Intelligent Design

By: The FHE Team

intelligent-design-on-the-future-human-evolution-websiteWhat in the world happened to Intelligent Design?

Much to my chagrin, I revisit Intelligent Design years after the writing of my original article where I merely put forth the premise of ID.  That is, believers (some scientists along with the religious right) purport that the universe, and life itself, is too complex and specific to have happened purely by chance.  The ID theory proponents generally agree that fossil and other evolutionary evidence is genuine and point toward the progressive development of higher forms of life.  Where they diverge is that rather than believing random chance at the helm, ID theory proponents suggest, much like the Deist beliefs of the American founding fathers, that a creator put rules in place for the unfolding of life as well as the deployment of the laws of physics.

I will admit, I was rather pleased that a sort of compromise had been reached. Since we have yet to to come up with any plausible explanation of how the universe got here in the first place, ID sounded like it had as much credibility on that count as “quantum fluctuation”.  Where’d the quantum come from to fluctuate? Two theories in peaceful coexistence.

So silly me turned my attention to other things. Things one can actually do something about, like the FUTURE.

Long story short, I am making my rounds on the website, updating this, deleting that, adding new, etc. and I come across my old harbinger of peace, ID.  A few Google searches in and I start seeing things like conspiracies, court battles, law suits, and as much polarization and hostility as one ever saw in the original evolution vs. creation debate.

This evening I’ve spent as much time as I  am going to looking for a rational dialogue or even a forum for one. Theories abound.  I am having trouble seeing the harm in teaching ID as a theory. In fact, it might take some of the mysticism and superstitious hold some religions can exert on the unsuspecting (if you think I mean yours, I am sure you’re quite mistaken. Yours is completely different).

And before you think I’m picking exclusively on the dogmatists of the right handed variety, here ye, here ye, dogmatists of the highbrow sort who vehemently denounce even the slightest possibility of the “supernatural” which is merely a euphemism for the unexplained. Is it really necessary to be anti-religious?

For extremists everywhere a message for you In the words of Shakespeare:

Methinks Thou Dost Protest Too Much.


Category: Evolution