ID as it is currently, is something that shouldn't be allowed in schools. That's because it's currently nothing more than a tool for Creationists to spread their own religious beliefs. ID evolved when creationism was shot down by the courts as legitimate "science". But what if we aproach ID from a purely objective point of view?
At the heart of ID is the "teleological argument" (argument from design), which was used by philosophers like Descartes and Aristotle. The reason ID fails so miserably when used by Creationists or anyone pushing some sort of religion (not all IDists are Creationists), is because it denies evolution, which is pretty much an undeniable fact.
So what about looking at ID from an objective standpoint? Objectively looked at, some points come up; one of them being, that ID isn't science; it's philosophy. ID is loosely based on science, but in reality, ID isn't the least bit scientific. This needs to be kept in mind at all times; ID is purely philosophical in nature. That said, let's take an objective look at it.
IF the universe is designed--notice I said "if"--then:
a) There is no reason why evolution can't be a part of the design.
The creatures in nature could've just as easily been designed to evolve. After all, even Creationists acknowledge evolution in small steps (they like to call it "micro" evolution; real scientists just call it plain ol' evolution). So that said, there's no reason why a "designer" couldn't include the ability to evolve as part of the designer. For my next point:
b) There's no reason why this "designer" must be "all-powerful".
After all: There've been some awesome designs by humans, who are pretty weak when compared to lots of other animals. Humans often need lots of help and tools in create things. This segues right into the next item:
c) There's no reason why the "designer" has to be one single entity.
When we look at the universe and it's fullness, the idea that one being created it all, becomes more and more rediculous the more we learn about it. It would make more sense that there've been many designers throughout the billions of years our universe has existed. It's no different from everything humans created: was it one single all-powerful human which made all the technology and art on earth? No, it was untold hundreds of billions of humans through out, all playing a part (whether a positive or negative one) in what humans have ended up creating and accomplishing. Likewise, it would make much more sense that there've been hundreds of billions (or even hundreds of trillions) of designers through the beginning of the universe.
d) There's no reason why the designer(s) couldn't have evolved themselves.
There's endless scientific evidence for evolution, and there's no reason why these cosmic "designers" couldn't have evolved into existence themselves; this would solve the old "Where did the designer come from?" question. And for my final point:
e) There's no reason why these designers should still be in existence.
We don't know who made stonehenge; the ancient Mayans did not leave behind people to carry on their civilizations; so therefore, there's no reason to assume that the "designers" still exist. Maybe they do; but since we see no evidence whatsoever of any designer, it's a likely bet that they vanished like some lost human civilization.
There's a reason why the teleological argument was seen as legitimate philosophy, and even taught in colleges and universities in philosophy courses; it provokes thought. If we let this philosophical concept remain pure, there's no reason to ban it from schools.
No comments:
Post a Comment