Intelligent Design?
p2p news / p2pnet:- In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Intelligent Design. Or put another way, British naturalist Charles Darwin was dead wrong.
It’s called Creationism and with the blessing of the US administration, the US entertainment and software cartels have been using their own customized brand for some time.
Schools around the world are becoming taxpayer funded, staff supported marketing and industry propaganda resources for get `em while they`re young schemes under which everything the cartels say is right is right, and everyone else is wrong and can therefore be sued into accepting the cartel point of view.
George W appears to be peddling his own Creationist beliefs in the US.
At a round table with Texas reporters, he was asked about his thoughts on what seems to be a growing debate over evolution versus intelligent design and whether or not both should be taught in public schools, states Hendrik Hertzberg in a New Yorker comment piece, going on to quote Bush as saying, I think – as I said, harking back to my days as my governor – both you and Herman are doing a fine job of dragging me back to the past. (Laughter.) Then, I said that, first of all, that decision should be made to local school districts, but I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught.
Now, 11 parents of students at the Dover Area School District in south-central Pennsylvania are, suing over the school district’s decision to include `intelligent design` – an alternative to evolution that involves a God-like creator – in the curriculum of ninth-grade biology, says Reuters.
The 11 and the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) say this violates the constitutional separation of church and state, which forbids teaching religion in public schools. They also argue that intelligent design is unscientific and has no place in a science curriculum.
Bush`s Texas colloquy was, an occasion for national shame, albeit with a whiff of the risible, says Hertzberg: here is our country’s leader, the champion-in-chief of educational standards, blandly equating natural science and supernatural supposition as `different schools of thought`.
“The Dover school board says it does not teach intelligent design but simply makes students aware of its existence as an alternative to evolution,” says Reuters. “It denies that intelligent design is ‘religion in disguise’ and says it is a scientific theory.
In the meanwhile, “Opponents including the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Association of Biology Teachers say intelligent design is an attempt by the Christian right to teach creationism. The Supreme Court banned the teaching of creationism in public schools in a 1987 ruling.”
And while the controversy rages, perhaps the ACLU and others can be persuaded to act for the millions of people around the world who are being persecuted for their belief that theory of Cartel Omnipotence doesn’t represent the natural order of things.
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win
- Mohandas Gandhi
See:-
customized brand – Big Music university shill report, September 21, 2005
New Yorker – MIRED, August 15, 2005
Reuters – New school battle on evolution hitting court, September 24, 2005
September 25th, 2005 at 6:47 pm
An article in the Statesman gives a good explanation of why it’s not valid to argue: “let’s teach both sides of the issue in the science classes and let the students decide”
It’s written in a way that most people can understand it. I used it in an article on my blog as the main pointer to help educate people.
I’m all for opening students’ minds to many possibilities, but if ID is brought up in a science class, it should only be to explain the scientific method the idea of a null hypothesis. In that context it would be very educational to include it in a single lesson, but that isn’t how ID-proponents want it included.
If you want to include ID for any other reason, then you must also include the FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monster). I won’t get into that here, as most of you probably already know about it. I’ve included a link to my comments on that as well.
Links:
http://nasadude.dnsalias.org/blog/archives/2005/09/intelligent_design_debacle.html
http://www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php?clid=24&theme=&usrsess=1&id=90508
http://nasadude.dnsalias.org/blog/archives/2005/09/flying_spaghetti_monster.html
If you enjoyed those, you might like other items on the blog.
http://nasadude.dnsalias.org/blog/
September 25th, 2005 at 6:50 pm
I wonder why the A.C.L.U. isn’t opposed to the teaching of evolution. Evolution IS NOT a proven fact. There are many, many holes in the theory of evolution, yet in most government ordained schools, it is taght as fact. Many scientists will accept any archealogical clues as to the exisatance of primitive man so long as it supports their theory and will bring about any resource they can muster and spend years and any reource to come up with any way to refute evidence that shows any possibility that the Bible is true. Many of those who are evolutionists are just as fanactic as any other religious wacko.
Before anyone who reads this decides that Im some kind or religios nut, read on. I am a big critic of organized religion such as the Christian Coalition of America for their support of filth spewing organizations such as the RIAA and MPAA. I believe that organized religion has done as much if not more to cause disbelief in the Bible as the ACLU or any other type of anti-creationist organization. I would also like to point out that I do not attend any kind of organized corporate (501C3) church. I am a supporter of the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution that forbids the forcing of religion on any person or forbidding any person from worshipping the Creator how he or she sees fit. This First Amendment to the Constitution also applies to religions such as evolution.
September 25th, 2005 at 7:16 pm
One reason for the goverment sponsered promotion of the religion of evolution is the fact that it teaches that there is no god. If people believe that there is no god, then they will not try to live by laws taught in books such as the Bible or the Q’eran. If people learn that they are not bound to live by cvertain precepts or expect to receive an eternal reward or punishment, their attitude becomes L.F.N. (live for now). By having no thought od a Supreme Being, man then decides that he is god. Man does what he wants and is only limited by other men. Humans will look to other humans to dorection instead of a Creator. The state now becomes god. When people refuse to fear God, they will fear and worship the state.
This type of government worship is even promoted in most of the churches in the land today. If you do not believe me, listen carefully when you attend the another wedding. You will hear the priest, minister, imam, or pastor state the following, “By the power vested in me by the State of …. I pronounce you husband and wife.” A marriage in nothing more than a contract between a man and women to enter into a beneficial relationship for the rest of their lives. This contract requires each signatory to perfore certain duties. By putting the state above everything else or looking to the state as a benevolent benefactor, you are in fact are “worshipping the Beast.” By believing in the church for salvation, you are following the “False Prophet.” Both are very dangerous things to do. If you want to learn the truth and do what is right read and study the Scriptures (from beginning to end) for yourself and ponder the meaning on your own rather than depend on someone from a coprorate church to tell you what is right. You will be amazed in how your opinion of thing will change. Many in the corporate church make a very good living at keeping peoples minds in submission to the state. Do your study for yourself and you will find the truth.
September 25th, 2005 at 7:29 pm
If I were to get in front of a classroom and debate evolution with a school teacher and based my arguments on scientific proofs, students would most likely not take much stock in the religion of evolution. I used to believe stricly in evolution as the reason we came into being. From a purely scientific viewpoint, I have found many, many holes in the theory. Depite these many holes in the theory, evolution continues to be taught as scientific fact in the public school system. While the word theory is used occasionally in promoting the religion of evolution, hardly any facts are presented to students which dispute the theory even though these facts plainly exists.
I am a Bible believer, but I agree with you that hte discussion should be kept within the realm of science. However, teachers need to be taught about the facts that dispute evolution and should be required to teach these facts to students. But since this is not done, evolution should not be taught within the public school system. The way evelution is taught in school today shows that it is mainly taught religiously.
September 25th, 2005 at 8:37 pm
“Depite these many holes in the theory, evolution continues to be taught as scientific fact in the public school system. — The way evelution is taught in school today shows that it is mainly taught religiously.”
That has got to be the single biggest pile of bullshit I ever heard.
Evolution is a scientific “theory” (which requires a substantial burden of proof to qualify for in the first place) ONLY because it lacks that final proof…observable and repeatable evidence.
Oh wait, my bad, that final proof has been around for DECADES! Any biologist with a bit of time on their hands can demosntrate the evolutionary principle with bacteria in a dish.
So why is it still called a “theory”? In most of the world it is not, but in this “land of the idiot” we call the USA the “religious” right violently opposses any attempt to view reality objectively.
September 25th, 2005 at 11:27 pm
The only reason it is called a theory (which is a very high standard in science) is because there is that extremely small chance that the theory could be disproved or better explained by another theory that may come along in the future.
September 25th, 2005 at 11:56 pm
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05268/577404.stm
TT
September 26th, 2005 at 1:22 am
Since the post I’m responding to purports that evelotution is the source of all life, I feel compelled to answer it. The poster also states that the fact that evolution is taught religiously is bullshit. The poster is wrong here, too. Evolution does exist, that is proven as the poster stated, however what cannot be proven is that evolution is the single source of all life on the planet.
The religion of evolution teaches that man “evolved from earlier primates”. However, facts show that humans are more internally similar to swine. As a matter of fact scientists use the internal parts of swine to repair human injuries. The skin of swine have been used for skin grafts in human beings for years. The reason why the chimpanzee’s skin or organs are not widely used to repair human injury is because chimpanzee tissue is incompatable with that of a human’s. If humans and chimps “evolved” from a common species, there would have been chemically more similar. I NEVER heard this fact taught in school!
Bacteria do change because they can exchange DNA. When we procreate, we also pass on DNA. However a giraff cannot change into an elephant, a cat cannot change into a mouse, nor can a butterfly become a dinosaur. Genes are like huge computer programs. The routines executed by individual cells determine how these cells divide, function, and even how ling the live. Like modern day programs, they can exchange bit and pieces of their code in order to impart certain characteristics. This type of DNA change can be compared to some modern day computer viruses.
