Intelligent Design is the theory which states that by all mathematical probability it is nearly impossible that the universe came together as it did without some plan or design behind it. And if there is a design then there must be a designer. The theory itself does not speculate as to who that designer might be -- an alien race, a committee, an impersonal being, or the personal God of Judaism and Christianity.
Most of the theorists are also Christians and that's why the scientific community tends to see the theory as an attempt to insert religion "into a place it doesn't belong -- science."
Of course, the ID people, while agreeing that their faith led them to pursue mathematical probabilities, assert that they have been careful to separate the two. They are not advocating a particular religious perspective. When wearing their ID hats they are not speculating on the identity or nature of the designer(s).
The current scientific establishment advocates a form of Darwinian evolution which states that everything changes and develops through a process of random occurrences. The direct biological evidence points that direction. Regardless of the probability factor that is just the way it is. Perhaps the mathematicians are missing something in their formulas.
As I see it, the real issue for debate, rather than who gets to teach what in the schools, is, are these two perspectives absolutely antithetical to each other?
While I don't believe that science will ever be able to prove or disprove the existence of God (he's too big to be boxed in by our theories) I do believe that the more the theorists talk to each other (and the less they ridicule each other) the more they will (1) understand what the other is actually saying, and (2) find that they are not nearly as far apart as they think they are. Even some casual respect will go a long way in this debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment