Darwin's Theory of Evolutionary Design

Earlier this week I watched a PBS broadcast on "Intelligent Design" and thought to myself - shouldn't there be a separation of church and state run television?

I am not a really religious man. Hell, I am not even a scientific man. But I know what I don't know.

I don't know what caused the big bang but I know that something did. I don't know if some higher power is what made fish make their faithful slither, but I know that something made that fish. I would bet, however, that a smart fish would grow legs to get away from the sharks. What gives a fish that intelligence has to be more than just instinct.

By all "expert" accounts, Intelligent Design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion. I stole the last few lines from the most neutral website I could find. The various proponents/opponents on this issue are...fervent - to say the least.

Now, we KNOW that 1859 Charles Darwin used the scientific tools at his disposal to establish that fish evolved into monkeys, and that through natural selection, some species would live on to grow strong, while others would die. Poor Sabretooth, outlasted by the Wolverine.

What really gets me is how the two theories are somehow not congruent? In fact, I see the two working together perfectly

Really.

Hear me out. Natural selection is the actus reas of evolution, Intelligent design is the mens reas.

Darwin wrote that the the strongest would survive and that over time, the characteristics of a species that were detrimental to survival would not perpetuate themselves over time. To this day, the platypus is both the most, or least, evolved animal of them all. The unaccepted principle is that evolution is, itself, an undirected process. I reject out of hand that the driver of evolution is SOLELY chance.

What Darwin couldn't explain, or elected to ignore, was what drove evolution in the first place. His trite answer would be that "instinct to survive" is what drove evolutionary change.

But what created that instinct? Particularly in the animal world, innate constructs are very difficult to pin down. For that matter, what created the slime pool where the first DNA molecule turned into a single celled organism. It is the ultimate chicken and egg existential problem that science CAN'T explain. If it does, the black hole will swallow everything and VINCENT will fail to save Dr. Reinhardt.

I don't think it is overly simplistic to say "these animals evolved in the way that G-d wanted them to." I think that both thoughts offer valid views about the growth of our planet. Neither can be proven to be correct or incorrect. Though intelligent design theory is probably blown by the Human ACL (pun intended).

Frankly, it is the creationists who are wacky. They are confronted with the scientific evidence that disproves their views, and yet they persist - as if Satan himself planted the evidence and the ability to learn it.

ID fans would say that my views are in fact consistent with theirs - but I don't entirely agree - because their view presupposes that G-d had a clear plan or a purpose with her design from start to finish. I am not so arrogant as to think that G-d's purpose could be understood by mortals. Nor do I believe that there is any evidence that this purpose wasn't already realized at some previous point in biblical history. For all I know, Adam blew the show by biting the apple.

We don't know, and anyone who says that they do is definitely not speaking for G-d.

Some day, soon I hope, ID and NS folks will get together and realize they have a lot more in common than they realize. Obviously, neither theory is complete or completable - and as they continue to grow, I hope they will grow together. Natural Intelligent and Selective Design- Or NISD - can and does make sense if you let your mind be open enough.

Otherwise, the end of Star Trek - The Motion Picture makes no sense at all.