Intelligent Design Theory

Every once in a while, the subject of incorporating intelligent design theory in high school science curricula. At the root of the debate is some sensitive, and often misunderstood, information. To tackle the issue of intelligent design theory, it's important to analyze what intelligent design theory is and isn't, and what the limits of science curricula are and ought to be. I need to stress that I'm not talking about intelligent design - the idea that God created the world with an idea in mind- but am strictly talking about intelligent design theory - the idea that the world is too complex to not have an intelligent creator behind it.

First, intelligent design theory. The fundamentals of intelligent design theory rest on the argument that some things are too complex for us to wrap our heads around (e.g. DNA methylation, orientation of DNA, etc.), therefore they couldn't have arisen by chance. In other words, the things we don't understand are of God's doing. Such an approach makes God a "fill-in-the-blank" God, whose being begins where our knowledge ends. There are dangers in having such a definition of God as the boundaries of our knowledge are constantly shifting with new discoveries. Our body of knowledge now is vastly different from a century ago. Western society used to believe God lived above the sky and that diseases such as cholera or Bubonic plague were God's punishments for our wickedness. Space programs showed God to be invisible above the skies, while advancements in microbiology showed bacteria to be the culprit behind cholera and Bubonic plague. If our definition of God is to fill in the blank of everything we can't explain, science will eventually destroy God as less and less blank space exists in our knowledge of the natural order. Intelligent design theory therefore will continually have to redefine its idea of God and cannot survive lon-term if the limits of our knowledge are used as a basis to define who or what God really is.

The other spin on intelligent design theory is that the inherent complexity of life points to an intelligent mastermind, but complexity is not conclusive proof of God's existence. Complexity in the natural order can exist without God's presence and God's presence can exist without complexity in the natural order, so God and complexity are mutually exclusive. If we expect complexity to be a prerequisite for God's existence, then we are creating our own God by setting arbitrary standards. This is improper because then God becomes a figment of our mental creation, rather than an independent entity, which violates the assumptions of Christianity. Christianity is based on the idea that God exists and we are a result of his existence, not the other way around. It is therefore crucial that we not use complexity as an arbitrary standard of proof for God's existence but actively search conclusive evidence for God's existence.

Should intelligent design theory be taught in scientific curricula, then? The answer is a clear no. Science curricula should only contain scientific theories. One of the main pillars of intelligent design theory is that complexity cannot come about on its own, therefore it must be God's doing. Scientifically, this is riddled with inaccuracies. There is no objective, conclusive evidence presented of the inability of complexity to exist on its own. More importantly, the link between complexity and God is unproven and is based on artistic feeling rather than objective reasoning. The scientific method is based on evidence and deductive reasoning, which is clearly absent in intelligent design theory, but not in evolution theory. This is why evolution theory, based on fossils, dating, red shift, etc., is objective and deserves a place in scientific curricula, while intelligent design theory does not. What science curricula ought to do is to include evolution theory, exclude intelligent design theory, while emphasizing that evolution theory by itself does not prove or disprove the existence of God. Just because evolution flies in the face of a 5000 year old scientific theory doesn't mean God doesn't exist. It may just mean that our scientific capacity 5000 years ago isn't as enhanced as it is now. The point of science curricula is to teach science, not religion. Schools should stick to that.