Intelligent Design

Society would benefit if students were taught about intelligent design in school. They should know why it is philosophical theory and not a scientific theory, what the differences are, and why philosophers do not take it seriously.

On September 26th, the Dover Area School District will defend its policy of reading a statement questioning evolution and proposing intelligent design to students taking biology.

This has been raised as a church/state issue. However, as I have said before, I have no interest in the legal arguments. I am concerned with the moral issues. Of course, there have been, and there will continue to be, just and unjust laws, and the question of what laws ought and ought not to exist are, ultimately, moral questions.

On the moral side of the dispute, where is the wrong in exposing biology students to intelligent design? What moral principle is being violated?

To answer that question, I want to examine a hypothetical requirement to expose biology students to intelligent design and try to see if I can find where doing so crosses a moral line.

Teaching the Teachers

Of course, the state has an obligation to fill teaching jobs with qualified teachers. Consequently, we cannot expect biology teachers to address this subject until they have learned about it themselves.

This is not an insurmountable barrier. As soon as these rules are adopted, the state’s universities can add the required coursework to their students’ curriculum. Those who are already teaching should be required to get additional training in this new subject area. As they are trained, they can go back to class and teach this material.

Where would these teachers go to learn this new subject?

Actually, they would need to take a philosophy class. Contrary to claims made by those who defend "intelligent design", this is not a theory invented in the last fifteen years. This is the "Argument from Design," which has its roots in the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. The most widely known expression of this expression comes from the 18th century scholar, William Paley.

Paley argued that, if you were walking and discovered something as intricate as a watch, you would assume that there was a watchmaker. Similarly, if you were to find something as intricate as the human eye, you should assume that there was an eye-maker.

Of course, Paley argued that this eye-maker is God.

Even if we are justified in assuming an eye-maker, we are not permitted to infer anything about the moral character of this artisan, or any other characteristic, other than that it can make eyes in the context in which eyes are found. The eye-maker may be a malicious individual that made humans so that he could watch them suffer from the diseases and natural disasters he subjects them to. Or, he could be a benevolent being that knows just enough to make the eye as it is -- certainly not enough to make an eye free from cataracts or glaucoma. Or, again, maybe he is knowledgeable and kind but lacks the power to make an eye better than what exists.

This matches the claims that the defenders of intelligent design make. They state that irreducible complexity justifies the inference that there was an intelligent designer, but they refuse to say anything about that designer. They allow, for example, that it could be a space alien – perhaps a malicious, sadistic extraterrestrial species that built us so that they can sit in front of their televisions and watch another season of Survivor: Earth.

Problem with the Design Argument

Philosophers have had centuries to discuss this argument, and have recognized a number of problems. One of the most significant problems is this:

We are told that the existence of the watch implies the existence of a watchmaker. The watch itself is too intricate to have occurred naturally, so it must have been intentionally constructed.

However, the watchmaker is significantly more intricate and complex than the watch he constructs. If the watch needs a maker because of its complexity, then the watchmaker also needs a maker. In fact, Paley argues this point when he says that the eye is so complex that it must have maker of its own.

If the watchmaker is so complex that it must have been made, then whatever makes a watchmaker must be even more complex. Because whatever makes a watchmaker must be significantly compex, it must have a maker as well. So, now, we are forced by Paley's argument to assume that there must be a maker of whatever makes watchmakers.

The maker of whatever makes watchmakers, of course, is also extremely complex. Complexity means that we must assume that these makers of the makers of whatever makes watchmakers also has a maker.

And so on. And so forth. Ad infinitum.

The only way to break this chain is to say that there must be something that is complex that still does not require a maker. Paley would assert that this complex entity that does not require a maker is God. However, he has given no reason to believe that the complex entity that does not require a maker is man himself.

Paley's claim that this unmade complex entity is God suffers an additional problem. His argument for a maker is tied directly into the issue of complexity.

According to the argument, the case for a maker becomes stronger as the entity becomes more complex. A crude hour glass with sand falling through a hole at the bottom of a rock depression may be natural. A digital stopwatch and timer with an alarm more strongly suggests a designer. If greater complexity means a stronger need to assume that a designer is involved, then God certainly must have been designed by a Godmaker.

It is better to cut this infinite chain off as close to the original object as possible. In fact, we should not even assume that the watch has a watchmaker unless we have independent evidence for the existence of such an entity. In fact, we have this independent evidence, so we can comfortably assume that a watchmaker is involved. We do not have this independent evidence for the ‘intelligent designer’ of intelligent design.

Back to Class

Once our teachers understand the design argument and can teach their students what it is and why it has been rejected, then we can send them back to teach this to their students.

With this, some may object that, "This is a science class, and it is inappropriate to be discussing philosophy in a science class." Of course, it is easy to prove that the design argument is a philosophical argument (and not a scientific theory) because the teachers went to a philosophy class to learn about it.

However, it is not at all difficult to sidestep this objection. All we need to do is rename the class, "The Philosophy and Science of Biology." Clearly, there is nothing wrong with discussing philosophical arguments in a class with such a title. No moral lines have yet been crossed.

Social Utility

The last question we need to answer is whether this change has any social utility. Are we contributing to a better society, or are we just playing games and wasting time?

It seems obvious that this move would have clear benefits for society as a whole. The fact that so many people say that “intelligent design” is a scientific theory and that it has been around for only 15 years shows that they have suffered from important gaps in their education. These gaps are not only proving harmful to them, they are wasting serious resources throughout the whole nation. They are distracting society away from the task of teaching science.

Because of this ignorance, they are putting science education itself at risk. This risk is particularly great in the life sciences – the sciences we use to study the ecology and the environment, agriculture, and medicine. These are sciences that have a significant effect on how well we live, or even whether we live at all.

To avoid these detrimental effects, it is reasonable to argue that high school education must focus at least a little attention on the nature of scientific theories, the argument from design, why the argument from design is a philosophical theory and not a scientific theory, and the overwhelming problems known to exist in this argument.

Over time, our society might become sufficiently well educated that we no longer have to deal with these distractions. To the degree that happens, we can have more and better-educated people taking up the study of ecology, environmental sciences, agriculture, and medicine. This better-educated public will be able to make wiser decisions that will benefit all levels of society.

Is this not what the education system is supposed to accomplish?