The Other Intelligent Design Theories

Intelligent Design is only one of many “alternatives” to Darwinian evolution

There is rich irony in how the present battle over Creationism v. Darwinism has taken shape, and especially the ways that this round differs from previous episodes. A clue to both the recent success — and the eventual collapse — of “Intelligent Design” can be found in its name, and in the new tactics that are being used to support its incorporation into school curricula. In what must be taken as sincere flattery, these tactics appear to acknowledge just how deeply the inner lessons of science have pervaded modern culture.

Intelligent Design (ID) pays tribute to its rival, by demanding to be recognized as a direct and “scientific” competitor with the Theory of Evolution. Unlike the Creationists of 20 years ago, proponents of ID no longer refer to biblical passages. Instead, they invoke skepticism and cite alleged faulty evidence as reasons to teach students alternatives to evolution.

True, they produce little or no evidence to support their own position. ID promoters barely try to undermine evolution as a vast and sophisticated model of the world, supported by millions of tested and interlocking facts. At the level that they are fighting, none of that matters. Their target is the millions of onlookers and voters, for whom the battle is as emotional and symbolic as it ever was.

What has changed is the armory of symbols and ideas being used. Proponents of Intelligent Design now appeal to notions that are far more a part of the lexicon of science than religion, notably openness to criticism, fair play, and respect for the contingent nature of truth.

These concepts proved successful in helping our civilization to thrive, not only in science, but markets, democracy and a myriad other modern processes. Indeed, they have been incorporated into the moral foundations held by average citizens, of all parties and creeds. Hence, the New Creationists have adapted and learned to base their arguments upon these same principles. One might paraphrase the new position, that has been expressed by President Bush and many others, as follows:

What do evolutionists have to fear? Are they so worried about competition and criticism that they must censor what bright students are allowed to hear? Let all sides present their evidence and students will decide for themselves!

One has to appreciate not only irony, but an implied tribute to the scientific enlightenment, when we realize that openness to criticism, fair play, and respect for the contingent nature of truth are now the main justifications set forward by those who still do not fully accept science. Some of those promoting a fundamentalist- religious agenda now appeal to principles they once fiercely resisted. (In fairness, some religions helped to promote these concepts.) Perhaps they find it a tactically useful maneuver.

It’s an impressive one. And it has allowed them to steal a march. While scientists and their supporters try to fight back with judicious reasoning and mountains of evidence, a certain fraction of the population perceives only smug professors, fighting to protect their turf — authority figures trying to squelch brave underdogs before they can compete. Image matters. And this self-portrayal — as champions of open debate, standing up to stodgy authorities — has worked well for the proponents of Intelligent Design (ID). For now.

Yet, I believe they have made a mistake. By basing their offensive on core notions of fair play and completeness, ID promoters have employed a clever short-term tactic, but have incurred a long-term strategic liability. Because, their grand conceptual error is in believing that their incantation of Intelligent Design is the only alternative to Darwinian evolution.

If students deserve to weigh ID against natural selection, then why not also expose them to…

This is the deist compromise most commonly held by thousands — possibly millions — of working scientists who want to reconcile science and faith. Yes, the Earth is 4.6 billion years old and our earliest ancestors emerged from a stew of amino acids that also led to crabs, monkeys and slime molds who are all distant relatives. Still, a creative force may have been behind the Big Bang, and especially the selection of some finely tuned physical constants, whose narrow balance appears to make the evolution of life possible, maybe even inevitable. Likewise, such a force may have given frequent or occasional nudges of subtle guidance to evolution, all along, as part of a Divine Plan.

There is one advantage — and drawback — to this notion (depending on your perspective): it is compatible with everything we see around us — all the evidence we’ve accumulated — and it is utterly impossible to prove or disprove. Not only does this let many scientists continue both to pray and do research, but it has allowed the Catholic Church and many other religious organizations to accept (at long last) evolution as fact, with relatively good grace.

Most Judeo-Christian sects dislike speculating about possible origins of the Creator. But not all avoid the topic. Mormons, for example, hold that the God of this universe — who created humanity (or at least guided our evolution) — was once Himself a mortal being who was created by a previous God in a prior universe or context.

One can imagine someone applying the very same logic that Intelligent Design promoters have used.

