Posted: Sunday, January 4, 2009 12:00 am
Dennis Clayson
Earth is an almost perfect dwelling for humans. It is the correct distance from a stable star, which means water can be found in its three states, often as a liquid.
Earth has a tilt relative to its plane of orbit that allows us to have seasons, but not too much of a tilt. The planet has a liquid core that creates a magnetic field that shields us from radiation from space.
Earth has a large moon. It creates tides and is a source of light on otherwise dark nights. The moon also collects space debris, which decreases the number of times the earth would be hit by meteors. Even though it is a large moon relative to Earth, it is much less dense so it doesn't create the large changes in orbits found in most double systems.
All in all, we have a very nice world that fits us almost perfectly.
The probability of all this happening by chance is so small that one could argue that there was a guiding hand involved. Or to put it in the modern parlance, there was "intelligent design" at work.
But the fact that Earth currently is in a certain state is not proof of intelligent design. The earth exists as it currently exists. What is � is. The probability of its present state is, in fact, one.
To say that the current state is improbable is only to say that replicating the current state is improbable; an argument that would be accepted by almost everyone.
Attributing intelligent design as the "cause" of this current state is a leap of faith.
On the other hand, to say that the current state of our existence is NOT the result of an intelligent design also is a leap of faith.
I was reminded of this recently while reading through the latest edition of the Scientific American, which dedicated its entire issue to the "evolution of evolution."
There was an article warning readers of the dangers that creationists pose to American education. The writers were being less than scientific when they characterized the ideas of their opposition thus, "� there is no scientifically credible challenge to evolution, only long-ago debunked creationist claptrap."
The article suggests that those with the correct view "rebut assertions" that it is fair to debate both sides of the issue, and that they should work to get out the vote in local elections.
In other words, a call for censorship and political intervention.
Evolution is an observable fact. It is understood enough to make predictions about future change.
This doesn't mean that the current understanding of the evolutionary process won't be refined and changed in the future, it most assuredly will be.
Does this mean then that intelligent design is wrong?
Not at all.
In fact, for a scientist to make that claim is a leap of faith. In this case, not in a god, but in consensus, and in a methodological philosophy.
Loren Eiseley, who did not believe in the god of the creationists, put it beautifully. "In the world there is nothing below a certain depth that is truly explanatory. It is as if matter dreamed and muttered in its sleep. Buy why, and for what reason, there is not evidence."
This is why I find the debate between scientists and the intelligent design people so hard to understand. It would seem reasonable for a school to teach what we know about evolution, but it makes no sense for both groups to ban their opponents' next conclusion about the "whys."
Scientists act as if a teacher who would tell her students that one explanation of the results of evolution is God-given or a result of a higher-purpose design will produce barbarians who, if left unchecked, will storm the gates of reason and burn down the city on the hill created by obedience to the scientific method.
On the other hand, the intelligent design people act as if the explanation of evolution as one based on chance (restrained by a very complicated set of rules), will produce students hell-bent on destroying all vestiges of their parents' faiths.
Why this drive to censor the opposition? Any scientist who wishes not to debate an opposing idea is operating within a faith system just as compelling as that of any religionist. When it comes to the "whys," both sides are operating within a faith system.