I'm not one who questions the evidence given to us by science concerning evolution. But I’m also not one who will be intellectually satisfied by what science teaches us about the world. My quest for meaning is too strong for that. Science can tell me what an atom is made of, but it can’t tell me why that atom is actually there. It can’t tell me why a bunch of atoms have structured themselves together into a thinking and relatively conscious human being. Science can’t tell me if my deceased loved ones still exist beyond my memories of them. It can’t tell me what is the meaning and purpose of my life.
Perhaps science will reach a point where it can truly tackle these issues but that day is still far. For now, the scientific method can at least give us precious knowledge, helping us give a deeper perspective to our existential questions which in the end, really belong to philosophy.
The concept of intelligent design deals with one of these fundamental existential/philosophical questions. Is there a source of intelligence to which we can attribute the cause and roots of the existence of the Earth’s biosystem?
Science can go a long way into explaining biological mechanisms, but it can’t tell us whether these mechanisms are the result of intelligent creativity.
If we were to land on Mars and discover a huge machine extracting minerals from the planet, we would without a doubt conclude that this mineral extracting machine was built by intelligent beings. Why? Because we know very well there isn’t a chance in the world this machine could have built itself by chance. Because we recognize intelligence when we see it. The machine has a clear purpose: extracting minerals.
We apply the same reasoning when we see a heart carved into a tree with a name in it. We know a thinking person carved it into the tree because it’s totally illogical to think otherwise. While the purpose of the carved heart isn’t as clear as the mineral extracting machine, it is at least crystal clear it originates from an action that was thought out by a person of relative intelligence.
What about life itself? Plants, bacteria, animals and human beings? What about the mechanisms of biology? Is there intelligence behind the phenomenon of life? Why is it so hard to answer that question? And why do some people think they can answer it with so much conviction? The problem with the ID concept applied to life and biology is that the observed subject is so damned rich and complex that it’s very hard to imagine the intelligence that would be behind all this. It’s easy to recognize human activity when we see it because we ourselves are human. We recognize one another. After discovering the mineral extracting machine on Mars, we would either conclude the ones who built the machines are extraterrestrial beings relatively similar to us in their way of thinking or that the builders were humans who came to Mars without us being aware of it! But when we question the possible intelligent source of biological life itself, we are in a whole other ball game. The intelligence needed to come up with such an elaborate system would be so incredibly superior to ours it’s hard to conceptualize it.
Fact is, there is nothing magic about life and biology; no physical laws are broken. It all seems explainable by science to a certain extent, as long as we don’t ask why such a thing exists at all. If we are to conclude there is intelligence behind the process of life, we might as well conclude this intelligence is behind the existence of the universe (or megaverse) itself. But that is quite a leap of faith. To the materialist, life is not special at all; it is simply the result of mechanic laws and principles in action. When you drop a rock, it will fall on the ground because of gravity. No intelligence there… Or is there? Can the concept of intelligent design be applied to the laws of physics?
My conclusion to all this is that whether or not you see some form of intelligent design in life and the universe itself is all a question of personal subjectivity. Can we really be objective on the subject? We can try, and science can certainly help us a lot, but I believe we must accept the limits of the scientific method into giving meaning to life itself. Science should stop spitting on the concept of ID as if it was a primitive and stupid concept. The concept of ID belongs to philosophy and if scientists want to debate it, they must accept to not think exclusively in scientific terms. The same should apply to religious folks who use the concept to pursue their agenda. Most human beings don’t have the same religion as you so you might as well accept debating on the neutral ground philosophy offers us.
Perhaps science will reach a point where it can truly tackle these issues but that day is still far. For now, the scientific method can at least give us precious knowledge, helping us give a deeper perspective to our existential questions which in the end, really belong to philosophy.
The concept of intelligent design deals with one of these fundamental existential/philosophical questions. Is there a source of intelligence to which we can attribute the cause and roots of the existence of the Earth’s biosystem?
Science can go a long way into explaining biological mechanisms, but it can’t tell us whether these mechanisms are the result of intelligent creativity.
If we were to land on Mars and discover a huge machine extracting minerals from the planet, we would without a doubt conclude that this mineral extracting machine was built by intelligent beings. Why? Because we know very well there isn’t a chance in the world this machine could have built itself by chance. Because we recognize intelligence when we see it. The machine has a clear purpose: extracting minerals.
We apply the same reasoning when we see a heart carved into a tree with a name in it. We know a thinking person carved it into the tree because it’s totally illogical to think otherwise. While the purpose of the carved heart isn’t as clear as the mineral extracting machine, it is at least crystal clear it originates from an action that was thought out by a person of relative intelligence.
What about life itself? Plants, bacteria, animals and human beings? What about the mechanisms of biology? Is there intelligence behind the phenomenon of life? Why is it so hard to answer that question? And why do some people think they can answer it with so much conviction? The problem with the ID concept applied to life and biology is that the observed subject is so damned rich and complex that it’s very hard to imagine the intelligence that would be behind all this. It’s easy to recognize human activity when we see it because we ourselves are human. We recognize one another. After discovering the mineral extracting machine on Mars, we would either conclude the ones who built the machines are extraterrestrial beings relatively similar to us in their way of thinking or that the builders were humans who came to Mars without us being aware of it! But when we question the possible intelligent source of biological life itself, we are in a whole other ball game. The intelligence needed to come up with such an elaborate system would be so incredibly superior to ours it’s hard to conceptualize it.
Fact is, there is nothing magic about life and biology; no physical laws are broken. It all seems explainable by science to a certain extent, as long as we don’t ask why such a thing exists at all. If we are to conclude there is intelligence behind the process of life, we might as well conclude this intelligence is behind the existence of the universe (or megaverse) itself. But that is quite a leap of faith. To the materialist, life is not special at all; it is simply the result of mechanic laws and principles in action. When you drop a rock, it will fall on the ground because of gravity. No intelligence there… Or is there? Can the concept of intelligent design be applied to the laws of physics?
My conclusion to all this is that whether or not you see some form of intelligent design in life and the universe itself is all a question of personal subjectivity. Can we really be objective on the subject? We can try, and science can certainly help us a lot, but I believe we must accept the limits of the scientific method into giving meaning to life itself. Science should stop spitting on the concept of ID as if it was a primitive and stupid concept. The concept of ID belongs to philosophy and if scientists want to debate it, they must accept to not think exclusively in scientific terms. The same should apply to religious folks who use the concept to pursue their agenda. Most human beings don’t have the same religion as you so you might as well accept debating on the neutral ground philosophy offers us.