Another piece of evidence that the religion of evolution likes to use to establish their histories and timeline is carbon 14 dating. Carbon 14 has a half-life of 5700 years. This mean that in 5700 years 1000grams of carbon 14 will decompose so that there is only 500 grams. So in order to determine how old a fossil is, one must know how much carbon fourteen was originally present in the fossil, how much carbon 14 was lost as a result of decay and how much carbon 14 was lost to other factors such as leeching. One must also be able to determine that in fact, no carbon 14 was added between the time of death for the organisim until the time of dating. Most scientists use similar modern day animals to determin approximately how much carbon 14 would have been present in a fossil when it was alive. However this comparison cannot be determined to be accurate. Carbon 14 is produced by carbon dioxide reaching the upper layers of the atmosphere and being bombarded with radiation from the sun. Some years, the sun may unleash more radiation (producing more carbon 14) and other years, the sun may unleash less radiation (producing less carbon 14). There are also differing percentages of carbon (carbon dioxide) in the air at different intervals in history. An animal that dies today in a sealed environment and examined a 1000 years from today would appear much “younger” than an animal that died a 1000 years ago and was examined today. Why? because there is much more carbon dioxide in the air today. The accuracy of carbon 14 dating cannot be proven over a thousands of years. Howevwer, this inconsistance is not taught in school.
The religion of evolutution has taught that that life just sprang into being when the right chemicals fored themselves together and the right spark of energy occured at the exact right time. The evolutionists claim to know which chemical are the building blocks of life, yet they cannot make a living organism out of nonliving chemicals. It is taught in schools as a fact that living organisms formed out of nonliving substances, yet it is rarely pointed out that man has not been able to re-create these conditions and get the results that have been taught.
Just like you who chooses to downgrade any thing that does not fit your religious belief in evolution, many others downgrade that which they do not understand and call it some kind of fairy tail. You call the U.S.A. the “land of the idiot,” why? Is it because a large portion believes in a Supreme Being? Does belief in a surpreme Being make us backward? Does it make us any less of a person than an evolutionist? You seem to think so. I however, do not think the same about evolutionists. Why? because I can understand why people do not believe in a god simply because of the way most people are taugh in Sunday school. They are taught the battle of David and Goliath in terms of Goliath being 4 or 5 times the height of David (at least that is how it is depicted in the illustrations in many Bibles). This is the same way churches teach a lot of things from the Bible. No wonder there is now so many practicers of the evolution religion.
I can discuss many, many different holes in the theory of evolution just the same as you can probably show me many different holes in the modern translation of the Bible. However you will not convince me that your religion is correct and I will not likely convince you that my religion is correct. This is not the point of my reply. My point is that one religion ie evolution is taught in schools while another religion (belief in a Supreme Being) is suppressed within the same schools. This is what I am complaining about. I would be even satisfied with only the religion ofevolution being taught if all that factual information against this religion was taught as well. But unfortunately, kids in the public school system will not get the chance to hear the other side because so many peopl are afraid of that happening.
Oh and by the way, I am not even a Christian, nor am I am a Republican. I am appalled at many of the same things that the neo-conservative politicians are preaching today. I also want to point out that evolution is not the only religion that is taught in schools. Other religions are also taught such as Shintoism, Eastern meditation (ie form of Buddism), Islam, New Age philosophy, and state worship. The only religions that are not allowed even a tiny bit are those of Judeaism and Christianity (The religions of the modern day Isrealite – ie the Jews and so-called lost tribes). Just because I believe in a Supreme Being does not make me a backwards idiot. I have put my mind to work creating many different networks and computer programs that are used by many people today. If you didn’t know many of the world’s finest minds belong to people who believe in a Surpreme being. One of the greatest was Albert Einstein.
September 26th, 2005 at 1:28 am
The solution is simple. Either teach both or neither. Both can be seen to have holes in their theory. To teach one at the expens of another shows favortism and the lack of equality plain and simple.
September 26th, 2005 at 1:51 am
In the words of Lewis Black: “THEY’RE BLINDING YOU WITH NOT SCIENCE!”
Intelligent design is not a theory. Stop treating it like it is science, because it is not.
Plus, many other theories have holes in them, yet they are widely accepted and scientists work on how to better a theory. Look at the field of physics for a major example of theories that are not complete.
