to be a designing intervener in nature. Sure, miracles and Christ’s resurrection are affirmed, yet such events are granted as exceptional evidence for God’s otherwise non-interventionist relationship with the world.
Sixth, educators mostly insist that ID does not belong in the science classroom. I concur, so long as we stipulate that schoolteachers are free to teach about disputes over theories of evolution. Disputes are commonplace. Even agnostic evolutionary biologists such as the late Stephen Jay Gould persisted in identifying his theory of evolution, termed “punctuated equilibrium,” as distinct from mainstream evolutionary theory.
Several years ago, intelligent design theorist William Dembski set up the Michael Polanyi Institute at Baylor University in Texas. The Institute has since been folded, but many were indignant that philosopher Polanyi’s name had been pressed into service for mainstreaming intelligent design.
In 1969, Polanyi wrote an article, a copy of which I cherish from a collection of conference proceedings, entitled “Life’s Irreducible Structure.” Polanyi thinks irreducible principles account for complex interacting levels in organisms. This means nature is conducive to religious interpretation: e.g. we are not simply determined by our genes. But his philosophy is not design.
Do ID theorists distinguish design from other religiously conducive philosophies of science such as this? Why would they — you are either for ID or against religion. Do the anti-religious opponents of ID allow for such distinctions? No. For them, evolution is true, and the rest is mere interpretation or plain false — one must accept evolution, even while biologists differ profoundly on what it means!
In short, the ID controversy has jeopardized the public understanding of science and religion. One is not obliged to choose between these two. So the next time you read about intelligent design, watch out for those wielding wedge strategies, where complexities get left out by those who think you won’t notice.
Paul Allen is an Assistant Professor and undergraduate program advisor in the Department of Theological Studies.
Readers are invited to contact Barbara Black with ideas for future Viewpoints. Contact her by email at barblak@alcor.concordia.ca