Intelligent design: a cognitive cop-out

Creationists believe in the words of their holy book to tell them how the world came into being. Atheists understand that while science answers many of the mysteries of our physical world, it does not pretend to KNOW all the details, nor does it attempt to fill any of the gaps of knowledge with a weak contrivance of an explanation passed off as truth. Proponents of intelligent design, however, bait you in with science - deductively, not inductively - contending everything is designed by a supernatural creative force with some unknowable overriding intent.

I can understand why someone might be tempted by such thoughts. It is often presented to you like a gilded lily. For the weak minded, the one that understands some science, but who also needs to have a divine creator to pray to or to praise or to even blame, intelligent design is for you. It removes the need for facts in places where none exist, and alleviates your mind of the burden of thought because those gaps exist. Poof! You can believe in scientific evidence AND you get to keep your god! Isn't it wonderful?

Of course not, as one of my twitter friends so aptly put, it's creationism dressed up in a fake lab coat. It parades itself as scientific theory and demands to be taught in public schools. As its basic hypothesis, that there is an intelligent designer, cannot be tested, it in no way even approximates a scientific theory. It does not deserve public recognition as truth or science, let alone deserve public funding or classroom time. It is simply pseudoscience. 

Since intelligent design is a complete cognitive cop-out, I find that I have more respect for creationists. At least they don't try to put their fairy tale in a lab coat.

Perspective

Our views in and on life are all just a matter of perspective. Major contributors include geographic location, personal philosophy, our current place in time, the theologies and beliefs of our parents, and our own internalized experiences.

Galileo's reinvention of the telescope, and subsequent discovery of the moons of Jupiter, sent the theological world into a bitter tailspin in the 1600's. Identification of sun spots was considered by the church to be pure sacrilege - how could god have created a blemished heavenly body? It destroyed their current concept of reality. The result? The Inquisition took up astronomy and the accumulation of new information was stymied; established science was relegated to the Index. Scientists had to be outwardly consistent with church doctrine for fear of oppression, isolation, and death (Galileo's story is an example). Many of our foundational scientists were indeed devout, but if any of their scientific ideas or discoveries could have been construed as contrary to church doctrine, they would have to be discarded, hidden, or discussed only privately (Newton is a good example). A reflection of the church's control over information: It is well known that for a period of time, stating support for the Copernican heliocentric model of our little spot in the universe was considered to be the most abominable heresy, even ABOVE the denial of god's existence.

The moral here is that change is very dangerous when you have a fixed worldview or theological dogma. Today, science is always questing, reaching, learning, and it is doing this without regard to YOUR personal beliefs. It is not perfect, but without change progress cannot occur. Do not let yourself get stuck in the belief that the perspective provided to you by the times you live in is absolute and infallible. Questioners like Galileo had to endure this challenge. Acceptance of absolute truths without periodic review and skepticism is counterproductive and will cause you to be left behind. And worse, you won't even know it.