Let’s take a ‘plain spoken’ look and create a ‘plain language’ overview for at least a few key issues that entail looking at intelligent design.
DANGER 1: Science Content
If you take a look at the content of the various intelligent design (ID) symposia, meetings, conferences, or debates held over the past decade, you’ll notice that very little of anything is discussed about religion. That is to say only the critics have raised religious implications concerning ID. The proponents of design are fascinated by the SCIENCE … as you should be, too! Simply put, the books, magazine articles, technical papers, academic presentations and panel discussions have been about the scientific data that support an objective fresh look at what science can and should be telling us.
By this point in time we find it terribly tedious that anyone would say it’s anything other than science. At WindowView.org, we have posted a copy of the listing for the ID conference held at Yale University back in 2000. Take a look. What you’ll notice is a concentration of talks focused on science.
DANGER 2: Objective Viewpoint
A well known court case (Kitzmiller vs Dover, December 2005, link is for a long PDF decision document) was the subject of the 2007 episode of NOVA about “judging intelligent design.” Again, that science TV show concentrates on critiques of intelligent design by hitting on the theme of religion. This is done at the expense of informing the audience of the scientific basis to ID. Why? Frankly, as soon as the public discovers the real issue is the scientific data and how we should all be taking an objective look at what the data say … the science community will continue to run scared. A response to this court case and 2007 episode of NOVA provides a set of much needed points to make a balanced overview of what the case really means to you, to everyone!
The irony is that many scientists think that the topic of intelligent design will ‘turn off’ the public in favor of something other than what they are comfortable calling science. Ironically, if design features in the universe and life are there, we all should be thrilled to use the scientific method to EXPLORE MORE in the class rooms and laboratories!
We will finally have the evidence for an ET (extra terrestrial) source of information. Seeing that life has some kind of design logic to it gives us more, not less, to think about. But then it would mean this takes authority from the pious scientists. It would take them down a notch, or two, or three. Maybe it’s high time they step down from being so important and let some of the truth speak for itself. The real danger is some egos would be deflated.
DANGER 3: The Students Will Catch On
The spring time release of the movie ‘Expelled – No Intelligence Allowed‘ will get enough attention to create a stir. The public at large and students in colleges and universities will take note. Then what? Well, QUESTIONS is what will come next.
Look at the movie, talk with your firends, and Google the topics, names, and dig in. Students like to figure out what’s at the bottom of the issues. Look at some of the WindowView science articles that relate to ID and similar science issues. And what they’ll find is what we have said above in number 1 and 2.
First, they’ll see how much scientific content there really is.
Second, they’ll figure out the bias held against intelligent design and will find that bias absurd.
What’s worse, they’ll discover that intelligent design has been part of an ongong discussion from long before Darwin ever strode the earth. And the esteem the students will hold for faculty will be filtered by questions and a discriminating eye. It’s one thing to take a class from an esteemed professor, it’s entirely another thing to figure out the lecturer needs to be scrutinized for hidden bias.
DANGER 4: Design Has Implications
Certainy there are numerous implications to ID. How will we conduct future research? How much funding can go to these new explorations that take a novel approach to doing laboratory work? Which of the ID questions do we explore first?
Believe it or not, there are a handful of scientists who are mindful to incorporate an ID perspective in the research they do today. That puts them on the cutting edge, but also at rsik for ridicule because the establishment is pushing back. But then every new endeavor is worth fighting for if there is logic and reason to understand the potential benefits.
The real implication is that this will require a new way of thinking. In science we call this a paradigm shift. At WindowView we see that shift as changing the questions and approach to science. Further, we see it changing the larger paradigm for HOW we SEE life. How life works. How life arouse. Even that life has a potential purpose. You need to ponder such implications. That is why WindowView was created. This is a thinking place in cyberspace. Explore, think, look at what the window opens to!
Director, 012508
