A philosophical defense of intelligent design

By: Steven Wyble

Posted: 11/8/09

Intelligent Design is like the annoying stepsister of the scientific community. It isn't even tolerated. It's teased and poked at and denigrated in the worst ways possible.

Does Intelligent Design deserve this poor treatment? The scientific community would argue it does, because mommy and daddy never pay attention to it anymore, and-

Oh, wait. Let's scrap the annoying stepsister analogy.

The scientific community justifies its mistreatment of Intelligent Design because, they argue, Intelligent Design is not science at all. It's just religion-the annoying neighbor kid that always tries to sneak into the Scientific Clubhouse and be part of the gang.

But Science is a little na've. It thinks it's an adult, but forgets that it's really just a pimply tweener in the grand scheme of the universe (I swear, that's my last analogy . . . I think). Yes, science has progressed by leaps and bounds and in addition to helping us understand the way the universe works by giving us the theory of relativity or the notion of gravity, it has even managed to entertain by producing iPods and the Internet.

But Science has not thus far been able to adequately explain how the universe and everything in it came to exist.

And, like it or not, the existence of God or lack thereof cannot, at this time, be directly explored by scientists. If God exists outside of our universe, outside of our reality, outside of our perception, then it is impossible for us to detect Him because we have no way to detect anything that exists beyond our senses.

But that doesn't mean that scientists can't speculate. Intelligent Design is a hypothesis. It cannot be tested, but that doesn't mean that it can't be explored or that evidence can't be gathered for or against the hypothesis.

Once upon a time, the hypothesis that the earth is round was considered heretical. It was just assumed that the earth was flat, and the evidence seemed so clear cut that to even pose a contradictory hypothesis produced laughs, at best.

Today, it is the Church of Science that prosecutes those that dare challenge the status quo by forming out-of-the-box hypotheses.

There are varying figures regarding belief in God or a higher power among scientists, although a recent survey by the Pew Research Center showed that only 1 in 3 scientists

in the United States believe in God. So even though there are scientists in the United States that believe in God, many would rather just assume His nonexistence and leave it at that or, worse, claim that they're certain of his nonexistence, a bold claim that can only be matched by the champions of the world's major religions.

Proponents of Intelligent Design aren't content to assume anything (well, this Intelligent Design proponent isn't, anyway). They have a preconceived notion, yes-that some Higher Power created, designed, the universe-and they want to prove it.

Of course, proving the existence of God is a monumentally Herculean task, and I doubt that proving His existence or nonexistence is even possible. But it is worthy of science, of religion, of humankind, for them to provide arguments and evidence for their hypothesis.

And even though I've mentioned God several times in this article, Intelligent Design isn't necessarily theistic. It merely speculates that life on earth was designed; it doesn't argue that any particular God was the designer. So even though critics love to call Intelligent Design "Creationism in disguise," it's anything but.

It is good for science, religion and humankind for scientists to poke holes in the arguments of Intelligent Design proponents, to challenge every assertion they make and to come up with alternative hypotheses. That forces them to find new arguments, new assumptions, new approaches to their work.

But that's not what happens. Instead of accepting Intelligent Design as a hypothesis to a question that hasn't adequately been answered yet, it is merely trivialized by the scientific community and treated with disdain.

While science has provided many answers about the nature of the universe and our place in it, we must never forget that in the grand scheme of things, human beings and our understanding of the universe are grossly incomplete. It's ambitious to take the notion of a creator out of the realm of religion and philosophy and into the realm of science.

But scientists have always been ambitious. Instead of ridiculing those that study Intelligent Design as Creationists in lab coats, scientists should engage them in critical debate. Such discourse just might lead to the scientific breakthrough that answers the ultimate scientific query: why are we here?