The Absurdity in Intelligent Design

There is a small movement garnering attention in many parts of the country. It seems several regionally conservative school districts across the U.S. are introducing a new scientific principle into their curriculum called Intelligent Design. For those not following this trend, Intelligent Design is defined as the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[Link] Leading proponents, of whom all are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the origin of life.[Link] Simply defined; our universe is so complicated that it can only be explained that a being, not of earth, created the seeds of life that became civilization as we know it. Some call him God. The problem in teaching about a "Creator" in public schools has several issues.

Problem One is that there are general rules separating church and state. "In the United States, separation of church and state is governed by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and by legal precedents, some quite controversial, interpreting that clause...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."[Link] So, In a public school setting, one established by our government, you cannot add elements of religion. Proponents of Intelligent Design rebut this argument, stating that they are not fostering a religious point of view but a scientific theory, not unlike the Theory of Evolution, coined by Darwin, which is taught in public schools today.

This leads us to Problem Two, the flawed logic of Intelligent Design as a science. One opposing point to the Science argument of Intelligent Design is that it makes claims as fact by pointing out that science cannot prove it otherwise. For instance, scientists can only theorize about the complexities of the human body and these theories revolve around evolution and general hypothesizing, much cannot be proven exactly but follows true from scientific analysis. These are facts that may often be proven true as technology increases so that these theories can be tested further. Maybe one of these theories will be accepted as true, like Einstein's theory on relativity and the Origin of the Species. Intelligent Design proponents would argue that because we cannot prove these things, then they must of been created by something much greater than us. They corroborate this argument through the creation of the cosmos as well. So instead of using a scientific method, they use the argument that it couldn't of been anything else.

This brings us to Problem Three, the fallacy on the generality of Intelligent Design. If we assume that Intelligent Design is a valid option, we believe that some thing or several things, greater than us, not of Earth, placed in motion a series of events that created the universe and civilization as we know it today. Christians would name this being God, but the Christian God is far more defined. The generality of Intelligent Design allows room for us to believe in the absurd as well. Bobby Henderson made this exact connection in his OPEN LETTER TO KANSAS SCHOOL BOARD last year. He commended the school board on their openness to discussion on Intelligent Design but he wished for all aspects of it to be discussed including the Pastafarian faith in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Henderson believes that instead of this unknown being, it was a giant spaghetti monster whose noodly appendage created all that we see in the universe. Strangely, his Church beliefs fall into the realm of Intelligent Design, thus destroying its credibility on its own absurdity.

I am not against the Intelligent Design argument. To be honest, when you look at the Universe, it's hard not to believe that something had a hand in it, but as they cannot prove that the universe was created by design, so can we not prove it wasn't. However, to allow Intelligent Design taught as a science, is as absurd as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. This is a philosophical argument on God, also called the Teleological Argument. As important as Philosophy is, it is not science. It is a logical process in which we question and question again. You examine and try to foster understanding through these questions, but to teach it as fact is absurd. Philosophical topics are never proven or disproven, only questioned anew.