Speaking of Cement

In the debate over Darwinian Evolution vs. “Intelligent Design,” one thing that strikes me is that, in spite of the fact that supporters of ID claim their theory does not state that the “Intelligent Designer” is “God,” every time supporters of ID make their bid for teaching it in schools, they use the argument that refusing to teach ID is “part of the plan to eliminate God from our schools.”

For instance, I found an op-ed piece from August 9, 2005 on U. S. A. Today.com, by Utah State Sen. D. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, who is referred to as being “active on the evolution-education issue.” The piece contains his statement, “I believe those fighting against the teaching of intelligent design in schools have an ulterior motive to eliminate references to God from the entire public forum.” I thought ID had already eliminated such references in its bid to insert itself into public school curricula by calling itself a “scientific,” theory, one that does not define the name or the nature of the so-called “Designer.”

So, is Intelligent Design just another name for Creationism, which at least is honest enough to come right out and make the claim that life was created by “God?” If ID is supposed to be a “scientific,” (not relying on supernatural explanations) theory, then how is not teaching it trying to do anything whatsoever to “God?”

Also, he states that, “If you talk against Darwinian evolution in the classroom, you immediately incur the rage of those who don’t want God discussed in any way, shape or form.” This seems to assume those to be the only two options, but there is a difference between talking against evolution and advocating for belief in a god. One could take a stance against Darwinian evolution without thereby needing to resort to a god. The fact that Buttars, and the whole lot of the ID cohort, can’t seem to find any other explanation can be attributed to no more than a lack of imagination.

At least Eric Von Daniken was creative enough to find ancient spacemen in our lineage. If one feels compelled to stick with something more human-like, then how about back to the old goddess religions, which make more sense, since females are traditionally and intuitively recognized as the creators of life? The Earth Mother or Spider Woman could be alternatives, as could any of the traditional Greek or Roman gods, and I’m sure those with more imagination could devise any number of explanations for the origin and development of life on this swirling, round (yes folks, it is) blue planet.

So, it seems that those who challenge evolution only incur the rage of those who “don’t want God discussed in any way, shape or form,” because they don’t want to discuss god “in any way, shape or form.” They only want to discuss god in their way, their shape, their form, as the only other possible explanation in the absence of Darwin.

Buttars goes on to say that, “in this tremendous effort to support Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, in all these “mountains of information,” there has not been any scientific fossil evidence linking apes to man… There is zero scientific fossil evidence that demonstrates organic evolutionary linkage between primates and man.”

I don’t know where this man got his “education,” but he is woefully lacking in knowledge. He clearly either has not studied the fossil record, or he doesn’t have the ability to understand the similarities between the fossils of pre-human creatures and ourselves, although a reasonably bright child could be expected to recognize the connections. His statement, “The trouble with the “missing link” is that it is still missing!” is indicative of the woeful state of this man’s scientific understanding. We do not expect to find that one fossil that is exactly halfway between apes and men, but we have enough transitional fossils and other evidence to put ourselves together with them on a family tree.

Sometime back, I made an attempt to construct my own family lineage on my father’s side. In this attempt, I found names and places that connected me to people long gone. But I also found many gaps, many places where I was uncertain which name belonged in that space between great-great grandfather and great-grandfather. However, I found other evidence, a place and date of birth, a marriage to someone who is known, so those missing links did not invalidate my connection to my ancestors. I may not have a name or a picture, but I know they existed because I know who their father was and I know who their daughter was. I am comfortable inferring their existence, and my descent from them.

Buttars thinks, “It takes an enormous leap of faith … to conclude that man evolved from ape without any empirical fossil evidence.” Despite his claim to the contrary, science does not rely on “faith,” but on evidence. And beyond the plentiful fossil evidence there are also other kinds of evidence. There is the evidence found in behaviors that are similar between apes and humans. There is the evidence found in DNA, which is remarkably similar between apes and humans; in fact, genetically we are closer to the chimpanzee than the chimpanzee is to gorillas. There is the evidence in cultural achievements such as the ability to use tools, once thought of as the mark of humanity. There is the evidence of patterns of migration, not just what fossils are found, but where they are found, and using these we can trace the emergence of man in, and the migration of man out of Africa. We don’t find man in other parts of the world until after we became human in Africa. Only if you can ignore all these kinds of evidence, just pretend they don’t exist, then you are left with the statement, “there is no evidence.”

My mom and I were once discussing why I believe in evolution and why she believed in the bible version of creation. And she asked a good question, “Well, then how do you explain all those fossils?” Well, yeah, how do you explain them? Because you can’t just wish them away.

The last quote from Buttars is, “That said, could it be that the reason they can’t find the missing link is that human evolution didn’t happen at all?” I read a statement like that and I just have to wonder if maybe he isn’t right…

One of the leading proponents of ID is William Dembski. The way he explains the fundamental (pun intended) claim of ID is that “there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence.” He uses Mount Rushmore as an example: “What about this rock formation convinces us that it was due to a designing intelligence and not merely to wind and erosion? Designed objects like Mt. Rushmore exhibit characteristic features or patterns that point us to an intelligence.”

But the bible claims that god created not just life, but everything, including the earth itself. I guess there should logically be a difference between what we’d expect to find in an object designed by humans and an object designed by a god, but since Dembski seems to be using the same criteria for both, we’ll stick with his analogy, (although actually, he really didn’t specify the exact nature of the characteristic features or patterns that proves design of Mt. Rushmore).

Mt. Rushmore is obviously designed because it bears a mark of human design, it looks like us writ large, but only when juxtaposed next to other mountains that have not been so carved. If every mountain had the same types of shapes we would not be able to look at any one of them and find anything that would distinguish it from all others so that we could say, “That looks like it was designed by humans.”

The same should be true of god’s designs; using the same criteria, we should not be able to detect such god-designed objects because supposedly he created everything and so everything should look “designed.” The problem that occurs when everything looks designed is how would we distinguish something that wasn’t? What would we look for that would set apart those things that were designed from those that were not?

If god created (designed) everything, then how can Dembski pick out any one feature from all others and distinguish design in that one feature? Shouldn’t every feature show evidence of design? If god created everything, how could Dembski look at any mountain or rock or canyon and ever see anything that could be due to “merely wind and erosion?” And if anything can possibly be caused, or changed, by merely wind and erosion, that is, by natural forces, then where does he draw the line between what can be caused or changed by natural forces and what must be caused or changed by something else?

If something created by god shows evidence of such creation, then every single thing should bear such evidence, with no exceptions. That being the case, using Mt. Rushmore as an example wouldn’t be useful because it is a feature that shows human intervention in contrast to everything else around it. With god’s creations there shouldn’t be anything that would distinguish one feature from any other in that respect. But one must be able to draw such a line if there are supposedly distinguishing characteristics of those things that were intelligently designed. Confusing.