September 26th, 2005 at 2:49 am
At school. I was forced to sing hymns at school and go to religous education classes. This was when i was between 11-14. Possibilly earlier as well, but i don’t remember it, thankfully.
Even at that age i knew there was something wrong. I didn’t believe in god, so why should it be forced upon me?
Of course, i believe everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. If someone wants to believe in a religion, thats fine with me. I just don’t think it should be forced upon anyone. We should all be left to make up our own minds and decide for ourselfs.
By the way, this was in the UK and at an average grammer school. And im 26 now, so that was quite a while ago. But still i feel an anger at being forced to study a religion i didn’t believe in. I’ve always had more of an affinity towards science. It just makes sense to me.
If i have children, i will make sure the same thing never happens to them.
September 26th, 2005 at 7:46 am
Intelligent Design?!?!?!?!
Have these ppl never seen a platypus!?!?!?!?! Can anyone who has seen one, honestly consider it’s designer to be intelligent? Or sane!? Ok ok it fills a specialised niche role, but c’mon!!! I’m sure a dozen logical, normal, looking animals could have fit the bill just as well.
For everyone who doesn’t know what a platypus is, check out the link below.
http://www.pbs.org/kratts/world/aust/plat/
September 26th, 2005 at 12:28 pm
With the history of the world being what it is, a continuous cycle of death, war, famine, poverty, drugs, unequality, hurricanes, bankruptcy, unemployment, gasoline prices, stupid politicians, mafia, corruption, copyright law, RIAA… you get the picture… who would think that this was created inteligently? Only a sadistic moron would design this world with the results we see.
The worst part is that we worship the non existent sadistic moron, meaning that we are morons also.
I wonder why are ID morons concerned about the creation of life (as was, intelligently, Darwin) and not the creation of the Universe, where we are nothing more than dust particles?
September 26th, 2005 at 2:45 pm
I agree with you wholeheartedly. Nobody should be forced to practice a religion that they disagree with even if the religion is Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Evolutionism, Shintoism, Jainism, or Buddism. There is scientific evidence supporting and detracting from all of these.
September 26th, 2005 at 2:53 pm
According to Biblical theory, there is a reason for all of the continuous cycle of death, war, famine, poverty, drugs, unequality, hurricanes, bankruptcy, unemployment, gasoline prices, stupid politicians, mafia, corruption, copyright law, RIAA…
However, people choose to ignore or laugh at the the principles involved in dreating this mess. The theory of the “Big Bang” seems to me to be just as “magical” as the theory of ID. However, the theories or doctrines of one religion (evolution) is taught widely while the other religions are ignored. If we are going to teach the religion of evolution or spontaneous appearance (Big Bang) of the universe then what is the harm of teaching intelligent design? Even the Bible states that the heavens are expanding.
I say if we teach one religion, we need to teach the other. If not, then we do not need to teach any of these religions.
A non-christian
September 26th, 2005 at 4:23 pm
“With the history of the world being what it is, a continuous cycle of death, war, famine, poverty, drugs, unequality, hurricanes, bankruptcy, unemployment, gasoline prices, stupid politicians, mafia, corruption, copyright law, RIAA… you get the picture… who would think that this was created inteligently? Only a sadistic moron would design this world with the results we see.”
According to Biblical Theory the cause of death, war, famine, poverty, drugs, unequality, hurricanes, bankruptcy, unemployment, gasoline prices, stupid politicians, mafia, corruption, copyright law, RIAA… is the fact that people refuse to obey the commandments that prevent these exact things. Hurricanes and other natural disasters are about the only that keeps evil (breaking of commandments) from destroying the land.
“The worst part is that we worship the non existent sadistic moron, meaning that we are morons also.”
Here again, you disrespect the believes of others. People of the likes of you claim to promote diversity while at the same time want to defame any opinion that does not match your beliefs. Your statements that those who believe in a Surpreme Creator are morons further illustrates your bigotry against those who believe differently than you. Many of the greatest minds of history belong to people who believe in a surpreme being. Albert Einstein is but one of these people. You also cannot prove the non-existance of a Supreme Creator.
“I wonder why are ID morons concerned about the creation of life (as was, intelligently, Darwin) and not the creation of the Universe, where we are nothing more than dust particles?”
