16

Intelligent Design
O thou great unknown Power!

he human intellect is desperate to investigate the context of its very existence, but there are huge gaps in our understanding. ats okay; most people would probably think it honest and honourable to admit to not knowing everything. But what about claiming that you know a certain amount and then invoking a supernatural explanation for the bits you dont? To then use this in argument is like turning your own ignorance into a weapon against your adversaries. e Intelligent Design movement, the most recent case attempting to suggest wholesale doubt within scientic ranks, unfortunately has the appearance of doing just that. e scientists largely refuse to be drawn to debate, stating that Intelligent Design is, ironically, just a resurrection of Paleys Natural eology, and thus a modern twist to Old Earth Creationism. is section is in two parts: in this chapter we deal with some biological and theological aspects of Intelligent Design, and in the next chapter we investigate some political ramications, specically the consequences for our educational systems. Agnosticism has become a bit of a dirty word for being non-committal in the arenas of strongly held views and bullish opinion. Well, there was nothing irresolute about Huxley who introduced the term in 1869 to describe his rm rejection of Natural eology while still being able to accept biblical moral teachings. Like his friend and colleague Darwin, Huxley also strove for truth and understanding through Humes scientic method; he considered Humes Natural History of Religion, one of the rst robust naturalistic analyses of faith as a human behaviour, to have anticipated the results of modern investigation. us, it was not a cowardly escape by Huxley, to admit to there being gaps in his understanding: without (Greek: a-) knowledge (Greek: gnosis). It was a condent and courageous salute to the complexity in nature, and complexity
112

INTELLIGENT DESIGN

in our intelligence, as a part of nature. From Huxleys later essay Agnosticism in 1889:
When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain gnosis, had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion [] So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of agnostic. It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the gnostic of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant; and I took the earliest opportunity of parading it at our Society [] Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, Try all things, hold fast by that which is good; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him; it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith.

Humes empiricism demands that an idea must be demonstrable before becoming a known Matter of Fact, and Huxleys agnosticism was an admission to gaps in that knowledge. He was making a move away from Creationism, whereas Intelligent Design is seen as a political God of the gaps, and a return to Creationism. e tragedy is that Intelligent Design advocates are honestly trying hard to integrate science and religion, ulterior more political motives aside. e travesty is that it is presented purely as a science, whereas in fact it doesnt fully match Huxleys agnosticism as an exacting and discerning methodology for truth. However, one of the main advocates, William A. Dembski, defends Intelligent Design as having a starting point quite dierent to that of Creationism:
Creationism is always a doctrine about where did everything come from ultimately. Intelligent Design really falls under the engineering sciences. What we found is in the last 30 years with advances in molecular biology and biochemistry, and the information sciences, is that there are features of biological systems that cannot be understood and explained apart from

113