Yes, you’ve read the article’s title correctly. So now you’re probably wondering why a metaphysical writer is against the concept of life being created by an intelligent designer. The truth is, I’m not against the concept –I firmly believe in a Supreme Being– I’m against the community of individuals trying to push intelligent design as science, and thus into science classrooms across the country.
Intelligent design (ID) is the assumption that life on earth is simply too complex to have been created by undirected mechanisms; therefore, the origin of life is best explained as being created by an intelligent designer. Supporters of ID aren’t satisfied with the theory of evolution.
As you may already know from some of my previous articles, I come from a scientific background. In my world, science and metaphysics (i.e. paranormal, supernatural phenomena) are able to peacefully coexist –I don’t put all my eggs in one basket. There’s not a doubt in my mind that organisms on earth have evolved, and are evolving. The evidence is too significant in quality and quantity for me to dismiss it. I accept the theory of evolution, but I also believe in a metaphysical basis for life and the universe as a whole. If you think my previous statement was contradictory, you’re likely one of the many victims of misconceptions pertaining to evolution.
Intelligent Design is Not Science
It doesn’t matter how you try to spin it, ID is not science. Science is the study of the physical world. Science is purely objective; phenomena being tested must be observable, measurable, and empirical. The reason ID is not science is because there’s no way of testing, observing, nor measuring it in an empirical fashion. ID is fundamentally a philosophical argument, and in my opinion, an interesting one. However, ID cannot be added to science textbooks because it’s only an assumption. Supporters of ID are assuming that life is too complex to have evolved from simpler forms –they’re not proving it.
In science, assumptions need to be backed up by empirical evidence. Once there’s empirical evidence, and a cause-and-effect relationship is established, it then needs to be reproduced by other, independent scientists. If other scientists are able to reproduce the relationship, then –typically– the rest of the scientific community will accept the relationship, and then it goes into science textbooks. This has not happened with ID.
Evolution is Real
The theory of evolution is just as real as the theory of gravity. Essentially, evolution is descent with modification; every new generation is slightly modified from the preceding generation. A real-world example of descent with modification is the annual flu shot. The reason there’s a new one every year is because the flu virus is constantly evolving.
When the flu virus hijacks our cells, it essentially tricks the cells into making more of the virus. Eventually, however, one of the newborn viruses will be slightly different than the original virus. That slight difference usually means the modified newborn virus will be resistant to the current flu vaccine. So, while all the original viruses are dying off, the new strain of viruses are replicating, replicating, replicating, until eventually they’re all over the place. Then, the next year, a new vaccine will be issued for the new strain. But guess what, the same thing will happen again, and so the cycle continues. The flu vaccine example is a form of microevolution. Microevolution can literally be witnessed in realtime under a microscope.
There’s been a large amount of evidence compiled that demonstrates how one form of life evolves into another form of life with relatively significant differences in traits. This body of evidence is known as the fossil record. The fossil record shows scientists the transitional stages a particular organism evolved through. For example, there are transitional fossils to support the notion that dinosaurs evolved from birds. The logic behind transitional fossils is, “If ‘A’ descended from ‘E’, then there must be proof of the transition, which means ‘B’, ‘C’, and ‘D’ must be found to make the connection (B, C, and D being the transitional fossils).”
Intelligent Design is the New Creationism
In most cases, ID is used as a guise to push Creationist –religious– beliefs into science classrooms. The ID assumption doesn’t make any claims as to who the intelligent designer actually is. The designer, according to ID, could be any form of superior intelligence –it doesn’t specifically cite a godly intelligence. Therefore, according to supporters of ID, the designer could just as likely be aliens (i.e. aliens who planted the seed of life on earth).
By evading to specify a designer, supporters of ID have created a semi-loophole in the legal principle of the separation of church and state. Before ID, the only other “alternative” to the theory of evolution was Creationism (i.e. the Book of Genesis). Teaching Creationism in public schools is unconstitutional, because it conflicts with the 1st Amendment (separation of church and state). So, when the “theory” of ID emerged, many Creationists viewed it as a suitable facade to push Creationism into the public school system. With the word “God” plucked from the language, they were more likely to bypass the 1st Amendment. Fortunately, most American public schools exclusively teach the theory of evolution. However, there’s a small percentage of public schools that teach both evolution and ID.
Evolution Does Not Contradict Metaphysical Beliefs
“If you believe in a Supreme Being (e.g. God) you can’t accept the theory of evolution.” The previous statement is false, and yet it’s believed by so many to be true. Contrary to what you may have been told, the theory of evolution does not explain how life originally emerged on earth. The theory of evolution simply explains how life has evolved on earth; why life on earth is so diverse. Abiogenesis, the study of how life first emerged from inanimate matter, continues to be a scientific mystery. Many people who deny evolution aren’t aware of this fact.
We have to get rid of the notion that in order for religion/spirituality to win, science has to lose. Our logical reasoning shouldn’t have to work this way. Science, for the most part, is only concerned with the physical world. In college, one of my biology professors was asked, “Why don’t we ever discuss intelligent design?”, by one of the students. The professor replied, “We can only study what we can observe and measure, objectively. If at this moment, God appeared in this lecture hall, I assure you, every scientist in the world would be elbowing their way in here to observe and measure God.”
Science can explain certain aspects of certain phenomena, but that doesn’t mean it’s the only explanation. While there may be an explanation to how something seems to behave on the surface (i.e. in physical reality), there very well could other forces at work beneath the surface (i.e. in metaphysical reality). Even though evolution doesn’t –and can’t– explain how life first emerged on earth, it still explains how our species (i.e. mankind) emerged on earth –we share a common ancestor with modern African apes. Does this scientific certainty make certain that we aren’t of divine creation? Absolutely not. Who is to say that a Supreme Being doesn’t use evolution as a form of creation? On the surface, it’s the theory of evolution, but beneath the surface, it could likely be the means by which Divine creation is taking place.
Our conception of the metaphysical world must be resilient to our ever-increasing understanding of the physical world. The belief in a Supreme Being is based largely on our intuition –knowing something without sensing it in an ordinary way (e.g. seeing, hearing, touching, etc.). Conversely, the acceptance of scientific theories and principles is based largely on our intellect –knowing something by assessing it in a rational, objective manner. Because we all possess both of these faculties (i.e. intuition and intellect), we should use both of them to understand the world as a whole. If there’s any constant shared by this world and the next, it’s likely balance. Whether it be osmosis in the physical world or karma in the metaphysical world, balance consistently appears to be the omnipresent rule. With a keen understanding of this rule, evolution and a metaphysical basis for life, will be able to peacefully coexist in your mind.
If you want more information on this topic, check out this article. The article, “Does Science Make Belief in God Obsolete?”, was written by Kenneth R. Miller. Miller, a evolutionary biologist from Brown University, is one of the most notable critics of the intelligent design movement. What makes Miller stand out from other critics is the fact that he believes in God (he’s Catholic) and is an evolutionary biologist!
metaphysicalexperience.wordpress.com 