What About Intelligent Design?

Copyright 2010, John Manimas Medeiros

What about "intelligent design"? You suggest in your book that there may be intelligent beings who played a role in the development of life on Earth, or, you say that God might be superior to us but not the creator of the universe. Isn't that the same as defending "intelligent design"?

The conflict or "competition" between evolution and intelligent design is both contrived and misleading. There is no serious conflict between the two viewpoints. I would argue that they in fact do not qualify as two viewpoints; they are actually only slightly different statements of the same viewpoint. That single viewpoint is essentially the observation that Nature, or more specifically, the variety of species, appears to occur through some form of intelligent or logical process. The evolutionary development of new species over time appears to be caused by what Darwin called "natural selection," which means of course simply that the environmental or ecological conditions of nature, or a particular location in the natural world, a niche, favor the survival of a plant or animal, with a particular set of characteristics. Therefore, because substantial numbers of the animal survive long enough to reproduce viable offspring, that animal is perpetuated, or is a survivor of the trials of living in a world of abundant life competing for space and resources. Although this is a reasonable, brief summary of the theory of evolution, it still is supportive of the concept that the variety of species appear to have come about through a kind of intelligent or logical mechanism. The concept of intelligent design implies that the reason there are blue birds and white birds and yellow birds is because all living things were created by God, a human-like or anthropomorphic person, and God wanted birds of different colors. All the variety in the world, among plants, insects, fish and mammals, exists because an anthropomorphic person made colorful and decorative choices, similar to a carpenter building a house and then a housewife or homemaker chooses the wallpaper, paints, lighting and curtains. We get the same results, except that the vigorous defenders of intelligent design insist that because there appears to be some form of intelligence operating in the universe of living things, that is proof that there is a humanoid person who has created all living things, just like an artist who sculpts a statue or a retired man builds a birdhouse.

The error or weak and unscientific argument of those who defend intelligent design is there insistence that if there is a sign of intelligence, or logic, in any natural process, then that is proof that there is a person behind it. Any sign of intelligence or logic is a sign of a humanoid action or operation, and the defenders of intelligent design don't seem to even realize the shaky foundation of their argument is that only a humanoid or anthropomorphic being could possibly possess any form of "intelligence." I argue therefore, that the key to understanding the contrived debate that is published that is supposedly a hot disagreement between scientists and "religionists" is not based on whether or not one has faith, or whether or not one is religious. The core and key of the single viewpoint that gets divided into two viewpoints is all about what is the valid definition of "intelligence" and "intelligent."

Those who defend what they call "intelligent design" assume, without question or any doubt whatsoever, that intelligent means human and only human. But botanists and biologists, geneticists and zoologists, and psychologists, all those who pursue what we call the "life sciences" persistently discover and rediscover and observe in awed amazement that logical and intelligent phenomenon, including intelligence in animals, is probably one of the first and most common perceptions of any scientist. Yes, of course, we can all agree that there appears to be intelligence operating in nature and the development of both living and non-living matter. But that does not mean that a humanoid person is the source of the universe, it is just as likely, and most scientists would say far more likely, that our traditional definition of "intelligence" is anthropomorphic, and wrong or at least too narrow. What naturalists usually find awesome about the natural world, whether they be professional scientists or hikers or gardeners or bird watchers, is that there is a logic to life, and that probably means that life is itself logical. There is no need for a person to create or invent everything that lives. Nature probably is driven by a force or pattern that we can call "intelligence" from its very beginnings. The "intelligence" that we see can simply be the "intelligence" of Nature, and that is why we see it: because it is visible and can be observed.

If one studies the details of genetics and evolutionary science, one cannot escape the logic of it. Things happen for a reason. The development of life, reproduction, sexuality, the variety of species, the amazingly diverse strategies that occur in the plant and animal world that result in survival, all reveal a kind of intelligence at the core of Nature. That intelligence might be the soul, the spirit, the Holy Spirit that is the invisible breath that exists in all living things. But it is not a person; it is Nature. Mother Nature. The Mother of all things.

Link back to: (Journey List) or (Welcome) page text links or (JMDM 2010).