Moving on
Towards Better Times...?

Saturday, January 21, 2006

Intelligent Design?

The concept of ‘Intelligent Design’ seems to me to lack the very basis of the concept – Intelligence.  Therefore I was very interested to read the article below, published in TheDailyEnlightenment .  To me, it sums up very accurately the mass of contradictions inherent in ‘Intelligent Design’. Part of the article is produced here, the rest can be found at the TheDailyEnlightenmentWebsite:

Realisation: Why "Intelligent Design" Lacks Intelligence

…….. Recently, there was much outrage in the academic world when "intelligent design" was proposed by some to be scientific. The theory of "intelligent design" argues that the universe, being so intricately structured, must surely be the design of a super-intelligent being. This belief is creationism, which is based on mere faith. It is the opposite of evolution, which is the largely observable fact that life and the universe evolves over time, adapting to changes of natural conditions. While creationism simplistically believes in a first cause of everything, evolution says what continually reshapes the world is the complex network of fluxing yet interconnected natural and human-made factors which make up the world itself. This is similar to the Buddha's teaching of dependent origination. The belief that nature was created begs the question of "Who created the creator?" If the creator was uncreated, we might as well say nature was uncreated in the first place, that nature naturally sustains itself, while allowing evolution to occur. ……


Creationists usually attribute the suffering and evil present in the world to be the creation of humans; not created by the "supreme creator"... probably to defend the idealised perfection of the creator. Yet logically, this creator cannot be perfect, since imperfect humans were designed by him/her. It is then argued that humans were created perfect, that we "fell from grace". This idea doesn't help either - since it was the creator, not humans, who designed the glaring flaw of "the possibility of evil". If the creator had his/her design constraints, surely s/he is not supreme. Intriguingly, even to creationists, the major onus is on us to relieve our own suffering - since it is us who can choose good over evil, both of which originate from us. Does this not displace the importance of the creator, since it is fundamentally us who can better the world?


Ironically, if it is a rule that "there must be a creator", it means this uncreated rule precedes the "creator". This rule, being a law of nature, implies that nature precedes the "creator", that no "creator" can precede nature. Since nature precedes the "creator", of course the "creator" is not the "creator" of nature. This simple proof shows that no one can create nature, and that there can be no "creator". One cannot affirm that an intelligent designer exists simply by observing the universe; one can only say there is some intelligent observation - which is that much "unintelligent" when the observer concludes there is an intelligent designer simply because the scheme of things seems intelligent. A truly intelligent observer would realise that a truly intelligent designer, if s/he exists, would surely not design unintelligent elements such as pain and "the lack of intelligence"! Interestingly, the Buddha did tell us about how, in the course of the beginningless evolutional cycles of the world, a god would naturally mistaken himself to be the creator. Instead of focusing on the vague and unfair concept of all beings being originally born with sin, the Buddha taught that we innately have "original sinlessness" - Buddha-nature - the primordial potential to become fully free of suffering, to attain True Happiness. Incidentally, the Buddha is the only religious founder who taught that all his followers can fully evolve into perfection like himself. Thus is the Buddha truly compassionate and wise, who thoroughly deserves his renowned title - "The Teacher of Humans and Gods."
- Shen Shi'an

Example of non-creationism : WhereDoesWaterComeFrom

Read preface with open mind first : MoreThoughtsOnCreationism

posted by summersun70 at 4:10 AM


Blogger Kathleen Callon said...


Perhaps the reason so many embrace ID is because science has disproved much of the Bible.

Hope you are well.

6:02 PM  

Post a Comment

template design by savatoons web design