While I disagree with the ID movement and am deeply troubled with the gains they are making in our public disputations, I think my fellow evolutionists should look on the bright side of this emergence. The fact that ID exists is proof that evolution has gained ground in our civilization’s mindshare.
The creationist movement is dead. It was destroyed on the battlefield of ideas and now its ideological forces are reorganizing into a new militia known as Intelligent Design. Then end goal is the same, prove the existence of a creator by disproving the emergent capabilities of evolution, but its proponents have given ground. Unlike creationism, which sought the complete disproof of evolution, ID concedes evolution as a fact to a degree, but fights it as the explanation for all existence.
In other words, ID has forsaken the Biblical account of creation, accepted the dynamic and evolving state of life as an observable and proven fact, but seeks to draw a line between what emergence theory can account for and argue that what evolution cannot explain implies creation. The core strategy of ID theory is to find a level of irreducible complexity. Just as physicists are always seeking the smaller particle, from the grain of sand, to the molecule, to the atom, to the quark, Intelligent Design proponents are seeking a point in Evolutionary Science where it cannot deconstruct observable facts into hypotheses. If ID can achieve this, then its proponents believe they will have constructed a proof of creation.
The problem is that many of the ideological soldiers who came over from the dismantled Creationist camps are still fighting with their old strategies. Evolutionary Theorists are upset because, after having decisively won the Creationism versus Evolution debate, they are being forced to fight the same war of ideas again. Many Creationists have adopted Intelligent Design in name only, continuing to argue for a literalist interpretation of the Bible’s account of existence.
Incapable of proving cognitive design in the natural world, the ID movement’s focus is to disprove minutia in Evolutionary Theory. While many Evolutionists are aggravated and often outright hostile to ID’s challenges, ultimately this disputation will benefit Evolutionary Theory. Every time an ID proponent challenges one of Evolution’s missing puzzle-pieces, the Evolutionists will strive to fill in the gap.
The focus on disproof that defines the ID movement is such an incredible waste of energy and resources. Instead of defining themselves as merely against evolution, IDers should research some of the more fascinating aspects of reality. They could investigate the number Phi, the “divine” proportion, and try to explain its mysteries. Carl Sagan, in his novel “Contact” fantasized about a hidden message within Pi’s infinite stream of digits. Why doesn’t the ID movement explore and discover all the amazing properties of these two numbers? If the ID movement seeks proof of intellegence woven into the fabric of our reality, then these numbers are a good place to start. It’s a subject most scientists won’t humor, but where a creationist would have a field day. Most importantly, it would change the focus of the ID movement from one of disproof and deconstruction to aspirations of proof and productivity.
I would love to see what they could come up with. It may not convince me, but it would provide inspiration for speculation.
If ID continues to apply this failed strategy, the same it used in its previous incarnation as Creationism, it will eventually fade away. While scientific inquisitiveness and the spirit of exploration work endless to find more answers, ID proponents have only one means to victory: put an end to inquiry. ID, in this state, is an intellectual dead-end.
A school of thought whose end goal is stasis will stagnate and die. Public School children who embrace ID will get laughed out of their College-level Biology classes. It may seem like a waste of time for Evolutionists to fight ID, but ultimately the fight will gain Evolution more mindshare and encourage scientists to work out all of the unknowns. A public forum will educate the public concerning evolutionary theory and a disputational challenge will inspire more proponents to join the fray.
Evolutionists must remember that challenges are exercises in falsifying hypotheses. They make evolution the stronger school of thought. Creationists and ID’s can only rally against evolution because they cannot proactively prove their own hypotheses. Evolutionary Theory becomes a stronger, more comprehensive belief system as it rises to each question the ID movement demands it answer.
At the same time, Evolutionists must maintain an open mind on a personal level. Creationist hypotheses do nothing to constructively explain our observations of the world, but as individuals we are intelligent enough to realize that the emergent process of evolution does not in any way negate the possibility of creation. Both concepts may exist side by side in harmony. The ID movement’s inability to accept this possibility betrays the fragile construction of their own belief systems.
God, whatever it may be, can coexist with a comprehensive Evolutionary Theory.