Where Do We Come From or How Did We Get Here?

¶ … agreement between William Harris and John Calvert's article "Intelligent Design: The Scientific Alternative to Evolution," Richard Dawkins' article "The Blind Watchmaker" and Philip Kitcher's article "Believing Where We Cannot Prove," it is that there is no consensus opinion regarding the answers to the questions of where do people come from or how did they get here. As such, answers to these questions are largely left up to the individual and his or her belief, which is generally associated with a finite number of viewpoints on this issue. Personally, it makes the most sense to this author that people are the result of a divine creation on the part of a powerful divinity. The emphasis that certain authors, philosophers and scientists place on who that divinity is and what specific form of such a creation took place to result in mankind is not important, and the fact in the previous sentence is beyond question.

Still, the aforementioned readings present some interesting viewpoints regarding the nature of creation. On a basic level, the writings of Harris and Calvert offer a comprehensive analysis of the various stances taken by scientists and religious people when searching for answers to how mankind was created. These authors denote the fact that there are scientists who generally adhere to naturalism -- the notion that all things are simply the effect of causes and effects which can be empirically proven) (Harris and Clavert, 296), which frequently aligns them with Darwin's theory of evolution and that humanity resulted from natural selection. This conviction directly conflicts with that of most theologians, who believe that mankind was created by a deity and is proof of that deity's benevolent nature and power. Kitcher generally adheres to this latter notion, whereas Dawkins is usually aligned with the former one. What is most compelling about the writings of Harris and Calvert is that they actually pose an alternative to these two conventional viewpoints. That alternative is refereed to within their article as intelligent design. Intelligent design utilizes the rationality and propensity for demonstrable and empirical evidence which is usually associated with Darwin and is represented within this bevy of literature by the viewpoint of Dawkins, yet blends it with certain aspects of traditional theology. A primary characteristic of intelligent design theory is the notion of design itself. Calvert and Harris provide the following definition of this term: "a designed event, object, or pattern is one that was originally conceived by a mind of intelligence, and brought into being "on purpose" by manipulation of matter and energy" (Harris and Calvert 302). Intelligent design theory, therefore, advances the concept that man was created by some intelligent force, yet varies from a conventional theology approach by failing to discuss the particulars of which divinity (or rather what the divinity's name was) or produced mankind and for what reason why.

It is clear to see how intelligent design theory coincides with the view of the author, who believes that a divinity was responsible for man's creation. Such a theory is largely disrepute by Dawkins in his text. Instead, Dawkins believes that evolution was responsible for mankind, combining various elements of chance and necessity, the latter of which is an integral component in evolutionary theory. The principle difference between Dawkins' conceptions and those of theology is that there is no intelligence responsible in the forces that created man, that instead these forces are mere physics and natural selection, which operated in a "blind" sense and in which their effects are not predetermined or designed (Dawkins 310), but merely combinations of chance and nature. Therefore, Dawkins believe there is no intention or intelligence associated with man's creation -- which is incongruous with the viewpoint of the author.

Kitcher's writing discusses some of the reasons why the author does not agree with evolutionary theory and Dawkins' viewpoint. The principle reason that creationist's disparage evolutionary theory is for the fact that it actually is not a science -- it is a mere theory (Kitcher 323). The lengths of time that it takes to demonstrate the validity of this theory are too long for it to be proven in any individual person's life time. Kitcher spends the duration of this article delineating the fact that creationists' are wrong to look for some sort of perfection in science, which still does very little to champion the cause of evolutionary theory. The whole aspect of evolutionary theory that the author disagrees with, and which is alluded to in Kitcher's work, is the fact that logic and reason -- especially that posited by man, a fallible creature at best -- can discern the causes of all things, including his creation.