On the Origin of Intelligent Design

photo of Charles Darwin by J. Cameron, 1869

As we remember Charles Darwin on his two-hundredth birthday, I thought I’d use this play-on-words to post some thoughts on intelligent design.

The term intelligent design is the contention that humans and all living things are too complex to explain by the random route of natural selection therefore they must be prima facie evidence of an intelligent designer. Superficially, this seems to make sense. Especially if you grew up hearing the Bible called the Word of God. But if you take intelligent design to its logical conclusion then you have to reject the role of DNA, advances in medicine, genetics, fossil records, and two-hundred years of evidence that supports natural selection and evolution.

I’m not going to present a detailed argument here against intelligent design. That’s been done before and much better than anything I could do. If you want such an argument, I highly recommend the one presented by PBS’s NOVA entitled Judgment Day – Intelligent Design on Trial.

What I want to do is present a theory on the origin of intelligent design. I’m not referring to the obvious need for a new term to represent creation-science after the 1987 decision by the US Supreme Court. No, I want to try to answer the question, “Why do intelligent people, including some trained in modern science, find at so hard to reconcile religion and evolution? Why not take the religious position that God created the process of evolution via natural selection? The Roman Catholic Church has officially accepted the validity of evolution. So what is the problem?

Thirty years ago I attempted to dismiss creation-science as the work of crackpots but now that just doesn’t fly. In my post from last week (Feb. 7) I made a joke about it and called them crazy. Even as I posted, I knew I’d have to make a serious attempt to articulate my theory.

So here it is.
These ideas are fundamental:
1. A serious problem exists that proponents are trying to address.
2. Powerful and persistent forces support the problem. Therefore, powerful and persistent opposition is required.
3. The problem is serious enough for some to devote a lifetime to its solution.
4. The symptoms of the problem include a breakdown in the moral underpinnings of government, business, and daily life.
5. A solution based on religion is essential.

These ideas didn’t develop while witnessing the onslaught against teaching evolution in high school. They developed during media coverage of events in Iran during the Islamic revolution and the return of the Ayatollah Khomeini.

To be continued…

(It takes me so long to develop a post, I hope this one is finished sometime in February. Ah well, if Darwin procrastinated for two years on his book, please indulge my few days.)