The face of evolutionary design

By Robert Meyer

As the debate over Intelligent Design vs. evolutionary theory tends to flair up now and again, it is important to register some observations about the nature of the controversy.

Darwinian evolution, or at least some contemporary derivative of it, is the predominant, if not the exclusive view of origin taught in public school. To justify such deference, we note that presumed intellectuals will smugly characterize any opposition as an argument of science versus superstition, or the like.

This proposition of science in contrast to theology, philosophy or superstition sets up the classic false dilemma. Consider the statement that the only valid knowledge is that which can be empirically verified. It must be ascertainable through the five-senses, testable, observable, subject to falsification. If not, then such information is basically unintelligible and meaningless. We ask how many of these categories are representative of evolutionary theories? Who has observed the evolutionary theories we casually postulate with little mental reservation? Who has replicated Evolution in the laboratory. Whenever the fossil record is presented as a witness against evolution, we see retooling of the processes, but never doubt about the plausibility of the theory itself. How would Evolution be falsified if indeed it could be? Reasonable questions — but don't dare to ask them without being quickly branded a stark-raving mad fundamentalist. If both ID and Evolution are metaphysical theories, why give one consideration over the other with a virtual monopoly?

That brings us to the issue of academic freedom. It is applauded when it is used to question the boundaries of conventional morality, it is sneered at when it is applied in opposition to the presuppositions of orthodoxy pertaining to scientific naturalism. We are told that few "credible" scientists doubt Evolution. Maybe that's because few scientists who are skeptical of Evolution are perceived as "credible." One is indicative of the other. When your career is threatened, it is easy to be swallowed up in "groupthink" and consensus. Doubting Evolution might make one a "yokel," but it still won't solve the many independent problems of evolutionary theories.

We wonder what it is that evolutionists fear? If they are correct on the basis of overwhelming scientific evidence, then comparisons with competing theories of origin will fold like a deck of cards.

But they don't want such comparative analysis to take place. You see, these Intelligent Design theories sound convincing to people who don't understand the technicalities, principles and nuances that preoccupy enlightened minds. That is part of the reason given for the poor showing by Evolutionists in their debates with Ceationists. You might think they would realize that there are only so many people of 160 plus IQ's on the far reaches of the Bell Curve. It is hard to build a movement on a body of thought that is so esoteric. But folks have a way of stumbling over their own hubris. What they want is to have their own oligopoly of philosopher-kings to reign in the ignorant throngs of rabble.

Recently, a popular local editorial writer, saw fit to compare intelligent design with Egyptian mythology, featuring a god who masturbates the universe into existence. And yet don't non-Creationists have their own counterpart in the ludicrous propositions of "panspermia" theories? Personally I don't have the faith to believe that a universe of impersonal matter created itself out of nothing, and then evolved into meaning, purposefulness, logic and reason.

It seems that the promulgation of evolutionary theories have little to do critical thinking, and more to do with eliminating any considerations about the implications of the Creator's existence.

© Robert Meyer