Evolution vs. Intelligent Design: My Rant
Hey everyone. By now you probably all know that I am a Biology major. Also by now, you are probably sick of hearing people discuss the idea of intelligent design as an alternative to the theory of evolution. However, this topic has come up exponentially more in recent weeks, and I find myself getting infuriated by it. Just so you know, this is going to be a ranting post, so if you don't want to read it, by all means you may change the webpage. For those of you who would like to hear my views, feel free to read and comment. I am always up for criticism, as long as it is presented in a logical and non-argumentative fashion. Remember, a scientist's job is always to question and be questioned. Also, know that I am a fervent supporter of evolution.
Ok, for those of you who don't know, I'm going to lay out the theories of intelligent design and evolution. Briefly, of course.
Evolution, the theory that has been in practice for 150 years, states that genetic modification occurs naturally over the course of many generations, gradually changing an organism basically through random chance. These changes may help, hinder, or have no affect on the organism. If they help, the organism is more likely to live successfully and pass on the new trait or traits to the next generation. If the traits hurt the organism, then the creature will perish more quickly, possibly not passing on the adaptation.
Intelligent design states that life is so complex, that it could not have possibly developed by random chance, and that an "Intelligent Designer," usually a god figure, must be working behind the scenes to create life as it exists today. The theory of intelligent design is often given argument by the analogy of the watch and the watchmaker. It goes that if, while you were walking down the street you found a watch on the ground, you would be amazed that such a thing had the right time, let alone still worked at all. Upon opening it and seeing the complex inner workings you would logically have to surmise to yourself 'This is so complex that it could not have possibly occurred in nature. There must be a watchmaker which I cannot see that made this watch.'
Those are the two theories that are out there right now. But that sentence, in and of itself, is incredible complex, for the simple fact that scientists define a theory differently than most other people. To a scientist, a theory is something that cannot be proven; it can only be supported by evidence. This is a safeguard in the scientific world to prevent the blind following of one idea. However, just because a theory can never be proven, does not mean the opposite is not true. In fact, that is the idea. A scientific theory can only be DISproven. Thus, it is either completely thrown out as erroneous, or the new evidence is taken into account and the theory augmented. The "theory" of intelligent design lacks this supporting evidence, and the supporters of it all suffer from something called "experimenter bias." That is, supporters of intelligent design choose not to recognize evidence that goes against their claim, and emphasize evidence that supports it.
At this time, let me say that, although I am a supporter of evolution, I am not a blind follower of it. I realize that there very well may be a better explanation for the speciation of our planet, and I am open to that theory. But intelligent design is not it.
Even the analogy of the watch and the watchmaker has a major flaw in it: the watch is not alive. Because the watch is not alive, it cannot change. That watch will stay the same for the rest of its existence, until something comes along and destroys it. However, we see humans grow from eggs, to zygotes, to infants, to children, to adolescents, to adults. What watch have you ever seen go through growth and development?
As it stands at the moment, I still consider myself to be a Roman Catholic. This is a rather hard decision for me, considering the lack of proof for God. However, I often lean, when provoked, towards a Deistic approach to explain God's role in the Universe. That is, I explain it as God is the one who created the natural laws of the Universe, and then let the Universe run its own course according to those laws, while God took no direct hand in the Universe's development. Also let me say that, for the overwhelming part of my time, I do not combine God and Science, separating them much the same way as I separate Church and State.
That being said, I think many people find this Deistic approach farm more frightening than evolution, simply because it makes them feel unimportant. Here we are, the most dominant species on the planet, occupying nearly every corner of it. How is it possible that God does not recognize us? But the simple lack of proof of God shows that, if He even exists, He does not have a direct hand in our lives.
As for evolution, I believe that it makes sense. Not perfect sense, because random chance never does, but when you consider the age of the Earth and the time span in which life has existed, then it begins to seem more probable the more you consider it. Minute change on top of minute change over the course of millions or billions of years makes more sense to me, quantitatively and qualitatively, than the presence of some invisible god figure, controlling everything.
The one thing that really makes me believe in evolution is how it tends to explain, perhaps not explicitly, but in theory, how life first began. When you take into consideration that, although the Earth is 5 billion years old, that life has only existed for about 3.5 billion years (that is, the first living organisms we can determine are from 3.5 billion years ago). That means that it took 1.5 billion years just to make a cell that could self-replicate.
In conclusion, please recognize what I am trying to do. I am trying to inform those who have no formed opinion on the matter what I think, and my reasoning behind it. If you want to make your own comparison, go ahead and read The Origin of Species and the Bible. That will give you the two arguments as they stand. For those of you who believe in intelligent design, I am trying to show you the error of your ways. I, frankly, could care less if you think that God created the world in six days. It is your right to believe what you want to believe, and I can only provide points and counterpoints to try and change your mind. It is you who ultimately decides. But don’t you dare try to pervert science to justify your personal brand of religious fanaticism, and don’t you dare try to corrupt the youth of the nation into viewing religion as science. Finally, for those of you who believe in evolution, I am trying to reassure you that, although adversity may follow you and your belief, that if you stay the course reason will eventually triumph.
