Episode 42. Now that we have examined the foundational ideas related to Intelligent Design, let me propose a model of Intelligent Design. As we noted previously, a model includes as many positions as possible, including those we don't agree with. I'm going to propose a model that includes as many positions on Intelligent Design as possible, including those that reject Intelligent Design. My model of design identifies two basic parameters of Intelligent Design. The Ontological Parameter, and the Epistemological Parameter. Let's begin with the Ontological Parameter. The Greek word ontos, is the participle of the verb to be, which in English is the word being. Therefore, the definition of Ontology refers to the ultimate nature of something, in other words, it's ultimate being. In light of this definition, the Ontological Parameter of Design asks the question, what is Intelligent Design? First, this parameter deals with the character of design, and recognizes artistic and engineered features. Second, the Ontological Parameter also deals with the integrity of design, and determines whether it is real, or merely an illusion in the minds of people. Please turn to page 15 in your handouts, so I can further explain the Ontological Parameter. In the diagram at the top, the solid line along the Ontological Parameter signifies, the design in nature is real. The triangle above the line, exemplifies a view of design that is more artistic in character than engineered. In the bottom diagram, the dashed line indicates that Intelligent Design in the world is not real, but only an illusion. The position of the triangle above the line in the middle between the artistic, and engineered poles means that the illusory experience of design includes both of these characteristics in a balanced way. Let's now consider the Epistemological Parameter of Intelligent Design. As we've seen previously, the Greek noun episteme means knowledge. The term epistemology refers simply to a theory of knowledge, or to put it another way, epistomology deals with how we know, we know. In the light of this definition, the Epistemological Parameter of Design asks the question, how certain is Knowledge of Intelligent Design? There is a range of certainty. At its highest, some contend that knowledge of design is like a scientific, or mathematical proof. Others see it to be like a reasonable argument. Some view design as suggestive, or merely consistent. At the lowest level of certainty, there are people who claim, that nature is inert and offers no hint of being designed. The epistemological impact of Intelligent Design also considers the epistemological impact of sin, and whether our relationship, or lack of a relationship with God, influences our belief in Intelligent Design. Some people say yes, and agree that sin as a factor, others say no, and disagree. Please return to page 15 in the handouts, so that we can examine the Epistemological Parameter in more detail. In the diagram on the left, the position of the triangle next to this line signifies, the level of certainty for design is similar to that of a reasonable argument. To use the legal term, design in nature is beyond a reasonable doubt. The checked box acknowledges that sin is a factor in dealing with Intelligent Design. In the diagram on the right, the triangle at a low level on the Epistemological Parameter, indicates that the experience of beauty complex and functionality in nature, is not that powerful, or compelling. In this case, the natural world is only consistent with the belief in Intelligent Design. The check box signifies that sin plays no part regarding Intelligent Design. Now that I've defined the ontological and epistemological parameters in my model of design, we can identify various positions on intelligent design. The intersection of the two parameters results in a countless number of different positions. Let me offer some examples which can be found on page 16 of the class handouts. This diagram represents the Intelligent Design position of Richard Dawkins, and it reflects his views and quote 4 on page 38 in the class notes. Dawkins believes that intelligent design is merely apparent and nothing but an illusion. As indicated by the dashed line on the ontological parameter. He acknowledges that this illusion is similar to works of art and feats of engineering, and that both of these characteristics appear in nature in a balanced way, as reflected by his terms, elegant efficiency and complex elegance. This balance is depicted by the intersection in the middle of the ontological parameter. Dawkins acknowledges that nature strikes everyone forcefully. He contends that this is the most powerful reason why most people have believed in a supernatural deity. This level of certainty is depicted by the intersection at the level of an argument on the epistemological parameter. Of course, Dawkins does not believe in sin and it is not a factor in his position on intelligent design. My position on intelligent design also appears on page 16 of the handouts. I believe that intelligent design is real as indicated by the solid line on the ontological parameter. Though I appreciate both the artistic and engineered aspects in the world. Beauty in nature strikes me a bit harder than complexity and functionality. Thus, the intersection is shifted a bit more to the left on the ontological parameter. Continuing with my position on intelligent design, the intersection at the level of an argument on the epistemological parameter recognizes the design in nature is clearly seen by everyone, so much so that we're accountable with regards to the implications of this divine revelation. Therefore, we are without excuse if we disregard a dismissed design. Of course, my view is being informed by the biblical passage, Romans 1: 20, where the Apostle Paul states that men and women are without excuse if they think there is no evidence for God's existence. To use legal term, I believe that intelligent design in nature is beyond a reasonable doubt. I also believe that human sin is a critical factor that influences positions on intelligent design. In particular, the first commandment in our relationship with, or lack of a relationship with God. In closing this section on intelligent design, I must raise the question, why is intelligent design such a controversial topic? My answer is simple. It's because the implications of intelligent design are deeply personal. For example, if intelligent design in nature is real, then nature is a constant reminder forcing us to deal with commandment number 1. This raises the question, who or what is number 1 in our life? No doubt about it, the answer to this question is deeply personal. Second, if intelligent design in nature is real, it points to an intelligent designer or designers, and it raises the question of our relationship to this designer or designers. For example, is the intelligent designer or designers ultimately in charge over our life? To ask another question, are we accountable to someone or someone's something or somethings greater than ourselves? Finally, and more importantly, what do you think about this topic of intelligent design? When you see a magnificent scene like this one in nature, do you get an inkling someone or something is behind it all? If you do, then you believe in intelligent design. End of Episode.
