*originally posted on 1-24-06
Is The Left Wrong About Intelligent Design?
Lately, I have been going toe to toe with my progressive friends on the subject of Intelligent Design. In the course of my debates with them, I have discovered two very disturbing facts: Not only are they completely illiterate with the science of Intelligent Design, their knowledge of Darwinism isn't much better.
The sad reality is that they see Intelligent Design as a clever ploy to bring creationism and religious influence back into the mainstream. So they ridicule, they put on false airs of knowledge and simply refuse to look at the scientific realities that back up this concept.
To be fair, I understand the reasoning.
Darwin and macroevolution basically drove a stake into the heart of Judeo-Christian creationism, which, in turn, drove a stake into the heart of religious influence and power. In all reality, it was a huge win for humanity on many levels.
Unfortunately, Darwinian macroevolution is also fatally flawed, and to continue to prop it up as reality goes against everything that true science represents.
First, to clear any misconceptions, let me qualify my beliefs. I fully reject the Judeo-Christian story of creation. I fully reject all religious systems as a divine imperative. In terms of believing in a super power who created us, the jury is out. As far as I am concerned, we could be the product of an acne riddled geek who worships Satan and lives in another dimension. Finally, I am no fan of the religious right or Republican policy, thus, I have nothing to gain by advocating Intelligent Design.
Now that I have that out of the way, why do I seriously entertain Intelligent Design as a viable theory?
Simple, the science behind it has teeth.
The most important concept of Intelligent Design deals specifically with irreducibly complex systems. The blood clotting system is a perfect example of an irreducibly complex system. There are a slew of biochemical reactions that must take place in order to bring about the final result of stopping blood flow. If any part is missing or if any reaction fails to take place, blood will not clot. If blood does not clot, well, you die.
Taking the aforementioned example one step further, what do birth and menstruation have in common ?
Varying degrees of blood loss.
Do you see the chicken or the egg paradox?
Therefore, the blood clotting system had to be in place from the beginning.
Some may say "Well, maybe there was a different system in place, maybe radioactivity zapped a bunch of spare biological parts and it all came together".
Not likely. This would be like taking a watch, breaking it down into component parts, throwing it in a box and giving the box a shake every million years. Even if, by some gigantic fluke, all of the pieces came together correctly, how would it start - what would wind it up?
In addition to the irreducibly complex argument, Darwinian macroevolution has never been proven, despite years of research
In layman's terms, macroevolution is a large scale change that creates new species. While there is plenty of evidence that supports microevolution (speciation - like the finches on the Galapagos), there is not one shred of evidence that suggests that fish evolved into amphibians or that amphibians evolved into mammals. The fossil record itself does not support macroevolution. In fact, the fossil record supports the theory that living things appeared fully equipped to eat, survive and reproduce.
So is the left wrong about Intelligent Design? In my opinion, yes... big time.
I believe that Intelligent Design needs to be taught in conjunction with evolution. Teaching it will raise questions; raising questions will stimulate research; research will eventually find a breakthrough that may provide more clues about our origins. To run away from it for fear of reversing social progress or harming the scientific method is cowardly and violates every scientific precept known to mankind. If you don't believe in it, then at least have the intellectual honesty to read up on it before offering a second hand opinion. Let the evidence, not your fear, be your guide.