And that’s that people. If you have any questions, comments, or counterpoints, feel free to leave them. I’ll answer them, and I will certainly try not to get too hot under the collar. And, as seems to be a good incentive to get people to read and comment on my posts, the first one to comment gets to ask me a personal and probing question. Except Liz. Because she got the last one and hasn’t asked it yet. And be forewarned. I will not hold back. So do not ask a question if you are not prepared to hear the answer.
Ok, for those of you who don't know, I'm going to lay out the theories of intelligent design and evolution. Briefly, of course.
Evolution, the theory that has been in practice for 150 years, states that genetic modification occurs naturally over the course of many generations, gradually changing an organism basically through random chance. These changes may help, hinder, or have no affect on the organism. If they help, the organism is more likely to live successfully and pass on the new trait or traits to the next generation. If the traits hurt the organism, then the creature will perish more quickly, possibly not passing on the adaptation.
Intelligent design states that life is so complex, that it could not have possibly developed by random chance, and that an "Intelligent Designer," usually a god figure, must be working behind the scenes to create life as it exists today. The theory of intelligent design is often given argument by the analogy of the watch and the watchmaker. It goes that if, while you were walking down the street you found a watch on the ground, you would be amazed that such a thing had the right time, let alone still worked at all. Upon opening it and seeing the complex inner workings you would logically have to surmise to yourself 'This is so complex that it could not have possibly occurred in nature. There must be a watchmaker which I cannot see that made this watch.'
Those are the two theories that are out there right now. But that sentence, in and of itself, is incredible complex, for the simple fact that scientists define a theory differently than most other people. To a scientist, a theory is something that cannot be proven; it can only be supported by evidence. This is a safeguard in the scientific world to prevent the blind following of one idea. However, just because a theory can never be proven, does not mean the opposite is not true. In fact, that is the idea. A scientific theory can only be DISproven. Thus, it is either completely thrown out as erroneous, or the new evidence is taken into account and the theory augmented. The "theory" of intelligent design lacks this supporting evidence, and the supporters of it all suffer from something called "experimenter bias." That is, supporters of intelligent design choose not to recognize evidence that goes against their claim, and emphasize evidence that supports it.
At this time, let me say that, although I am a supporter of evolution, I am not a blind follower of it. I realize that there very well may be a better explanation for the speciation of our planet, and I am open to that theory. But intelligent design is not it.
Even the analogy of the watch and the watchmaker has a major flaw in it: the watch is not alive. Because the watch is not alive, it cannot change. That watch will stay the same for the rest of its existence, until something comes along and destroys it. However, we see humans grow from eggs, to zygotes, to infants, to children, to adolescents, to adults. What watch have you ever seen go through growth and development?
As it stands at the moment, I still consider myself to be a Roman Catholic. This is a rather hard decision for me, considering the lack of proof for God. However, I often lean, when provoked, towards a Deistic approach to explain God's role in the Universe. That is, I explain it as God is the one who created the natural laws of the Universe, and then let the Universe run its own course according to those laws, while God took no direct hand in the Universe's development. Also let me say that, for the overwhelming part of my time, I do not combine God and Science, separating them much the same way as I separate Church and State.
That being said, I think many people find this Deistic approach farm more frightening than evolution, simply because it makes them feel unimportant. Here we are, the most dominant species on the planet, occupying nearly every corner of it. How is it possible that God does not recognize us? But the simple lack of proof of God shows that, if He even exists, He does not have a direct hand in our lives.
As for evolution, I believe that it makes sense. Not perfect sense, because random chance never does, but when you consider the age of the Earth and the time span in which life has existed, then it begins to seem more probable the more you consider it. Minute change on top of minute change over the course of millions or billions of years makes more sense to me, quantitatively and qualitatively, than the presence of some invisible god figure, controlling everything.
The one thing that really makes me believe in evolution is how it tends to explain, perhaps not explicitly, but in theory, how life first began. When you take into consideration that, although the Earth is 5 billion years old, that life has only existed for about 3.5 billion years (that is, the first living organisms we can determine are from 3.5 billion years ago). That means that it took 1.5 billion years just to make a cell that could self-replicate.
In conclusion, please recognize what I am trying to do. I am trying to inform those who have no formed opinion on the matter what I think, and my reasoning behind it. If you want to make your own comparison, go ahead and read The Origin of Species and the Bible. That will give you the two arguments as they stand. For those of you who believe in intelligent design, I am trying to show you the error of your ways. I, frankly, could care less if you think that God created the world in six days. It is your right to believe what you want to believe, and I can only provide points and counterpoints to try and change your mind. It is you who ultimately decides. But don’t you dare try to pervert science to justify your personal brand of religious fanaticism, and don’t you dare try to corrupt the youth of the nation into viewing religion as science. Finally, for those of you who believe in evolution, I am trying to reassure you that, although adversity may follow you and your belief, that if you stay the course reason will eventually triumph.
And that’s that people. If you have any questions, comments, or counterpoints, feel free to leave them. I’ll answer them, and I will certainly try not to get too hot under the collar. And, as seems to be a good incentive to get people to read and comment on my posts, the first one to comment gets to ask me a personal and probing question. Except Liz. Because she got the last one and hasn’t asked it yet. And be forewarned. I will not hold back. So do not ask a question if you are not prepared to hear the answer.