How does intelligent design theory define intelligence? My first visit to an ID website was disappointing. I expected at the very least an essay that explained the concept. Instead, I was presented with a one-page site consisting of a large graphic of Mt. Rushmore. The caption noted the difference between the sculpture and the eroded edges of the mountain, the former a product of design with the latter a product of random weathering. The caption went on to compare this to the ToE, claiming a designer must be behind the existence of species.
Let’s put aside the fact that random erosion is a poor model for the ToE, and that ID addresses abiogenesis more than it does evolution. I’d like to discuss ID theory assumptions of design and intelligence, as I see them.
The first thing that struck me about this ID website’s mini-claim was that Mt. Rushmore is obviously man-made. So, the basis for this claim is that of human intelligence. I don’t think the author is suggesting life is a creation of man’s intelligence, but what exactly is he saying? Is he saying that because it takes the intelligence of a human to design and create a sculpture, it must follow that it takes a higher intelligence (god) to create life? I hardly see the connection.
Framing unknowns within the bounds of the human psyche misses the boat; it’s a philosophical error, IMO. Just because we cannot create life does not mean it takes some higher form of intelligence to do so. Just because we don’t have all the answers does not mean we will forever be ignorant. Human knowledge is not a determining factor anyway, so using it as a jump-off point gets us nowhere.
What is intelligence then, and why might it be relevant? I’ve read many discussions on complexity, randomness, design, and how they are supposedly related. Beyond the problems associated with quantifying complexity and randomness, it appears that intelligence, as we generally describe it, is not necessary to build complex structures.
Man is not the only creative species; that’s understood. If I’m given a human creation as evidence of intelligent design, can I not look to the creations of other species to determine their relative levels of intelligence? If I compare the works of a bed-of-leaves building lowland gorilla to those of
macrotermes bellicosus, a mound building African termite, can I then conclude the termite is the more intelligent creature, based on its creation? If the answer in no, then ID theory fails on its premise, i.e., an intelligent designer is necessary for the creation of complex entities. If we were to accept ID theory, it would then follow that the termite is indeed more intelligent than the tree-dweller. If this be the case, then we need to revisit the general definition of intelligence: the ability to think, reason, gather knowledge. Hence, an Intelligent Creator need not possess infinite wisdom at all; he need only "know" how to create. (Quite a paradox)
Philosophically speaking, the notion of intelligence can be highly subjective. Who’s to say that the ability to survive is not more "intelligent" than the ability to think? An interesting question might be, What is more intelligent, street-survival skills, or the ability to speak a foreign language? This surely depends on the situation, but instinct without thought can at times be more beneficial than thought without instinct. I then must ask: If survival is the ultimate goal, and survival is not dependent on intelligence out of necessity, why raise the issue? If there is a Great Designer, he apparently doesn't require intelligence to perpetuate a species. (Indeed, although man is at the top of the food chain, his ability to survive would be greatly enhanced with another pair of legs, a set of wings perhaps.) Therefore, Mt. Rushmore simply illustrates the fact that man has the ability to design and create it, nothing more. Mt. Rushmore does not indicate an innate superiority of man, upon which a claim of devine high intelligence is made. (I’m reminded of certain Native American beliefs, where everything is said to have a spirit, or contain a part of the Great Spirit. It’s said, A rock knows exactly how to be a rock. Not at all scientific, but thought provoking, IMO.)
So, what is the I in ID? It is certainly a great enigma. Enter the theologians who tell us it is an intelligence incomprehensible to the mind of man. That doesn’t speak well for a coherent theory. As I’ve shown, design is not always indicative of intelligence. That effectively leaves us without the I in ID. We also see that intelligence is not prerequisite to survival; it’s not necessarily desireable. The African termite successfully propogates in its exquisite mound with no need for a synaptically complex brain. We could argue that social insects display a degree of complexity in their interactions as a unit. Is this the I in ID? Why should we expect a Creator to be any different than this, the interaction of individual entities working toward a specific goal?
I, myself reject ID as a viable theory because it cannot define intelligence. Until I can be shown what the I in ID means, I will have to shelve the theory.
This message has been edited by chicowboy, 07-11-2004 12:37 AM several 'clean-up' edits
This message has been edited by chicowboy, 07-11-2004 12:39 AM HOW'S THIS?
This message has been edited by chicowboy, 07-11-2004 05:41 AM
This message has been edited by chicowboy, 07-11-2004 06:27 AM
™ Version 4.2