The
Real Issue of Intelligent Design
Print
this page
The
Theory of Evolution is perceived to maintain a view that
what exists today is a result of random occurrences, all
culminating “by accident” in this reality. The
argument of Intelligent Design challenges this assertion,
declaring instead that what exists today is clearly the
result of some forethought, created as a result of
intentional thought. Supporters of Intelligent Design
maintain that we have what we have today because this was
what was planned – and a simple and honest review of
reality clearly demonstrates this. Supporters of
Evolution disagree; we have what we have because that is
just what happened – and a simple and honest review
of reality, they maintain, clearly demonstrates this lack
of forethought. This would seem to be the issue –
were we planned or are we simply the result of
randomness? There is another issue, though: can we even
answer such questions given solely our perceptions of the
reality around us?
The above presentation of the Theory of Evolution is
actually simplistic. Evolution does not maintain that
what exists today is solely the result of randomness. It
maintains that inherent within nature there is some force
that directs the causation sequence in a certain
direction. The resultant cause and effect is thus not
solely the result of total randomness. The argument of
the evolutionists, though, is that this natural direction
in nature is still not enough to show intelligent design;
there is still too much in nature, they maintain, that
highlights, to them, a lack of directed conclusions and
demonstrates a lack of forethought.
Proponents of Intelligent Design disagree. They look at
the structure and inherent beauty in much of Creation and
declare that this clearly shows a Master Designer. It is
important to recognize that it is this concept of a
Master Designer that is the true focus of the argument
for intelligent design. Being a proponent of evolution
and a critic of intelligent design does not necessarily
mean that one must be an atheist. The issue is not one
necessarily of a Creator. Proponents of evolution do not
have to maintain that there was no Divine starting point
for life or being as we know it. The question may be:
what occurred after the original “Big Bang”?
Was there direction after this point? Was there a
culmination of design in what was created? Evolutionists
basically argue that, aside from some rules built into
the system – such as survival of the fittest –
what occurred was no longer directed, what emerged was
the result of randomness. Proponents of Intelligent
Design specifically argue against this conclusion. That
what was created was what was intended to be created
– and, they contend, an honest evaluation of the
facts would support this.
From a totally objective perspective it is actually
inherently difficult to say who is right. This is
because, honestly, no one is truly objective. Obviously,
I accept the theory of Intelligent Design but could I
say, objectively, that this has been proven absolutely
and clearly from what is the present result of this
Creation? The fact is that I cannot really make that
assertion for I am no longer objective. My belief in God
and Torah obviously directs me to accept the view of
Intelligent Design. My recognition of Hashem
preceded my contemplation of reality. I would maintain,
as the Kuzari stated many times, that
reality/logic never conflicts with Torah but I cannot
honestly state that the former clearly proves the latter.
I am already biased. This point is significant. The
argument between the Evolutionists and the proponents of
Intelligent Design would seem not to be simply whether
there is a Master Designer of our present reality. The
argument would really seem to be whether our present
reality objectively proves the Existence of a Master
Designer. The truth is that this is a challenge to answer
for both sides are not objective.
In the same vein, Evolutionists can also not maintain
that our present reality objectively proves a lack of a
Master Designer. Attitudes and concepts of God precede
any study of this reality. Rabbi Shalom Carmy, The
Nature of Inquiry: A Common Sense Perspective, Torah
U-Madda Journal 3 speaks of a secular bias and the
reality that, in the world of secular thought, there is a
clear pre-existent tendency to reject the interplay of a
Divine Entity in the workings of this world. There is,
thus, a bias to perceive our reality as not pointing to a
Master Designer. Yet, there would seem to be another
assumption inherent in any attempt to argue that a
specific result demonstrates a lack of forethought in
creating that result. A person in reaching such a
conclusion would have to assume that he/she has knowledge
of all possible forethoughts and, thereby, has the
ability to classify a reality as being without
forethought. This opens a
whole new perspective on this issue. Given reality as we
perceive it, it seems that people have a disagreement
whether this reality points to a Master Designer or not.
This, though, is ultimately a question we really cannot
answer. If there is a Master Designer, it is possible
that the determined design could not be seen by others
such as us, human beings. So a lack of perception of a
design within reality could not give any indication of
whether or not there is a Master Designer. The lack of
such perception could simply just indicate that we have
no idea of the structure or purpose of the design. An
argument that there is no Master Designer is thus
inherently problematic. The most that we could say is
that what exists does not indicate to us any forethought
– but that does not mean that there really was and
is no forethought. We just simply can’t understand
it. Proponents of
a Master Designer, though, have to fully understand the
repercussions of such a possibility. Not understanding
the design also does not necessarily point to the reality
of a Master Designer either. The only way a proponent of
a Master Designer could maintain an argument that reality
clearly points to this truth is if the design is totally
understandable and obvious to all. The argument that the
design of reality may be beyond our comprehension also
points to a conclusion that the determination of an
existence of a Master Designer may also be beyond our
capabilities to discern. Those who argue that reality
clearly points to the existence of a Master Designer
must, thus, find all of reality comprehensible; the
design must be clearly perceivable. Otherwise, the most
such a person could maintain is that a lack of a
perceived design does not necessarily indicate a lack of
a Master Designer; the design may just not be
comprehensible to us. This would still not be
satisfactory to one who wishes to argue that reality
points to the existence of a Master Designer. The issue of
intelligent design now takes on a new perspective. Those
who maintain that reality does not indicate to us a
design are limited in their conclusion in that there is a
possibility of a design that we do not comprehend. They
cannot absolutely state that there is no Master Designer.
