 |
|
Evolving
Science
Travis K.
McSherley
August 2005
Few cultural issues have produced
as much emotion during the past few weeks and months as the debate between
evolution and intelligent design -- or, in some minds, between science
and faith. The discussion has gripped the public square of late,
and it has received prominent attention at FuS.
An FuS reader sends along comments
he received in an email exchange with a science teacher. I've posted
the email below, along with my own comments, because the arguments the
teacher sets forth are fairly standard of the critique of intelligent design.
Here are my problems with
intelligent design.
1. It is not testable.
Bottomline you can't do experiments to support it or disprove it.
I realize some people try to make complicated math arguments about probability
not allowing for the sophistication of living organisms but that math is
not supported by top mathematicians (who have no stake in this argument)
around the country.
Much like the theory of evolution, intelligent
design is not so much a methodology for conducting scientific inquiry as
it is a framework for interpreting the findings of experiments and observation.
And yes, much like evolution, the fundamental tenets of the theory cannot
be directly observed or proven by tests or experiments. Yet design's
primary point of difference with the broadly accepted view of science is
the suggestion that macroevolution may be too improbable -- and too precise
-- of an event to deny the hand of a creative being in the origin of life.
Evolution presumes the nonexistence of spiritual forces and must thus draw
upon and apply that presumption to whatever findings its proponents make.
While pure "creationism" (a label that would probably describe my own view)
presumes the presence of God in nature, intelligent design -- at least
in theory (so to speak) -- seems to allow only the possibility that evidence
may point to a supernatural explanation of things.
2. Although I don't
agree with slandering someone for taking the views that scientist took,
it does bother me that I keep seeing articles about the tiny minority of
people that doubt evolution instead of articles about the vast sea of scientists
who support evolutionary theory. The media has created a controversy
out of a completely noncontroversial issue. Imagine if you had to
read about some poor persecuted historian every day who claimed the Holocaust
didn't happen. Or closer to home what if every night they interviewed
a Cuban American that liked Castro. The typical gringo might actually
get the impression that Castro is beloved even though there are way way
more people who see him as a devil. The problem is that the laymen
get their information via newspapers and t.v. and not through academic
pathways, therefore they get a distorted view of what is really happening
in science.
While I don't have a problem agreeing
that the media has a knack for creating controversy and blurring reality,
I don't think that is occurring to the benefit of intelligent design theorists
at this point. Most of the major newspapers and television networks
are united in defense of evolution's infallibility. This, in spite
of the fact that polls consistently reveal the "tiny minority" who are
skeptical of evolution to be a sizable majority of Americans (including
no insignificant number of scientists). That statistic doesn't hold
true in academia, I am sure, but it's simply not the case that every reputable
scientist holds Darwin's theories as unassailable.
3. Notice that the
other I.D. reference made to the professor in England mentioned he was
a philosopher of science not a paleontologist. So why is a philosopher
submitting a paper about the Cambrian explosion when that is the purview
of paleontologists? And that is typical I.D. crap. One of the leading I.D.
proponents who writes books and puts up websites is a lawyer. Do
you see a pattern here?
Though two examples hardly constitute
a pattern, this seems to suggests that only Ph.D. scientists have the right
to discuss or speculate on scientific theories. I doubt it would
be difficult to find a plethora of evolution defenders who lack formal
academic training in biology. And ultimately, the theories ought
to be able to stand on their own merits, irrespective of their advocates.
That's not to see that education is irrelevant in this debate, but one
cannot presume that higher degrees automatically lead to a greater confidence
in evolutionary theory.
4. My final point
is this. Why isn't there one non religious scientist who supports
I.D. ? If I.D. was legit then there should be one person out there
who isn't tainted by religion that sees the validity of I.D.
You know what ? I can find plenty of religious scientists who support
evolutionary theory yet it never happens in the other direction.
I wonder why ? I actually have less respect for ID proponents (like
the guy in the article) than I do for overt creationists. At least
overt creationists don't try to make a false science vs science claim.
A designer means a God (unless you believe in aliens) but all those ID
cowards love to say that they are not necessarily referring to God.
Well what they heck are they referring to? What a disingenuous claim
that is. Please!
One would certainly expect proponents
of intelligent design to hold a belief in the divine, since their theory
leads to the likelihood that spiritual forces exist. But scientists
who question evolution are not, in fact, universally religious followers,
and many -- including some of the most renown advocates -- claim an agnostic
view toward God. Conversely, one would indeed be surprised to see
a naturalist defender of design theory (though there probably are some)
because the naturalist worldview has no room for the spiritual, which is
the crux of the debate.
Whatever the views of the design theorists,
however, design theory does not presuppose the identity or existence of
the Creator. Perhaps this is, as critics would argue, merely a ploy
to skirt the impenetrable wall of church and state and to sneak a discussion
of God into the science classroom. But even if it were, the tenets
of the theory meet the "secular" requirement imposed by the Supreme Court
and leave the inferences to the students. If there is a creator,
then he, she, or it has profound implications upon every facet of life,
including -- if not especially -- science. And the question of whether
to believe in and follow God is the most fundamental and important issue
every individual must address in his own soul. If man evolved from
nothing, then he is free to pursue his own finite destiny, with only the
restraints of time and nature. But if the God of Scripture breathed
life into man, then we will all be held accountable to the Judge of the
universe. So I, for one, would like all the facts -- and all the
faith -- I can get.
|
|
|
