Encounters with Intelligent Design

It all started with this:

I was compelled to post that on Twitter while I was reading a book that described Galileo’s conflict with the Church during his lifetime. Galileo’s support for heliocentrism greatly undermined the church’s authority and their dogmatic claim to Earth being the center of the universe. Before I proceed, I should mention that I do not believe in Intelligent Design (ID). I’m sure you’ve likely inferred that from the image above. It’s a set of ideas that, in my mind, bear a lack of clear logic and critical analysis of what it’s purporting to be a scientific truth.

After that tweet, I received this reply: “intelligent design has a case. It can be proven simply by our reproduction process. Male/Female is not by accident.”

I replied: “Is there any literature I can refer to exploring that concept? I don't think I've heard that one before. ID logic fascinates me.”

His reply was: “nay no literature, just me making sense of things. It just makes sense that 4 us 2 reproduce the way we do, is clearly by design.”

I concluded in two replies: “Fair enough and I respect that. Full disclosure: I'm an evolution guy.” “& if u wish to explore scientific lit on sexual differentiation w/regards to procreation & evolution, I'd be happy to share.”

His response: “I figured you were, I'm a common sense guy. I'll read whatever you send.”

I thought that was the end of our interaction regarding this topic. I was going to go home and send him some information as I mentioned and called it a day. It was a pleasant discussion and an example of how two people in disagreement can be civil. No one person imposing their beliefs on the other. However, I receive another message: “question.. where did space come from. There's an assumption that it was there already, and that makes no sense.”

Here’s the remaining back & forth in Twitter:

me: “There have been numerous equations attempting to explain it but no one has a fully validated answer nested in logic.”
me: “But that's what I respect about the scientific method. It's comfortable in saying:”
me: “‘I don't know for sure until there's concrete and tangible evidence.’ And if a theory is proven wrong via...
me: “evidence, experiments with repeatable results & logic, those that follow the scientific method will embrace being proven wrong.”

him: “come on bro, perfect math is not by accident. Everything you see around you is perfect math. So whose the mathematician?”

me: “Not sure what you mean by perfect math. I think our convo may require a different venue, Twitter's constricting at this point”
me: “I'm inspired to write about this. I'll send you the link and we can continue there. We'll be able to elaborate more on our ideas”
me: “May I have your permission to reprint our Twitter convo? It's a good example of how people can disagree & be civil about it”

him: “sure bro no prob, I'm enjoying the discussion.”

So here I am writing about it.

I think the reason why people believe in Intelligent Design is the same reason why people believe in alien abductions, vegetarianism, NWO conspiracy theories, communism, global warming and democracy. It makes sense to them and they want to believe.

Presented with strong opinion and observable details, most people can make a case for many things. My favorite presentation for Intelligent Design the one where Kirk Cameron (ID supporter) and another scientist/doctor person talks about how bananas fit in your hand and how it’s curved so it can be pointed towards your mouth for easy consumption is evidence supporting the validity of Intelligent Design. Yes, those points “make sense” but it doesn’t follow logic that proves Intelligent Design as a valid science.

I made my case for the scientific method by saying: “...that's what I respect about the scientific method. It's comfortable in saying: I don't know for sure until there's concrete and tangible evidence. And if a theory is proven wrong via evidence, experiments with repeatable [consistent] results & logic, those that follow the scientific method will embrace being proven wrong.”

By that explanation, I guess we can safely say that we can repeat that banana experiment with the same results and then conclude that Intelligent Design is a valid science. But it doesn’t. It doesn’t because it doesn’t prove the existence of a “designer”. At the heart of it, ID subscribes to the idea that there exists a supreme designer that has created life the way it is because it makes sense to said designer. Theology debate aside, ID’s foundation cannot be validated via the scientific method because the existence of this designer cannot be proved.

Some proponents of ID would argue: Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. I’m sure there’s a drawn out diatribe somewhere online on fully explaining this thought process. At this point, dear reader, all I ask is that you think about it.

My beef with ID is not that people believe in it. People are free to believe in whatever they want to believe. My issue with it is that it presents itself as a scientific branch of study. It’s an affront to critical thought and poses a threat to progressive thinking by pretending to be something it’s not (science). There are people insistent on giving ID equal footing in schools, universities and scientific communities. If we are to maintain a separation of religion from public institutions, then ID is disrespecting that notion by presenting itself as an alternative science.

Again though, I want to go back on how it’s so encouraging to be able to have this kind of civil interaction between two people with very different set of beliefs. I’m not going to impose my way of thinking on this guy and I certainly appreciate that he hasn’t done so as well.


On a final note, I should say that I do believe that we have souls. Love is irrationally beautiful. Luck is both created and received. And the force is strong in this one.

I kinda know what I’m talking about. Here’s both ends of the spectrum:

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/faq.php
http://richarddawkins.net/

And just for fun:

http://www.cracked.com/article_17679_7-awesome-acts-nature-that-science-cant-explain.html

~end rant