There is no way that such a fantastic entity as God could have simply erupted out of nothing. Such order and magnificence could not possibly have self-organized out of chaos. Only intelligence can truly create order, especially order of such a supreme nature.

Oh, certainly there are theological arguments that have been around since Augustine to try and quell such thoughts, arguing in favor of ex nihilio or timeless pre-existence, or threatening punishment for even asking the question. But that’s the point! Any effort to raise these rebuttals will:

1. make this a matter of theology (something the ID people have strenuously avoided). 2. smack as an attempt to quash other ideas, flying against the very same principles of fair play and completeness that ID proponents have used to prop up this whole effort.

IDOID will have to be let in, or the whole program must collapse under howling derision and accusations of hypocrisy.

Yes, you read me right. Recent advances in cosmology have led some of the world’s leading cosmologists, such as Syracuse University’s Lee Smolin, to suggest that each time a large black hole forms (and our universe contains many) it serves as an “egg” for the creation of an entirely new “baby universe” that detaches from ours completely, beginning an independent existence in some non-causally connected region of false vacuum. Out of this collapsing black hole arises a new cosmos, perhaps with its own subsequent Big Bang and expansion, including the formation of stars, planets, etc. Smolin further posits that our own universe may have come about that way, and so did its “parent” cosmos, and so on, backward through countless cycles of hyper-time.

Moreover, in a leap of highly original logic, Smolin went on to persuasively argue that each new universe might be slightly better adapted than its ancestor. Adapted for what? Why, to create more black holes — the eggs — needed for reproducing more universes.

Up to this point we have a more sophisticated and vastly larger-scale version of what Richard Dawkins called the evolution of evolvability. But Lee Smolin takes it farther still, contending that, zillions of cycles of increasingly sophisticated universes would lead to some that inherit just the right physical constants and boundary conditions.

Well, now it’s our turn to take things even farther than Smolin did. Any advocate of completeness would have to extend this evolutionary process beyond achieving mere sapience like ours, all the way to producing intelligence so potent that it can then start performing acts of creation on its own, manipulating and using black holes to fashion universes to specific design.

In other words, there might be an intelligent designer of this world … who nevertheless came into being as a result of evolution.

Sound a little newfangled and contrived? So do all new ideas! And yet, no one can deny that it covers a legitimate portion of idea space. And since “weighing the evidence” is to be left to students, well, shouldn’t they be exposed to this idea too? Again, the principles now used by proponents of ID — fair play and completeness — may turn around and bite them.

Perhaps the whole thing does not have a clear-cut beginning or end, but rolls along like a wheel? That certainly would allow enough macro-time for everything and anything to happen. Interestingly, the cyclical notion opens up infinite time for both evolution and intelligent designers … though not of any kind that will please ID promoters. Shall Hindu gurus and Mayan priest kings step up and demand equal time for their theories of creation cycles? How can you stop them, once the principle is established that every hypothesis deserves equal treatment in the schools, allowing students to hear and weigh any notion that claims to explain the world? 5. Panspermia

This one is venerable and quite old within the scientific community, which posits that life on Earth may have been seeded from elsewhere in the cosmos. Panspermia was trotted out for the “Scopes II” trial in the 1980s, when Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinge were among the few first-rank scientists to openly disbelieve the standard Origins model — the one that posits life appeared independently out of nonliving chemicals in Earth’s early oceans. Their calculations (since then refuted) suggested that it would take hundreds of oceans and many times the age of the Earth for random chemistry to achieve a workable, living cell.

Alas for the Creationists of that day, Hoyle and Wickramasinge did not turn out to be useful as friendly experts, because their alternative offered no comfort to the biblical Genesis story. They pointed out that our galaxy probably contains a whole lot more than a few hundred Earth oceans. Multiplying the age of the Milky Way times many billions of possible planets — and comets too — they readily conceded that random chance could make successful cells, eventually, on one world or another. (Or, possibly, in the liquid interiors of trillions of newborn comets.) All it would take then are asteroid impacts ejecting hardy cells into the void for life to then spread gradually throughout the cosmos. Perhaps it might even be done deliberately, once a single lucky source world achieved intelligence through … well … evolution. (Needless to say, Creationists found Hoyle & Wickramasinge a big disappointment.)

