Monday, February 1, 2010

Why I am not in favour of Intelligent Design

When I read Phillip Johnson’s REASON IN THE BALANCE it occurs to me that he is arguing against too much of naturalistic elements in American public life. By ‘naturalistic’ he meant atheistic elements. Since Johnson is a leader of ID movement one may fairly infer that ID folks are workinga to expel atheistic/naturalistic elements using Science. Though such conclusion may differ with ID motive that’s the way I have heard many people say, and their perception is not different from mine.

I understand ID’s argument to be based on the premise that Darwinian mechanism viz random mutation and natural selection, are not sufficient to give rise to certain component of the universe or of living organism, and such complex component is best explained to have caused by an intelligent designer. All Christians agree that the universe is designed. All Christians also agree that all living organisms are designed. The question “how?”.

I don’t think Darwinian mechanism of random mutation and natural selection pose any threat to Christian thought. For me the choice is not random mutation and natural selection or intelligent designer. I see it quite perfect to say the intelligent designer would have used random mutation and natural selection to cause the universe or living organism.

Another problem I see with ID is that though it does not claim to have religious tone it is perceived that way by most people that I know of, at least here in India. I don’t think most ID proponents can honestly say that there is no underlying religious current. After all wasn't it designed primarily to counter atheistic elements? If Christians in the West like Dembski, Behe, Johnson et al can bring in religious tone ie Christian tone, into Science what would be the state of Science if Hindus bring in Vedic tone into Scientific enterprise in India? University Grant Commission, India, is planning to introduce Astrology into universities and colleges in India soon. I am against such move by UGC. Just because definition of Science is vague and parameters for a scientific theory to be valid is not neatly set, one should not bring in Astrology or even ID into Science. I can understand study of Astrology /ID under Religion or History etc, but it does not merit entry into Science Department. This does not at all mean that Religion/History is inferior to Science. It’s just that each discipline should remain within its own domain.

1 comment:

  1. Thumps Up..Jeremaih and keep writing.
    The sad thing is we've allowed athiests to hijack the words like Nature/Natural, Random, Chance, etc.

    ReplyDelete