HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Nov. 22, 2005 The classical story of the three blind men and an elephant: There were three blind men, stumbling through the jungle and came upon an elephant. Not knowing what they were touching, and not being able to see, the first blind man, who happened to be holding the elephants tale said, “Lo and behold, I have grabbed a strong rope!” The second blind man, who was touching the elephants leg said, “My, my, I have stumbled upon a tree trunk!” The third blind man, who was rubbing the tip of the elephants ivory tusk said, “My, I have found a strong spear!” As analogies go, this one plainly has its limitation, but yet makes a point that is abundantly clear, individuals can come upon the same phenomenon, but being incapable of seeing or understanding the phenomenon in totality, reason from what is known, to what is unknown via theory or faith. That is why even though the most dogmatic atheist, if he is being rationale, will have to admit that he can not truly know if there is a God or not. Man is finite, in a universe with infinite potential, and therefore will only ever have a microcosm, if that, of the potential knowledge that can be known. That is why regardless of where you stand on evolution and intelligent design, at some point a theory transcends into faith, where you are placing a belief in something that definitively can not be known to be true at every given occasion in time. Some theories have a higher predictability factor than others, some have less, as their pool of data and ability to be measured are limited. I would argue that evolution in terms of predictability is a theory based upon the latter. I easily acknowledge micro-evolution, and the natural basic adaptability of an animal to make mini-adjustments based upon its environment. To me this concept definitely follows under the rubric of intelligent design, but I reject macro-evolution for reasons of logic, and faith, which I have no problem acknowledging. Now, William Hurt & Fred Smith in their rebuttal made some solid points that require conversation, and depending on my level of continued interest in the subject I will take the time in another article to answer these, and other critiques of intelligent design. But in this article I want to focus on some egregious errors Mr. Hurt & Mr. Smith made in this discussion, and tie them back into the finiteness of man in a universe of infinite knowledge and the necessity of faith when seeking a ‘first cause’. First, what I applaud about the attempts by both men is that they acknowledge that God/creator/designer can not be disproved. This means that they may speculate that he/she/it does not exist but acknowledge (from their personal perspective) that it can not be known for sure. But this brings me to the cornerstone of both of their argumentations. Both men attempt to refute my argument primarily by arguing that evolution is indeed the simplest theory and markedly different at its foundation than intelligent design. The problem is both gentlemen fail to acknowledge the fundamental similarity between ID and EV. “Where did this first complex creature come from, so complex that it can make universes? What made it? [And then, what made that which made it and on and on] Using the same “logic”, surely it was an even more advanced being. The latter is at least one, but as much as an infinite, level of complexity higher than the former, therefore, Occam's Razor chooses the former.” – Fred Smith “Regardless of the lack of guesses about who an Intelligent Designer might be the fact remains that postulating one rules out the possibility of a closed system. In order to have a closed system, by definition, you cannot have any outside influences. The moment you bring in an outside influence i.e. a designer, you open up the system, at least large enough to include the designer you brought in?” – William Hurt The problem I have with this particular line of reasoning is that they say evolution is self-contained within a closed system. This rationale ignores completely the necessity of a first cause of what they purport to be THE ‘first cause’ of the universe, the big bang. Mr. Smith assigns a ‘beginning’ to a big bang, which according to him was a high density piece of ‘whatever’ exploding and thus creating the universe. Again, what created the what-cha-ma-jigger density ball clump in the first place and caused it to explode and built within this little do-dad the intelligence to ‘adapt’ and move up trajectory because adaptation is a form of intelligence? To which I then redirect to Mr. Smith the question, “If you can not measure or test the ‘first cause’ which influenced directly what you consider evolution, does not your own argument against intelligent design apply to evolution as well?” If this is the case, what is the material difference between the foundation of the evolutionary theory and the intelligent design theory? I argue nothing. It then becomes an argument between two tailors over which way the sweater seams were stitched, was it a cross stitch or a chain stitch? Both theories require faith at the point of untestability as the origin of the big bang, which I believe they both accept (I do as well, for assumed other reasons) is untestable. Concurrently, they assign the big bang as the etiology of evolution, meaning something about the big bang hardwired this mass to then adapt. But yet they can not test the origin of this density mass, and what created it to ‘adapt’ and therefore the evolutionary theory is subject to the same open system theory flaw and immeasurable influence that they critique intelligent design for having. The lowest common denominator is that both theories at their core, reach a level of untestability, as both theories can not ‘measure’ the first cause which HAD to influence ‘the system’. So that being said, again is it more reasonable to believe that intelligence creates order, or that random chance creates order, over and over and over and over again? That is like saying every week you buy the lottery ticket you will win. Intelligent design is inescapable. The difference in my opinion is not whether something ‘intelligent’ created existence, but how it programmed intelligence into existence. The evolutionist argues intelligence expresses through macro-adaptation, the creationist argues intelligence expressed through event, but at the core of each is faith as each theory reaches areas of untestability which the evolutionist ignores and the creationist embraces. In the end, I have no problem accepting by faith that which can’t be seen. I acknowledge I am blind and can not see the whole elephant, while arrogantly the evolutionist presumes to be able to do so. How do you explain to a man blind at birth the color green? However, using my faith, and the faith of others who believe in intelligent design by virtue of logic, as a reason for not teaching intelligent design is a simple ad hominem attack couched in scientific terminology and rhetoric. Like I said before, if it is such junk scientist, teach them side by side, and allow the ‘intelligent’ children, and the ‘intelligent’ parents of these children to disregard it. ------------ About the author: Dell Gines is a columnist for the Omaha Star, Nebraska’s only black newspaper, and blogs at www.dellgines.com. Email: dellgines@yahoo.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