So far, we have amassed quite a list of legitimate competitors … that is, if Intelligent Design is one. Now a cautionary pause. Some alternative theories that I have left out include satirical pseudo-religions, like one recent internet fad attributing creation to something called the “Flying Spaghetti Monster.” These humorous jibes have a place, but their blows do not land on-target. They miss the twin pillars of completeness and fair play, upon which promoters of Intelligent Design have based their attack against secular-modernist science. By erasing all theological details, they hoped to eliminate any vulnerabilities arising from those details. Indeed, since the Spaghetti Monster is purported to be an Intelligent Designer, they can even chuckle and welcome it into the fold, knowing that it will win no real converts.

Not so for the items listed here. Each of these concepts — adding to idea-space completeness and deserving fair play — implies a dangerous competitor for Intelligent Design, a competitor that may seduce at least a few students into its sphere of influence. This undermines the implicit goal of ID, which is to proselytize a fundamentalist/literalist interpretation of the Christian Bible.

There are other possibilities, and I am sure readers could continue adding to the list, long after I am done, such as…

* We’re living in a simulation… * We’ve been resurrected at the Omega Point… * It’s all in your imagination … and so on.

I doubt that the promoters of Intelligent Design really want to see a day come when every biology teacher says: “Okay, you’ve heard from Darwin. Now we’ll spend a week on each of the following: intelligent design, guided evolution, intelligent design of intelligent designers, evolution of intelligent designers, the Hindu cycle of karma, the Mayan yuga cycle, panspermia, the Universe as a simulation…” and so on.

Each of these viewpoints can muster support from philosophers and even some modern physicists, and can gather as much supporting evidence as ID. In any case they are all equally defensible as concepts. And only censoring bullies would prevent students from hearing them and exercising their sovereign right to decide for themselves, right? Or, perhaps, they might even start private sessions after school, to study the science called … biology.

A day may come when the promoters of Intelligent Design wish they had left well enough alone.

And your claims are supported by what? Hearsay and speculation and theory.

Actually, they are supported by physical evidence. Your use of the word "theory" suggests that you are unfamiliar with the meaning of the word in a scientific context.

All you have is theories.

A scientific explanation must accumulate a great deal of evidence and gain widespread confidence before it is termed "theory". I have a theory. You, however, do not have any explanation that rises ot the level of theory.

Funny how you want me to look into the minds of people who are dead and state what they were thinking and what they based their ideas on, when you can't even do that.

You made a claim that the theory of evolution is a "lie". This suggests that you are aware of a specific motive to deceive in its creation. I am only asking that you demonstrate the very claim that you made. I do not understand why you are upset with me for requesting that you demonstrate that your claims are factual.

Gobbeldygook does not pass for science. Sorry to say however, it does however fool many many people and you can vouch for that.

Indeed. It appears that you have heard a great deal of "gobbeldygook", but have not in any way studied actual science.

You made a claim that the theory of evolution is a "lie". This suggests that you are aware of a specific motive to deceive in its creation. I am only asking that you demonstrate the very claim that you made. I do not understand why you are upset with me for requesting that you demonstrate that your claims are factual.

Let me explain this to you reeeeeaaaalllll slow. You nor anyone else can or ever has demonstrated evolution. Therefore, to say it is true is a lie. Get it?

Post# 237 has already done that.

I mistakenly thought that you had referenced the text of post #241. Post #237 does not, in any way, demonstrate that "Evolutionists have obtained a result and everything they discover is devised to fit that result." In post #237 you attempt to make an excuse for refusing to support a claim with evidence, and then offer a rather meaningless poem for reasons that I cannot fathom.

Thus far you have claimed that evolution is a lie, but you have not supported the claim. You have claimed that I will reject any evidence that you present, but you have not supported that claim, nor have you even presented any evidence at all. You have also claimed that "Evolutionists have obtained a result and everything they discover is devised to fit that result." and, like your previous claims, you have offered no evidence to support the statement.

Thus far you have claimed that evolution is a lie, but you have not supported the claim. You have claimed that I will reject any evidence that you present, but you have not supported that claim, nor have you even presented any evidence at all. You have also claimed that "Evolutionists have obtained a result and everything they discover is devised to fit that result." and, like your previous claims, you have offered no evidence to support the statement.

I am impressed. You have actually been reading my posts. And here all along I thought you were just reciting from a cheat sheet.

And you have given exactly zero facts that support evolution that can be proven.

