The US Supreme Court may have declared the
intermingling of church and state unconstitutional in 1988. But 17
years down, attitudes in that country ?as indeed in many others
?have changed significantly. Even hardcore science teachers are
discovering that an increasing number of students are wanting a link
to divine origin by giving "creation teaching" at least equal
airtime along with evolution. In any case what's so wrong in
expecting schools to make the teaching of evolution more rigorous by
bringing up its drawbacks and examining areas of controversy it
shares with the people who are promoting an alternative theory
called intelligent design, or ID? These are people who say there's
simply too much pattern in everything, from the microcosm of
subatomic particles to the macrosphere of galactic superclusters, to
insist that only blind chance could have played a part in all their
structural make-up. If anything,if Darwin's theory is taught along
with ID it might even plug the several loopholes that still exist in
it.
Already in the past such patchwork has led to major
reforms that are today known as neo-Darwinism and the punctuated
equilibrium theory of evolution. Also, ever since some 350
biologists signed a declaration challenging evolution, many
scientists and science teachers have come round to believe there is
place for valid criticism ?especially in areas dealing with the
origin and complex designs of living systems. However, mainstream
scientists and philosophers who accept Darwinian evolution and
reject any godlike intervention have routinely nixed the idea,
upholding that science is inherently committed to naturalistic
premises. At the same time though, more and more people are
beginning to believe in ID. This can be gauged from the fact that
only recently one of the world's best known philosophers and a
passionate proponent of atheism for over half a century, Professor
Antony Flew, changed his mind at the age of 81. The reason according
to him was because researchers' investigation of DNA has shown the
almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed
to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved. Or as
Prof Flew put it, "It has become inordinately difficult even to
begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the
evolution of that first reproducing organism". Like a lot of
intelligent people, he accepts Darwinian evolution as the most
compelling process by which speciation and the variety of life could
have come about, but doubts that it alone could explain the ultimate
origins of life. Proponents of ID think intelligent design could.
Problem is, who created ID?
[2005/02/05] Intelligent Origin
