A Solution to the Debate on Intelligent Design

All over the world in majority Christian countries a heated debate is raging over whether or not the theory of 'Intelligent Design' should be taught in school science lessons alongside the Darwinian theory of evolution. Christian creationist on one hand and scientific purists on the other hand line up to deride the other's views. What I would like to suggest here is that the terms of this debate have been allowed to become defined by the antagonism and distrust that each group feels towards the other; it has become a war of attrition rather than a reasoned debate. It seems to me that the prevailing arguments onboth sides of the debate are mistaken, and that if people could see past these tribal divisions between science and religion a solution could be found which would satisfy both sides. In fact, I would like to suggest just such a solution here.

Before I come to the solution however, it will be useful to look briefly at what the theory of Intelligent Design is actually about, and what he main arguments for and against it being taught in schools actually are. Essentially the theory of Intelligent Design puts forward the idea that the universe was created by God. In this it is a theory of creationism, but it differs from other theories of creationism in that it is not based the dogmas of any particular religion, and in that it is derived from reasoning and logical argument rather than divine revelation. Intelligent design doesn't even really talk about God, as such, but rather 'a designer', although this designer is naturally equated with God. The origins of this theory come from the fact that scientific inquiry has shown us that an ordered universe capable of sustaining living beings within it is actually the result of an incredibly unlikely set of coincidences. There are many, many 'constants' in nature, such as the constant value of the speed of light, which all fit together in perfect harmony to create the kind of universe we inhabit. Through 'thought experiments' and computer modeling and such like it has been shown that if any of these values were to be even the slightest bit different the kind of universe which could support life would not have developed. If at the beginning of the universe all of these values had simply been chosen at random the chances of them coming together to create a structured and ordered universe capable of sustaining any kind of life form which we are able to imagine existing would be so small that they are statistically insignificant. This is known as the 'Goldilocks Principle', because it appears that the universe is 'just right#' for us. Therefore the theory of Intelligent Design states that the most reasonable and logical theory about the origins of the universe has to include some notion of deliberate design - some agency capable of foreseeing the effects of different combinations of constants and choosing the best ones.

Because this theory is based on a logical analysis of the facts, rather than on belief or religious dogma, its proponents are adamant that it should be taught in schools science lessons alongside conventional scientific theories about the origins of man and the universe, such as the 'big bang' theory and Darwin's evolutionary theory of 'natural selection'. On the other side of the debate scientists point out that the theory of Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory; this is because of two main reasons 1) The proponents have not followed the scientific method in obtaining this theory, because they began with the conclusion and then set about finding evidence for it, and 2) The concept of and intelligent designer is not necessary to explain the known facts. This second point may not seem like a very forceful argument, but it is actually crucial. One might also point out that the fact that the universe is set up 'just right' for human existence doesn't say anything at all, because if it wasn't we wouldn't be here to discuss the fact, and what's more we have no reason to believe that our universe is the only one- there may be an infinite number of universes, the majority of which may be completely barren. Thus we have the religious community saying that the theory of Intelligent Design does not belong to the realm of religion, and should be taught in science lessons, and the scientific community saying that the theory of Intelligent Design does not belong in the realm of science, and should be taught, if at all, in religious education, and in this way it is shunted back and forth.

I said at the beginning of this article that I thought both sides of the debate were mistaken. Before I go on to say why think that this is the case let me also say that I think they are both right - the theory of Intelligent Design is not another religious dogma, and neither is it based solely upon belief. So the religious community is correct. But at the same time it really isn't science. So the Scientific community is right.

What you have to understand is that the whole basis of what science is, it's raison d'etre, is not the scientific theories themselves, but rather the method of investigation by which those theories are established. Right at the birth of science in the seventeenth century is Descartes and his theory of radical doubt. Science was not created, and does not exist now, so that we can know everything there is to know; it was created so that we could have a body of knowledge about which we can be certain, a body of knowledge about which there can be no doubt. Science is based on direct observations and experiments, and those inferences which flow necessarily from these observations. In order to maintain this certainty of scientific knowledge a principle has been established called 'Occam's razor' which states that any concept which is not necessary to explain the known facts should be excluded from scientific inquiry. If you do not follow the scientific method in obtaining a theory, and if that theory is not absolutely essential to explain something, then that theory is not science. Science can describe the processes involved in the early development of the universe, but it cannot describe how or why it was created in the first place because there is not evidence to base such a theory on. And it is also true that there are other theories which explain the Goldilocks principle (particularly in the field of quantum physics) which are based entirely on the observed fact without the need to postulate a supernatural entity. Therefore although the theory of Intelligent Design seems like the most reasonable and logical explanation, this cannot change the fact that it just isn't science. I would also like to point out that the theory of Intelligent Design does not contradict Darwin's theory of natural selection. It simply postulates the existence of an intelligent designer, and says nothing about how such a designer went about encompassing his task; it would be entirely reasonable to suggest that such a designer might have used evolution as an effective way to create humanity. So the idea that Intelligent Design should be taught alongside the theory of evolution to show that there are alternatives falls at the first hurdle, because Intelligent Design is a completely different subject, and does not relate to evolution in any way.

So, having summarized the arguments on both sides and made a few preliminary observations about them let me put forward my conclusion: the theory of Intelligent design is neither religion nor science - it is philosophy. I personally feel that the keepers of both science and religion have become so arrogant in their assumption that they have all the answers that they have forgotten anything else exists. Any objective look at the issue, without the baggage of either of the entrenched sides, clearly shows that Intelligent Design is an important philosophical theory.

I must confess here that I have some small ulterior motive in writing this. I am convinced that our children would benefit greatly from a greater study of philosophy in school. Philosophy teaches you how to think correctly and how to live well, as well as addressing the fundamental questions of existence, many of which are beyond the remit of science. And as an added benefit it would mean that Intelligent Design could be included in the school syllabus, and even discussed as an alternative to prevailing scientific theories, without forcing scientists to compromise the founding principles of their discipline.

Scientists and the religious put themselves forward as sages - those who know, but we should also make some space for those who recognize that they do not know, but would like to find out; and that is, according to the origins and meaning of the word itself, the realm of philosophy.