Science and Intelligent Design, 1st Attempt

I have no problems with people who think the entire universe was created by some omnipotent being of extreme intelligence in his own image, as a big joke, or in any other way that we mere mortals can't possibly comprehend. It's a theory, and as a theory is just as valid as any other. It doesn't have nearly the supporting evidence or solid grounding in logic as other theories, including the theory of evolution, the theory of the big bang, or many other scientific theories, but then again its like calling a horse a man and trying to make it wear your pants. Okay, maybe not. But it is trying to get a belief-based theory to fit into the lexicon and framework of the scientific method - which is the exact antithesis of a belief-based system.

Beliefs have no place in a process that was specifically designed to eliminate them in favor of factual evidence. That's just the way it is - by definition. There is no inherent value-judgment placed on the scientific method, it was simply designed to do a specific thing for a specific goal, and it does so, by design, without allowance for different methods of interpretation. It is, itself, a strict method of interpreting and learning about the world we live in within a single, rigid framework. I happen to think about most of my world within that framework. I like the idea of being able to make predictions based on gathered data, evidence, and proven hypotheses, as it helps keep me healthy and alive better than any other framework I've considered.


What I do have a problem with is people like Johnny Hart, creator and author of the wildly popular and widely-syndicated comic B.C. While this comic is hardly the most annoying thing for a scientist to come across in the realm of the God vs. Science debates, (an issue that itself is annoyingly narrow-minded, but more on that later) it is yet another seemingly willful attempt to obfuscate and dilute the actual definition and meaning of science in favor of completely non-scientific views - an action that is aggravating not because it tries to undermine my own personal view of the universe, but because it seems to be based in the ignorant and intellectually lazy assumption that the scientific framework erodes the validity of any faith-based system. (Ask anyone who knows me. Almost nothing bugs me more than willfully ignorant people who don't think for themselves.) My main problem with the entire intelligent design push is that it tries to claim itself a position in scientific discourse, particularly in public schools. While its intellectual and philosophical merits may be debated, and I think they should be, it simply doesn't fit within the framework rigidly designed by the scientific method, and by the definition of such, the theory of intelligent design is not science.

A few summarizing points:

1. There is absolutely no need for Science and Belief to be mutually exclusive.
2. Things that have their foundations based completely on faith cannot be called science, simply by the definition of the terms.
3. Varying frameworks for the interpretation and understanding of reality can be logically argued against each other for their effectiveness in a particular task (e.g. the survival of the species,) but theories from varying frameworks can't. It's like trying to argue in two completely different languages, and is equally pointless. (This is the major problem that arises by trying to claim that one religion is the "right" religion.)

Unfortunately, while everyone that I know uses the basic world-view framework of the scientific method, even the most religious of my friends, the illogical and unpredictable aspects of human nature will always throw a monkey wrench in any attempts to live strictly by the scientific method, so the above three points are, themselves, effectively hopeless. That doesn't mean, however, that we shouldn't try to at least understand them.