A Thought on the Intelligent Design/Evolution “Debate”
This post originates, in part, from overhearing the claims of an ID proponent on the Fourth of July, when he argued against a drunk hippie about 50 feet from where I sat. The only thing stopping me from joining the debate was that he was an ex-marine who was in no mood to have a friendly conversation regarding our different views.
But there is more than one inspiration for this post.
Over the last three years, I’ve found myself agreeing with the postmodern world-view that sees Truth and Objectivity as unknowable entities. In most instances, I am completely comfortable with this perspective. But whenever I think about the debate between Intelligent Design theorists and evolutionary theorists, I start to wonder about the nuanced view that I seem to hold, the view that shows ID as a poor replacement for evolution. Furthermore, I am curious as to why I feel the need to defend the case of evolution. After all, if there is no knowable Truth, what harm does it do to believe in the “fiction” of intelligent design (as opposed to the “fiction” of evolution)?
I am still formulating my thoughts on that last question. I have the basic thesis (the theory of ID stifles the progress of science) but I don’t have the specific moves of the argument (specifically, the explanation of how the “Truth or fiction” dichotomy is false). So instead of trying to make those moves here, I am going to do the opposite. That is, instead of sitting on my side of the chessboard, I’m going to try to see how I would move if I was on the other end.
I am moving to the other side of the table because, while I am certain that evolution provides a better picture of life-as-we-can-know-it than does Intelligent Design, I sympathize with the motivating principle of ID; that is, I sympathize with the desire to find a place for God.
The major mistake made by ID theory is attributable, I think, to its focus on evolution.
Here’s what evolution says: given the existence of matter, space, and an incomprehensible span of time, intelligent life can arise from chaos. While this may seem incoherent in a universe where we have increasing entropy (re: the second law of thermodynamics), we must remember what Ray Kurzweil wrote:
The order of life takes place amid great chaos, and the existence of life-forms does not appreciably affect the measure of entropy in the larger system where life has evolved…[i.e.] the order represented by the existence of life-forms is insignificant in terms of measuring overall entropy. (pp. 12-13)
Kurzweil makes it easy to see why the creation of increased order needed by evolution does not contradict the creation of increased entropy needed by the second law of thermodynamics.
The hole in the general theory of evolution that provides the place where God’s presence can hide from us is in the pre-existence of its givens. Evolution cannot explain the existence of matter. It cannot explain the existence of space. And it cannot explain the existence of time.
But here’s the thing: It’s not supposed to!
The refrain sung by the ex-marine on the Fourth of July was that evolution cannot explain how the something comes from nothing. But because evolution is not intended to explain that process, to use that as a rebuttal against its claims is like saying I can’t win the football game because I don’t know how to swing a bat. It confuses the issue entirely.
I suggest, then, that those who want to find a place for God focus their efforts on science’s explanation for the existence of time, space, and matter. In other words, go back one frame in the movie of the universe if they want to see God act.
Now, I realize that I am not trying to advance any of the claims of Intelligent Design in this piece. This is because I can’t consciously agree with any of them. When I said that I was on ID’s side of the chessboard, I didn’t mean I would defend the moves it had taken up until now. I simply meant that I would share its goal: to keep its King alive despite the offensive maneuvers of science.
Of course, to state “survival” as the only goal of the game is deny the need for “victory.” For those who want nothing less than the triumph of Theology over Science, there is nothing I can do. Simply put, the destruction of science is not a project to which I can contribute.
I am suggesting Intelligent Design theorists take on a position that reflects theistic naturalism, which is the concept that a Universe-Creator exists, but that Its role is analogous to the role of the woman with the starting gun: She may start the race, but she doesn’t influence it once it has begun. If I have any concept of a self-aware God, this is the most influence that I am willing to give to It.
As I’m sure you can imagine, many, many theists refuse to accept my demoted notion of God. Which is why, regardless of my helpful suggestions, ID theorists will continue their futile attack on the concept of evolution.
(Remember, however, that its attacks are only futile if the people who disagree with ID continue to talk about it, so let’s make sure we keep talking about it; that is, we must continue to counter any offensive maneuvers made by ID because, while we can accept its presence on the board, we cannot allow it to achieve victory).