The "Common Sense" Approach and More

Question: What is intelligent design?

Answer: “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” (www.intelligentdesign.org)

The Discovery Institute is an organization who’s main goal is to advance the idea of intelligent design through scientific research and education. On the website, under frequently asked questions, one of the questions is “what is intelligent design?” The answer, provided above, is a no-nonsense answer that sounds “scientifically” correct. (“scientifically” in quotes because it really isn’t based on true science). The Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture claims that their goal is to advance science and the scientific and mathematical theories that back up the claims of intelligent design and disprove Darwin’s theory of seemingly random evolution. They claim they have no religious ties as clearly stated in several other FAQ’s on the website:

Is Discovery Institute a religious organization?
“Discovery Institute is a secular think tank..”

Is intelligent design based on the Bible?

“No. The idea that human beings can observe signs of intelligent design in nature reaches back to the foundations of both science and civilization.”

Is intelligent design theory the same as creationism?
“No.”

These answers make the idea of intelligent design appear to be completely non-affiliated with religion, but as you read into different articles and posts on the website, it is clear that there are religious undertones hidden under the scientific façade that the Discovery Institute presents the information as. But the religious connections to the idea of intelligent design are clear, as seen through use of words such as “Yahweh,” “His dignity” and “Creator.” Notice the capital letters in these few examples from “scientific” texts found on the website. These titles imply religious undertones that show that whether the Discovery Institute and intelligent design followers are willing to admit it or not, intelligent design is at least partly based on religious beliefs, if not COMPLETELY based on religion.

While these claims seem so far-fetched that it would be hard for anyone believe, (some of these claims include that Darwin is responsible for the Holocaust (The Dark Side of Darwinism http://www.discovery.org/a/14921) to claiming that the whole idea of evolution is just too great of a chance process to result in human life) the Discovery Institute and Center for Science and Culture present a persuasive argument for the idea of intelligent design that can argue both well-educated intellectuals and people with just plain common sense into believing some of the ideas about intelligent design or at the very least it makes them question evolution as we currently understand it. Some of the effective ways the Discovery Institute is able to do this is through making the claims seem to be backed by scientific information. The articles presented on the website use a lot of science lingo that mask the religious undertones of intelligent design. I believe the more effective approach that is also used is by using the “common sense” method. The “scientific lingo” method often just goes over the heads of many people, and while these big words may convince common-folk that these ideas are truths, it also makes it hard for people to even understand what the idea of intelligent design is about. Therefore, the “common sense” approach seems to work well on the majority of people. One example of this common-sense method is found in the article linked on the DI website called “Molecular Machines.” It talks about the complexity of design and how it is quite illogical to believe that all of life as we know it occurred completely by random chance. It talks about the cilium, a feature found on many simple organisms that allow for motion. Cilium are vastly complex and are structured much like any mechanical machines we know today. This connection between something that is hard for humans to grasp, like the cilium, to something that is tangible such as any machine made by parts, makes a common sense connection between the two that is hard to deny. If our man-made machines are very similar in design to the design of the simplest (yet still very complex) organisms, then obviously a designer must have had a hand in creating the design of the organism.

Through these two main ways of the “common sense” approach and the “scientific lingo” the Discovery Institute is able to make a fairly convincing argument for a subject that really is based on no “truth” or scientific findings. These same types of approaches can be found in many other cultural objects we have studied. The “common sense” approach is seen in Avatar as it makes it the destruction of the planet of the Navi tangible and makes viewers directly experience the damaging effects humans can have on the environment. It makes it a “common sense” issue and argues people into having an environmentalist mind-set.