Reasonable Dissent

Intelligent Design: What has history taught us?

No, I’m not surprised. But it’s certainly worth pointing out, because this kind of “missing the forest for the trees” is a common mistake.  This commentary comes from an intelligent design writer who begs the very apt question, “What has history taught us?” Feel free to read through to see his view on abiogenesis, but it boils down to this: We’ve seen in history that abiogenesis doesn’t really seem probable, and scientists haven’t come up with any proof, so abandon the idea. So first of all, I’d like to make a quick point about an intelligent design advocate missing the point of the scientific process (the one actually used, not the rigid sequence taught to 6th graders to get them used to the idea). Putting forth an idea for something we hope to discover, what he calls “philosophical faith”, has nothing to do with faith. Science makes progress like this: observe, attempt to explain, use explaination to predict, look for prediction, reformulate theory, repeat. It has nothing to do with any kind of faith. The whole point is that you try to explain it the best you can, and when you get more information, you use that to help your explanation. The fact that an idea has been around for some time without evidence either way does not mean abandon it for religious based theories.

But what makes me almost laugh about this commentary is the way he seems to bring up a good point, and ignore the elephant in the room. Exactly what has history taught us about religiously backed explanations for natural phenomena? I’ll tell you: in every instance, EVERY single instance, the religious explanation has been shown to be wrong. It is a crutch during times that we didn’t have the knowledge to actually explain it. Ancient people cowering at the lightning, thinking that Zeus was angry with them look pretty silly to us today don’t they? How can you ask the question “What has history taught us?” and igonore the obvious end to your question? History has taught us that when we think we know, we don’t. The difference between science (real science, not intelligent design) and religion is that science expects to be wrong and has mechanisms to absorb new information and evolve (pun intended). Religion fights it with all its might. Whether it’s today, next year or in 500 years, this one will too. The evidence will pile up until it is overwhelming and we will come up with something new. The common component is science, humming along in the background, making itself better and better all the time. You can try to fight it, or you can swallow your pride and let go of outdated superstitions.

Learn from history: you’re fighting a losing battle.

Tags: Christianity, evolution, intelligent design, logical fallacies, science