Intelligent Design
Something has been bothering me about the intelligent design movement, so I thought I would take this opportunity to get it off my chest.
It seems to me that intelligent design boils down to nothing more than the old teleological argument for the existence of God dressed up with bad science. The teleological argument, simply stated, says that if we found a complex item like a watch, we could assume the existence of a watchmaker.
But when I studied philosophy during my time as an undergraduate (at a Christian college, no less), I learned that the teleological argument does not serve as a proof for the existence of God. For starters, the world is much more complex than a watch, so much so that we cannot begin to comprehend its overall design. It is absurd, therefore, to think the we can grasp the idea of something that could create the world.
As a part of their teleological argument, IDers argue that the earth is specifically suited to life. If the earth were slightly closer to or farther away from the sun, life could not exist. If we did not have the right mix of elements, life could not exist. And on it goes. They say that the chances for such a perfect combination are too high to be chance.
But this overlooks (or purposefully ignores) the fact that the universe contains “billions and billions” of stars. And according to the implications of Einstein’s theories, there could be any number of universes. Even if the odds against life are a billion to one, we still end up with a large number of planets capable of sustaining life.
Some IDers also employ the cosmological argument for God. They point to the fact that everything has a cause, so there must be a First Cause (to use Plato’s term). But positing the existence of a First Cause makes no more sense than positing an infinite regression of causes. Sure, our minds cannot comprehend an infinite regression, but neither can they understand the idea that a being as powerful as God can simply exist. And if we are going to posit that some things “simply exist”, it seems more likely to me that some microbes could just happen than that God could just happen.
What I have said here is hardly a complete refutation of ID. But while it does not address all their arguments, their arguments have been addressed by philosophers for centuries. It is a shame, however, that we have to keep going back and having the same argument over and over again. It would be nice if knowledge could move forward.
N.B. I do believe in God, of course, but I believe in the God of the Bible rather than the God of the philosophers. And I believe in that God for very different reasons than they do.
On June 11th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
[…] Wilson addresses what he sees as the problem of Intelligent Design on his always interesting blog Blue Cord. Like him, I think there are problems with it, but […]
On June 12th, 2007 at 1:31 am
I think the argument that could be made is that microbes do not have existence as part of their very being. The very unlikely microbes are contingent beings, whereas the God of the Philosophers is one who has existence at his very nature (something Aristotle said, I believe).
On June 12th, 2007 at 10:17 am
I am an atheist, but…
“As a part of their teleological argument, IDers argue that the earth is specifically suited to life. If the earth were slightly closer to or farther away from the sun, life could not exist. If we did not have the right mix of elements, life could not exist. And on it goes. They say that the chances for such a perfect combination are too high to be chance”.
No, the observation comes from physicists… that the observed configuration is **completely unexpected** by any natural model that we have ever been able to derive… in a manner that is EXTREMELY pointed toward the production of carbon based life, over a very fine region of the observed universe.
Is Our Universe Natural?
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0512148
“But this overlooks (or purposefully ignores) the fact that the universe contains “billions and billions” of stars”.
No, it doesn’t.
“And according to the implications of Einstein’s theories, there could be any number of universes”.
LOL!!!… No, that comes originally from the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Einstein’s theory most naturally extends to predict one single finite closed spherical universe.
“Even if the odds against life are a billion to one, we still end up with a large number of planets capable of sustaining life”.
Actually, planets that are capable of sustaining life are predicted to exist only in a very fine region of the observed universe, but your misconceptions have been very amusing.
I have an observation though… since your facts are so far off the mark, you end up projecting the image of a rabid atheist who doesn’t care about the facts any more than a young-earth creationist does, rather than an agnostic who would accept proof of whatever if they saw it.