Unintelligent Design at UNSW
Yesterday I was invited to a talk by UNSW Visiting Professor Robyn Williams. Professor Williams was speaking on the topic of his new book Unintelligent Design. Now since I haven't read the book yet (it is now next on my non-fiction reading list) I will not be engaging his arguments too deeply at this point. What I thought I would talk about was the event itself, my immediate reaction and some discussion of what Intelligent Design is and is not.
Robyn Williams was introduced by the Dean of Science, Professor Mike Archer I have heard Archer speak before (he is an excellent lecturer) but I have noticed in the past that he tends to ridicule anyone who holds a different view from himself. Yesterday I saw that taken to the next level. Quite frankly Archer reminded me, right down to the same style of language used, of bloody minded conservative Christians that I have met. You all know the types I am talking about, so convinced that they are right that they only hear what they want to hear when someone disagrees with them, and stereotypes all who disagree into the same category.
Williams was much better on this count, he is someone who came across as respecting other people's views. He is willing to openly disagree with them. The times where he stoped respecting the views of other people was when they began to impinge on what he saw as core to his understandings. (His core beliefs if you will...)
So the key point of contention that Williams has in not Creationism or Intelligent Design, though he does disagree with these, but rather that they are not Science. As such they should not be taught in a Science classroom. Now for what some of you may find controversial, I agree, Creationism and Intelligent Design should not be taught as science.
Now you may have noticed that I have listed Creationism and Intelligent Design as two separate things, which is because they are. Creationism is the understanding of a 'biblical' six day creation. There are those who believe this so much that they publish 'scientific' journals and magazines to prove their point. Now the science in these journals is incompetent at best and a deliberate distortion of the facts at the worst. (Yes, I have read a fair few of both creationism magazines and journals.) To say that you believe in a biblical six day creation out of your beliefs and understanding of the Bible doesn't bother me. However the science does not bare that out - nor can I see how it ever will. I don't want a sub-standard pseudo-science taught to my children.
Intelligent Design on the other hand is a belief that there is an intelligent designer behind what we see in the world around us. This I do believe. However, there is insufficient proof to state if there is on, just the same as it can not be scientifically proven there is not one. Science is evidence based and can not address a matter that can not be measured by empirical proof. So, whilst I do believe in Intelligent Design, it does not belong in a science class.
I think that those who push to have Intelligent Design in science classes have missed the point. Not only of what science is but of who God is. Most people I have heard argue against Intelligent Design in the science classroom have simply said that Intelligent Design is a matter for faith not science. They are right, God is not something that can be proven by scientific means, to assume that greatly limits how we perceive God, makes God to be something less.