Those who wish to maintain that reality does clearly
indicate a design, in order to maintain such an argument,
must show that the design is obvious. The minute they
would retort to a defence that any weakness in seeing a
design is simply an indication of our lack of
comprehension must result in the acknowledgement of the
failure of their argument. Once it is argued that the
design is incomprehensible, one cannot maintain for
certain that there is or was a design. The proponent of
the opinion that design is perceivable would, thus,
seemingly be forced to reject any incomprehensibility in
reality. This
conclusion would seem to have major repercussions within
the realm of Jewish thought. In that even Moshe Rabbeinu
could not understand the design of reality in that, for
example, he could not understand the place of justice
(see T.B. Brachot 7a) – and, in fact, it
would seem to be a fundamental principle of Torah that
all of God’s ways are not comprehensible to the
human being, almost by definition – there would seem
to be a weakness in an argument that reality clearly
points to a Master Designer. That which is
incomprehensible, which would seem to point to the
absence of design, rather is seen as pointing to a more
significant principle – that God’s design is
ultimately beyond our human grasp. Such a conclusion,
though, must necessarily lead to an inability to argue
that design is also obvious. Recognizing our own weakness
in comprehensibility, though, is deemed to have more
value than the ability to prove design in reality. It
also removes from us the need to attempt to see a
perceivable design when there would not seem to be one.
It allows us to accept reality for what it really is. Yet, in still
accepting the reality of a Master Designer, we also
cannot simply accept the chaos and lack of order or
design. This initiates a new aspect of the debate over
the existence of a Master Designer or not. The issue may
not be in the question of whether reality clearly shows
this or not but, rather, in the way that we view reality.
One who accepts the reality of a Master Designer must
accept a reality of forethought and, no matter how
seemingly impossible it may be to see this foresight,
would always need to be motivated to attempt to
understand it, at least on some level. This
is the powerful challenge facing the Torah Jew in the
acceptance of God as the Master Designer. On one hand, a
person must be careful that in the motivation to find
design in reality, one does not simplify reality thereby.
On the other hand, an option that suggests there is no
reason behind the reality also cannot be deemed
acceptable. The modern issue of how we relate to the
argument that there is a genetic basis for homosexuality
is a good example of this dilemma. On one hand, given
that God clearly forbids homosexual behaviour, it would
seem unfathomable that he would create a drive of this
nature. The trend of most theists is thus to reject any
argument that this drive has a genetic basis; this would
seem to be contrary to a theory of design and order. Yet
is the dismissal of this perceived evidence also not a
potential attempt at simplification in order to perceive
design more easily? Accepting design in the creation of a
homosexual drive while forbidding this behaviour presents
a powerful challenge – but this may be exactly what
is demanded of us. And our directive is to attempt to
understand. Within Torah,
I would contend, the real issue of a Master Designer is
thus not in whether reality points to this or not but
rather the effect on reality of such a perception.
Acceptance of a Master Designer changes the way that we
look at reality. In a certain way, this change may
actually have a negative consequence, pushing individuals
to see reality in a more simplistic way in order to see
the design more easily. We must be careful of this
possibility. But there is a much broader consequence of
this acceptance of a Master Designer. We are called upon
to see reality as having forethought, period. There are
arguments within the world of psychology that life is
better lived (or, simply, liveable) if one can find
meaning, i.e. some perceived and even personal value for
which to live. This is the basis of Victor Frankl’s
Logotherapy. This is not the same concept as is presented
here. One could meet the psychological goal of meaning by
becoming a devoted baseball fan, finding personal value
and meaning in the pursuit of the activities of the world
of baseball. This, though, is an invented perception of
value and order. The person reads a perception into
reality which allows the individual to have some
personal, positive impression. This is not the same as
seeing reality as reflecting forethought. A question of
forethought in this regard would be: why did God create
baseball? What is the purpose of this activity in
existence? The issue is not personal. The issue is
reality. The search is for an objective reason. Existence
can be a challenge. The details of life can be
disturbing. We encounter constantly possibilities for
pain and suffering. The human being needs a motivation to
overcome these difficulties in order to continue to meet
the challenge that is existence. The details of pleasure
can offer some of that motivation; however, in order to
ensure that a search for the details of pleasure continue
to outweigh the confrontations with the details of pain,
individuals usually need to find a notion of the gestlalt
that defines life in a manner beyond the details. This is
what is meant by “meaning” as understood in the
realm of psychology. We search for something that ties
together the details and creates for us some type of
order, a design for our lives. Within the realm of
psychology, the motivation for meaning is from us; we
want a design in our lives. For many
people, the theological notion of a Master Designer may
simply also be projected from the person for thereby the
personal design of one’s life is given more value
and thus more strength. Whether one defines, in this
regard, a Master Designer or simply outlines a personal
meaning for one’s life, the goal may be the same
– to thereby give an order and design to one’s
life to thereby continue in the face of the challenge of
existence. The true challenge inherent in the acceptance
of a Master Designer – especially when one accepts
this concept in the face of an understanding of the
nature of this design – lies, though, in the
recognition that thereby one is not simply trying to find
a purpose in one’s life but, rather, a purpose to
existence as it is. A doctor may go on a mission to a
Print this article . Email to a Friend . Join the Discussion . Sign up for Nishma Have you seen the Nishma Blog? |
©
2011 NISHMA
