Intelligent
Design actually intelligent, valid
Krystle Ralston
Though I often rant about religion, the theory of Intelligent Design is something
I had not heard much about. I had always called it creation. I now know the particular
term “creation” sounds a little too preachy and the true theory does
not acknowledge God as the creator.
This theory simply states that things in
the universe, things even as tiny as a single cell, are far too intricate in
design to be the result of time and random chances;
they require thoughtful engineering.
One example proving Intelligent Design is something called the bacterial flagellum.
The flagellum, which can be seen only with an electron microscope, looks like
a long tail that helps the bacteria move. It is a machine with a motor running
on high-speed, made up of at least 40 interlocking workings.
These cute little tails were present billions of years ago and do not work unless
all parts are
there. The fancy term for it is called “irreducible complexity.” Simply
put, this tail end of a bacterial organism could not have been arranged aimlessly,
Intelligent Design says. It was engineered.
This theory is popular with religious folks like myself but not so popular with
the scientific community. It is argued the theory is used to fill the gaps in
our knowledge of the universe, or that it is just something used to defy science
and support religion.
That may be some people’s goal, but it is certainly not mine. I admire
and embrace science, along with everything it has done and accomplished over
the course of existence.
But it does have a tiny flaw. It cannot shut out what has yet to be proven wrong.
The world could have been created by a clever designer who may or may not be
God. I happen to believe the latter.
It is very true God has not proven to exist. Everyone knows this. But it also
is a good argument that his existence is entirely and completely likely.
By just
looking out our window or at the detail on the palms of our hands, we have to
consider the possibility that a bunch of cells were not cool enough to be responsible
for any of it.
Somewhere, far beyond our level of recognition, someone or something has enough
intelligence and understanding to give us life and create an awe-inspiring place
in which we live.
This idea has been debated and discussed to death between the scientific and
religious communities. It has even been contemplated to teach this theory side-by-side
with evolution in public schools.
Will it cause confusion? Maybe. But I happen to think that it would have been
nice to have two sides to the argument of how we all came to be.
It never hurts
to be open-minded, and by teaching two separate ideas, it will allow children
to make the choice themselves of what they believe to be true.
You may think I am crazy. Perhaps I am. But all I know is that by looking at
all of the beautiful things that surround us: the sunsets, the mountains, even
the ant that we always find trying to sneak a piece of our lunch away, it is
impossible for me to buy into the idea that it was thrown together accidentally.
It gives me hope to perceive our world as something more than probability.
Krystle Ralston is a senior journalism major.
|
