Why God Theory Isn't Needed

I'm not going to address the validity of various incarnations of "creation science" (currently known as "intelligent design") - yet. But I do want to touch on one fundamental flaw in the platform of creationists hoping to introduce it into American education.

The "Intelligent Design" lobby portrays its material as an "alternative theory" to Evolution. For the moment, let's ignore that theories and beliefs are very different. Let's also ignore that there are countless other "alternative theories" ranging from the silly to outright insane, which have as much call to propose themselves for the same duty.

Let's just consider this, objectively, as the momentous introduction of "god theory" into the domain of science.

The problem is, we just don't need it.
Consider this example: Police interrupt a burglary in progress. "Freeze!" they shout - and the crook freezes, gun in one hand, sack of money in the other - shouting that he's sorry he tried to rob the store. The store owner the fingers him as the bad guy.

Our theory so far: Bad guy botches robbery, busted red-handed.

Could there be alternate theories?
Of course!

Maybe the guy was framed (and coerced into confessing). Maybe it was just a joke, a college prank. These alternatives might be unlikely, but they're completely valid alternate theories: They arise naturally from the observed conditions. They are, in a sense, variations on the theme we initially observe.

But maybe there's an invisible force directing him - like a marionette. Or he's been infected with an alien larva. Or he's a robot! These too, are also possibilities (hey everything's possible.) But these alternate theories don't in any way arise naturally from what we have already observed: There's no more reason to theorize that he's a robot than there is to theorize that he's a banana. And in the case of the Banana Theory, they do little to help explain his actions or establish his guilt or innocence. In other words - they are irrelevant.

A Banana Theory just isn't necessary here. The "caught red handed" theory is sufficient to address the questions we have about the incident.

This is not a matter of self-evidence or myopia. Sure, plenty of mysteries may remain: Did he have an accomplice? Was the gun even loaded? What did he have for breakfast?

But the fact that there remain such mysteries does not necessitate an extravagant explanation that doesn't even arise from what is already observed.

The fault in the "teach alternative theory" assertion is this: There is simply no need for a theory (with no observable basis) as an alternative to existing theory which is consistent with observation.

A god theory is no more necessary than a banana theory.

But what did he eat for breakfast?
Ah - but does a god theory add something to the body of knowledge that Evolution Theory lacks? Creationists will propose that the god theory succeeds in providing the details (such as what the crook ate for breakfast) that Evolution lacks.

But does it, really? Tune in to the next post to find out. ;)