Published: September 19, 2008 12:10 pm            

KISSEL: Will Sarah Palin strengthen design debate?

“As soon as man does not take his existence for granted, but beholds it as something unfathomably mysterious, thought begins,” wrote philosopher, physician and Nobel Peace Prize winner Albert Schweitzer, who died in 1965.

I think it’s a fine way to begin discussing a relatively new theory about the development of life called intelligent design, which I tripped upon many years ago on the Internet and has since been churning in my mind.

Design theorists state that life on Earth — and elsewhere — did not simply happen by chance. More importantly, it took an all-knowing designer — the term God is usually avoided, but it’s not Martha Stewart – to create the sophisticated and fantastically flawed product known as the human race.

See, design theorists don’t like Darwin. Not necessarily because he slammed shut the door on young Earth creationists – the folks who think our planet is just a little older than Queen Elizabeth and followed the script verbatim in Genesis 1 and 2.

No, they think his research blows chunks. That and the fact that Darwinian evolution denies the possibility the natural world can be influenced by things outside of it, i.e. God. That is the central tenant of design theory.

Now the scientific establishment will shoot back that design theory, which has been a formal movement for less than 20 years, isn’t science. They say it’s faith wrapped in a Technicolor dreamcloak of science. A back door into the schools for the creationists who suffered numerous court negative decisions during the 1980s and in Kansas in 1999.

However, with Sarah Palin, these forces may have Wonder Woman-powered advocate — maybe in the White House or the Oval Office.

As far as the science of design theory goes, during the time I’ve spent researching this topic, I’ve sloughed through a lot of daunting vocabulary but not a lot of hard facts. (Which isn’t to say it’s not out there or if it is; the movement is not getting along well with the scientific establishment.)

On the other hand, the further you listen to design theorists, the more it seems Darwinian evolution requires many leaps of faith of as well and resembles its own secular religion.

One of the design theorists’ chief complaints about Darwinian evolution is that it’s driven completely by naturalistic processes that are “purposeless,” that last word used repeatedly in their essays.

Maybe I’m thick-headed, but nowhere could I find a definition of what that purpose is except that maybe it’s for Him to know and us to find out.

Darwinian evolution, however — simple as it is — does offer a purpose ... survive, reproduce and hope that your kids do a little better than you did.

What else could you ask for?

Then again, if faith helps you get through the day — or a life — that’s great. In my opinion, everybody these days could use a good dose of it.

But does science need it? It seems to be doing just fine – almost too well — on its own. (As Frank Lloyd Wright said, “I believe in God. I call it nature.”)

Personally, I think God favors a hands-off approach. He may have pressed the button that started the machine, but the rules are simple: This is our game to win or lose. Even if you look at Jesus’ short life — aside from his showstoppers — to me it wasn’t about direct intervention; more about setting an example to be followed by choice.

“I believe that one of the characteristics of the human race — possibly the one that is primarily responsible for its course of evolution — is that it has grown by creatively responding to failure,” wrote researcher and scientist Glen Seaborg. There is a definite purpose in that statement.

I also think design theory is a little human-centric. Who’s to say we’re so hot as a species? “It’s in your nature to destroy yourself,” the California Guvinator once said to a human boy in “T2.” And looking down at our warring, scarring, rocking speck of a planet, who’s to say The Big G is so thrilled at what’s going on? Perhaps he was perfectly content watching a never-ending humanless Jurassic Park? And who’s to say this Earth is his only entertainment outlet?

While it may seem I’m against design theory, I do think it’s intriguing and worth further discussion. There is much to learn about this subject, possibly the most wide-ranging and unknowable of all.

I also acknowledge that since Darwinian evolution has been the leading scientific theory about the development of life on this planet for almost the entire 20th century — and my entire life — it’s a hard one to shake. I’m sure people felt similarly when confronting the idea we didn’t live on a pizza box.

Maybe the scientific establishment needs a little shaking up on this issue.

Or is it just a move backward?

“Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.”

That’s from Sarah Palin two years ago during a debate amongst candidates to be Alaska’s governor.

“I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.”

I know I look forward to when this topic re-emerges, with hopefully, everyone managing to keep the decibel level at a conversational level.

Joseph Kissel covers Grand Island, and beyond, for the Record.

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.