Intelligent Design?
If you are interested in a deep dive into the question of whether the universe as we know it is the result of intelligent design or merely the outcome of an infinity of purely accidental coincidences, dial up Joe Rogan’s interview with Stephen C. Meyer, Interview #2008.
In his inimitable style - through curiosity-driven questioning, including a measure of skepticism - Rogan helps Meyer flesh out his provocative theory that in fact the universe was created by intelligent design. For any disinterested materialists who might come upon this post, Meyer may possess information that could pique some interest. With some particularity he notes that several prominent anti-intelligent design (ID) scientists have been swayed by advancements in science (particularly in the fields of genome mapping and computer science) to now assert ‘science’ mandates the recognition of intelligent design. Having been a noted debater on the subject for many years, in Meyer’s estimation in recent years the stigma of being ‘anti-scientific’ is beginning to shift decidedly from pro-ID to anti-ID scientists.
To me intelligent design is self-evident. Nonetheless, I find the fact that ‘science’ is catching up to spiritualism/religion the most comforting of news for future generations that I have seen in some time. Most of what Meyer has to say resonates with me. In the entire three-hour interview there are only two things I might suggest would strengthen Dr. Meyer's case.
1.
Meyer’s personal, literal interpretation and acceptance of the Bible - whether divinely inspired or not - ought be tempered by the recognition that it is the creation of humans, fallible as his own religion admits we all are. Indeed, for Meyer or any other Christian to worship the words of authors of their religion is to violate one of Jesus' first principles, do not worship idols (which in context really means, any mere mortal). Meyer cites Semantics icon Noam Chomsky for support for some of his theory. I would suggest borrowing a page from the founder of Chomsky's subject of expertise General Semantics, Alfred Korzybski. That is, Korzybski's most fundamental principle: the map is not the territory. Language itself, let alone literal interpretations on such ineffable experiences as perception of the Creator, is inherently incapable of substituting for reality.
For any Christian readers, a way I might illustrate that idea is by way of comparison. Try reading and contemplating the Gospel of Thomas (best edition by Jean-Yves Leloup), including the commentaries. Realize, there is as much evidence this was written by an original disciple (Apostle) of Christ as there is for the Book of John in the New Testament. In two ways it is more credible than the New Testament. First, it leaves out all hagiography of Jesus, and reports solely the teachings – that which Christ taught. The reporter is focused like a laser-beam on the signal and not the noise. Two, if you take the essence of the teachings of Jesus as reported in the books of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, none are omitted from Thomas; and – unencumbered by demands that reported alleged events be believed or suffer eternal hellfire – is stated with so much more clarity it is far more consistent with those essential Christ lessons. See whether a non-heretical escape from literalism does not strengthen and enhance your religious/spiritual being.
At the end of the day, Meyer is too easily baited into defending the objective validity of his own personal faith. And that includes the events that allegedly occurred 2,000 years ago which have no bearing on the validity of the teaching. The teaching either achieves a result or it does not – irrespective of the conduct of the messenger. By staking his claim to literalism, he sets up potential future straw men. If some archeological breakthrough disproves the alleged events of the life of Jesus – e.g. finding Jesus’s body and genetically determining Joseph was really his biological father – Meyer loses some measure of credibility (I believe he does by even feeling compelled to “prove” his religion). Meyer treads a slippery slope because words can never replicate the religious or spiritual experience. Religious narratives revolve around miracles, and miracles by definition defy the laws of physics and clearly the far more crude and abstract laws of language. To suggest they can be proven to be acts of Divinity is to attempt to reduce God to the level of materialism.
In short, you don’t need to prove the validity of the first thing about any or all religion to make the scientific case for intelligent design.
2.
Rogan asks the inevitable materialist-skeptic question: if there is God, how is there war, crime, violence, catastrophe (or, I suppose, anything that might muss the hair of the self-centered, universe-centric, all-important creature homo sapiens)?
In my view, the question itself contains the answer, as is so often the case. To ask the question presupposes the idea creation was created for the purpose of serving as a pleasure paradise for its inhabitants. It assumes the universe was created for the purpose of risk-free, 24-7 safe, irresponsible, fun and plenty for all irrespective of their individual and collective behavior. It assumes beings were created with no free will, no consequences for their actions, no responsibility of creating better conditions on earth – which much of God-affirming religion asserts is the intention God communicates as the right purpose of humankind. Who claims God created a paradise for inhabitants who are entitled to all award and no contribution? Life itself teaches such a result would be numbingly one-dimensional, dull, and ultimately insufferable. Read virtually any lasting secular, non-religious philosophical, self-help, or psychological text. Happiness itself is defined as pursuing and overcoming challenges against optimal survival; even defining arrival (overcoming all challenges and thus having or finding no more) as death. All of this is clear in plenty if one studies and earnestly partakes in a variety of religious, spiritual activity (e.g. Christianity, Islam, Hindu, Tao, Shinto, Buddhism, Zen, Nagual, etc.)
Book of Job for example posits that God is not the insultingly servile human-slave genie in a bottle whom secularists inaccurately insist religions claim God to be. Isn’t it more likely and consistent for God to be the most powerful and demanding task master imaginable? Virtually all lasting religions claims that giving of oneself is more important than receiving, that character and sacrifice are more important than one's station and comfort. It has been said that character is molded in the crucible of adversity. If that be true, and God is so caring and merciful as to wish the best and most fulfilling for humankind, you might expect God to regularly throw devastating circumstances humankind's way. In fact, the question (If there is God, why suffering?) presumes the opposite of what most religions assert; that is, God is the servant of humankind. Virtually all lasting religion would assert precisely the opposite: humans are properly at the service of the Lord. And all of this presumes that God is the Christian Church (decidedly not Christ) idea of a prototype off of which humans are assembly-line produced. Far more of the worlds population consider “God” something more than a super-human, humanlike individual making judgement calls on every event that arises anywhere at any time, and more like a higher, ineffable intelligence and energy than cannot be described in words (though some have tried – such as the Tao Te Ching).
Having noted all that, I believe Meyer does an admirable job and it is well worth the time to listen to the entire interview.