Once again people like you really do not want to promote diversity. It is people like you who are the bigots in the modern world. Again, rather than debate intelligently, you revert to name calling. The so called “Big Bang Theory” sounds just as much like a fairy tale as you claim Intelligent design does. Hey, where did all this mass come from? Energy? Then where did all the energy come from? The truth is that you cannot prove that this theory is true, yet you say the same thing about intelligent design. While the Big Bang Theory and evolution sounds very plausible on the surface, it falls apart under careful scientific scrutiny.
Before you start calling other people stupid because they have a different religion other than evolution, you really ought to investigate inconsistancies of the teachings of the self creation-evolution religion. I believe that the reason why you so religiously argue your theory is because that is how you were taught in school.
Any religion, including Christianity, evolution, and Islam that is not taught with critical thinking is dangerous. This is one reason why I believe in homescholling is because I do not want the public school system forcing my children into practicing the religion of evolution.
September 26th, 2005 at 6:52 pm
Creationism is not a science? Well that is you opinion. However, many intelligent people also believe that it is a science.
September 26th, 2005 at 10:24 pm
Even the theory that George Washington was a great man has holes,,, he was actually a slave trader and over 200 slaves when he died. The same for Thomas Jefferson. That is a really big hole.
Obviously that is no reason for not teaching about the American revoluton at schools, else no history could be taught.
September 27th, 2005 at 12:37 am
science is not a religion.
September 27th, 2005 at 12:50 am
“Once again people like you really do not want to promote diversity.”
People like me? Please read some history about religions first. Religious leaders, history teaches us, are the most oppresive things that ever existed and the ones that least tolerated diversity. Remeber the inquisition? They only indoctrinated and tortured. Vey typical of religions. You want more of the same?
September 27th, 2005 at 2:17 am
Same here, I went to boarding school in the UK. We had hymns in the morning, said grace at meals, were forced to go to church on sundays and to donate money to the church out of our own allowance.
Fortunately everyone bar 2 people were smart enough in my year not to continue Religious Education (RE) as an examination option so it was dropped from age 14 onwards, however we were still required to go to church and sing hymns in the the morning.
Wonder if we could use our government for trying to brainwash us?
September 27th, 2005 at 3:30 am
“is the fact that people refuse to obey the commandments”
Let me see if I undesrand:
The world is a mess because people refuse to obey the commandments. I assume you are talking about the 10 big ones. Then the design was not so intelligent after all, if the results are a mess, meaning that the design was flawed and didn’t work out.
Perhaps a better design could have been made: Eternal hapiness for everyone in exchange of nothing, including obedience, money or worship. Now that is a perfect design.
September 27th, 2005 at 4:56 am
“Please read some history about religions first. Religious leaders, history teaches us, are the most oppresive things that ever existed and the ones that least tolerated diversity. Remeber the inquisition? They only indoctrinated and tortured. Vey typical of religions”
The same has occured by the practicers of the religion of volution. Ever hear of what the Communists did? Most commies are devout evolutionists who go after practicers of other religions. Look at Red China. Look at the Khemer Rouge.
September 27th, 2005 at 5:02 am
The Supreme Being interferes only enough to keep mankind from destroying itself. The Supreme Being is allowing mankind to lear its lesson. That is the way I belive. I have no problem with evolutionists practicing their faith. I do, however, have a problem with the religion of evolution being foisted on my children without critical facts being brought up. If schools force kids to learn about the religion of evolution, then they should teach about other religions as well.
September 27th, 2005 at 5:05 am
Right…. Every theory and religion can be said to have holes in it and that also includes evelution. So why should the religion of evolution be taught and other religions not?
September 27th, 2005 at 9:04 am
You need to learn the difference between science and faith. And if you want to teach believe science is just like religion you’d of course have no objection to having a scientist attend every church sunday school to teach children about evolution.
September 27th, 2005 at 11:55 am
“Ever hear of what the Communists did?”
Yes, Stalin terrorized his country for many years.
Hear what the capitalists did?
Hitler terrorized his country for many years.
Hear what the christians did?
The Inquisition terrorized Span for many years.
Hear what the record companies did?
They invented payola and sold rap.
Hear what the scientists did?
They created the atom bomb.
Hear what the teachers did?
They taught that Washington liberated his country when in fact he was a slave owner and trader.
Hear what the legislators did?
The passed the copyright laws.
Now the mostly good guys…..
Hear what the workers did?
They did the work.
Hear what the musicians and arists did?
They made music and art works.
What does it all mean?
Absolutely nothing.
Only idividual persons are good or bad.
Only prejudiced individuals attach properties (good or bad) to groups of people.
September 27th, 2005 at 12:09 pm
“then they should teach about other religions as well.”
