by Matthew Ryan

Created on: May 07, 2008   Last Updated: May 09, 2008

The question of the existence of God has been debated throughout the ages. Today, there is a movement to teach "Intelligent Design" in the classroom alongside the "Theory of Evolution." Personally, I'm not against the teaching of Intelligent Design, but neither do I have an overriding compulsion to see it taught. I'd much rather see classes on epistemology (How do you know that you know?) taught in high school. That could be an eye-opening experience for many people.

In any event, I've seen a number of arguments against Intelligent Design and would like to examine one in particular here. This is essentially the argument that if there is an Intelligent Design to the universe, why isn't it more obvious? That is, why doesn't the conclusion that there is a designer simply leap out from the evidence? If one finds a watch on a beach, and one picks it up to examine it, it seems to clearly indicate a designer of some sort. There is an obvious problem with this argument: namely, the watch is part of the universe. We can't get outside the universe and look at it. And, as far as we are concerned, the only examples of non-design come from within the universe. But if intelligent design is correct, then these examples of non-design may actually be examples of a more subtle design. Regardless, if we understand making the intuitive leap regarding a designer for the watch, what is the problem with making an intuitive leap regarding a designer for something like, say, the ecosystem of planet earth? And from there, the universe itself?

Ultimately though, I believe the thrust of the non-designer's argument is not directed as an analysis of the evidence for Intelligent Design or the lack thereof, but rather as an attempt to understand the motives of a hypothetical Deity. If God exists, why did He not make it obvious for the scientific community to ascertain that fact? Perhaps, it is presumptuous to posit the reasons for God's actions when He is so far above us, but I shall give my responses to that question. First, I don't think God really cares if you believe in Him or not. He is more concerned with how you deal with other people, than how you deal with Him. Whether or not you believe in Him, does not give one free license in one's personal dealings with others. Likewise, it seems somehow arrogant that the scientific community should demand a proof on their terms. Let me explain. Suppose, in the field of mathematics, one could give a mathematically certain proof that God exists. That would be grossly unfair to all the biologists, geologists, and layman who did not study math and may not even be able to understand the proof. Similarly, a proof reserved for scientists would be unfair to laymen.

For myself, I believe in the existence of God. I believe there is enough rational evidence to support the belief in some kind of intelligence behind the universe. At the same time, I believe there is sufficient evidence to hold the opposite view. Obviously, both views can't be right. However, both views can be "supported." What is lacking is "definitive proof." And we may have to get used to that, unless God decides otherwise.

Learn more about this author, Matthew Ryan.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.