No theory in science is ever proven. I cannot show that the theory behind gravity can be proven, or that atomic theory can be proven. Your objection is meaningless; I have never claimed that any scientific theory can be proven, thus I do not need to show evidence for a claim that I have not made. You, however, have made a number of claims and have provided evidence for none of them.

Then your claims (albeit indirect and by inference) that there is no contradiction of the theory of evolution and reality are without genuine facts are unsupportable in a true sense, and therefore baseless.

You have yet to offer any evidence your claims are remotely true, forget about the feints as to whether a particular theory can be proven. Yet you continue to relentlessly (and with an obsession bordering over the edge of bizarre) attempt to make this belief of yours a reality in the minds of others, why?

BTW, I will put this slowly and gently to you as not to disrupt that fragile brittle locked into a tight circle of a mind there, reality is not decided by vote, even a vote of evo cultists.

Wolf

So, for me to say a certain theory in science is a lie, is no different than those who say it is the truth.

You have set up a false analogy. Theories are not established as absolute "truth". They are merely the best explanation to explain events given observations and evidence. You, however, have claimed that the theory of evolution is a claim known to be false by the people who present it as an explanation. You have provided no evidence to support your libel against the individuals who present evolution as the best explanation for species diversity.

You have set up a false analogy. Theories are not established as absolute "truth". They are merely the best explanation to explain events given observations and evidence.

If it is not "truth" then for me to say it is a lie put forward as truth is correct. Selling best science or best explanation as truth is a lie. Face this fact and you will be the better for it.

For it to be a lie, the people making the claims must know that their claims are false. You have yet to demonstrate this, nor have you even demonstrated that the claims are false.

And for you to say their claims are true you must demonstrate this. However, you have already stated that it can't be demonstrated. So what do you call believing something that hasn't been proven? And, why should it be allowed to be taught as truth?

And for you to say their claims are true you must demonstrate this.

I say that their claims are, thus far, the best explanation for given observations. You are attempting to hold me to claims that I have not made.

However, you have already stated that it can't be demonstrated.

I have stated that the claims cannot be proven, like all claims in science. However, there is substantial evidence supporting the claims.

So what do you call believing something that hasn't been proven?

That depends on the "something" in question, and the evidence presented for it.

And, why should it be allowed to be taught as truth?

How do you believe that it should be taught?

I say that their claims are, thus far, the best explanation for given observations.

I wonder how many people would be in prison if "best explanation" was the deciding data used to convict someone. I have stated that the claims cannot be proven, like all claims in science.

I disagree with you. There are some claims in science which can be proven. How about a fossil? Science says it is a remnant from the past. That can be proven. Science says that the planets orbit the earth. That can be proven. How do you believe that it should be taught?

I believe it shouldn't be taught. I thought education was about teaching truths. If it isn't, then many claims could be pushed as "best explanation" and taught as if truth. Why are those who believe in the Biblical account of creation and the science that backs it up as "best explanation" considered wackos and their science considered flawed? You know why and so do I. Wouldn't want Satan's lie to be trampled on.

I wonder how many people would be in prison if "best explanation" was the deciding data used to convict someone.

Criminal justice is more than determining how an event happened, but also exactly who caused it happen. Thus, there is more information used to determine a verdict -- which, as you must know, is not always correct.

I disagree with you. There are some claims in science which can be proven. How about a fossil? Science says it is a remnant from the past. That can be proven.

Actually, that would be a definition rather than an explanation.

Science says that the planets orbit the earth. That can be proven.

I was unaware that it can be proven that planets orbit the Earth. In fact, I was under the impression that current astrophysics says that this does not occur.

I believe it shouldn't be taught.

Why?

I thought education was about teaching truths.

Science education is about teaching established science.

If it isn't, then many claims could be pushed as "best explanation" and taught as if truth.

So you are suggesting that nothing be explained in science?

Why are those who believe in the Biblical account of creation and the science that backs it up as "best explanation" considered wackos and their science considered flawed?

Please provide the scientific evidence that "backs up" the Biblical account of creation. Thus far, that explanation is excluded because there is no evidence that "backs it up" as science.

You know why and so do I. Wouldn't want Satan's lie to be trampled on.

On the contrary, I do not "know" this. Please explain "Satan's lie", and demonstrate that it actually is a lie from an individual known as "Satan".

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.