You mean only your religion, right?
Or are you proposing that scientist do research to select the one religion that actually represent God from among the thousands that have been invented to represent the thousands of invented Gods?
After all there can only be one true God. The question is which one?
Of course, it is your God, the one you selected before you could read and write, with the help of your parents.
September 27th, 2005 at 12:34 pm
If Bush were to be consistent he would also favor the teaching of all religions at all churches.
That would also be good for ending the religion monopolies.
September 27th, 2005 at 1:25 pm
If religion is not to be taught in public school, I’d be fine with that decision as long as the ban included ALL religion – even evolution.
September 27th, 2005 at 1:27 pm
Evolution is, though. I could use science to advance my religion (which is not evolution). However, if I did that, within the public school system, I’d be in court. The religion of evolution gets a free pass, however.
September 27th, 2005 at 1:30 pm
I agree 100% with the above post. I believe that the above post puts all religions including Islam, Judaism, Buddism, Christianity, evolution and Jainism in the right context.
September 27th, 2005 at 1:36 pm
“You mean only your religion, right?”
No, that IS NOT what I said. I said that if they teach one religion, then they should teach others. Notice that I said others, not MINE. I’m by no means a Bush supporter, however, there is much scientific facts out there that suggest an intelligent design just the same as there are scientific facts out there that suggest evolution.
September 28th, 2005 at 1:07 am
You can falsify evolution. You could show up tomorrow with evidence and a theory to explain it, and the entire thing could be thrown in the trash.
Please tell me how you disprove creationism? What proof would falsify the existence of God?
Science is not religion.
September 28th, 2005 at 1:42 am
Basic logic: You can prove that something exists by showing the object directly or showing indirect evidence. As a corollary, you cannot prove that something does not exists.
For evoution there is evidence.
For God there are stories but no evidence.
May 27th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Part of the problem is that ID is always presented from the Judeo-Christian perspective of being hostile to Darwinian evolution. It is never considered, by opponents or proponents, from the perspective of faiths such as Buddhism or Pandeism, which do not quibble with the role of evolution even in a God-made universe. Pandeism even has as one of its tenets that whatever science reveals as the mechanism of life, that is the means God designed to make life.
August 20th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
ID is most often and wrongly linked to God and creationism, as opposed to Darwinism and evolutionism. We are there in fact facing an old philosophical problem transposed this time from man to the universe: the difficult and even impossible distinction between what is innate and what is acquired. But the reader of my pages http://controlled-hominization.com/ will perhaps agree that evolutionism is not in contradiction with all forms of ID. As a materialist, I think that the confrontation between both concepts is sterile and that a synthesis is even possible.
If any great complexity of a feature could not exclude evolutionism, science itself could not reject some forms of ID in the evolution of the universe, at least in some steps of the process. After all, man himself is already a local actor in this evolution, an actor showing little intelligence so far (global warming, life sciences â¦). He could however be led to play a greater and nobler part if he succeeds to survive long enough (dissemination of life in the cosmos, âterraformingâ of planets, planetary and even stellar formation, artificial beingsâ¦). The development of this kind of âdraft IDâ could only be limited by our refusal to do so and by our ability to survive. We would be viewed as gods by our ancestors from the middle Ages, and we would also view our descendants as gods if we could return in a few hundreds or thousands years.
By his refusal to consider that intelligence could already have played a significant part in the evolution of this universe, man takes in fact for granted that he is the most advanced being. It is in fact just another way for placing himself once again in the middle of everything, as for the Earth before Galileo. This anthropocentric view is not very rational.
Within the frame of evolutionism, the concept of ID could however be applied to the future man if he manages to survive long enough to be able to play a significant part in the evolution of this solar system, in the galaxy, and why not more. And it could also apply to eventual advanced ET preceding man in this cosmic part, advanced ET who could for instance, thanks to their science, have already played a significant part, even if they were themselves born from random processes.
Without going back to a controversial God, pure intelligence born from random processes is so far too easily ignored in the evolution of this universe, and I think that this choice has more to do with faith in manâs solitude in the universe than with true science. Even if it appears later that the ID concept has yet never been used by other beings in this universe, what could prevent man from applying it in the future? As with the Big Bang, ID would certainly remain in the field of hypotheses, but science progresses that way, and it would not be scientific to exclude one hypothesis that could be quite credible. ID is too easily discarded and laughed at, somewhat like continental drift not long ago, and a lot of other concepts too.
Benoit Lebon