Intelligent Design: Science or Religion?
Intelligent Design: Science or Religion?
By Carolyn Dipboye, PhD, Oak Ridge, TN
When I teach ethics, a pitfall against which I warn my students is that of easy resort to conspiracy theories. Once a conspiracy theory comes into play, rhetoric becomes inflammatory, careful analysis is almost impossible, positions harden, and efforts toward mutual understanding become futile.
Current discussion of the issue of Intelligent Design (ID) moves along the lines of competing conspiracy theories. On the one side, proponents of ID charge that an elitist coalition of scientists, educators and politicians blocks open and critical assessment of evolutionary theory, rejecting outright the legitimacy of what proponents judge to be scientific indicators in support of ID. “Gaps” in science’s understanding of how the natural order came to be, ID proponents argue, are not just gaps attributable to transitory ignorance but are evidence of “irreducible complexity”—a complexity that is so intricate, so far beyond explanation by natural mechanisms that it fairly demands resort to an extra-natural or supernatural explanation, i.e., an intelligent designer. A spectrum of arguments emerge, ranging from those which would discredit the evolutionary process altogether to those which seek to augment evolution with ID.
On the other side of the debate, suspicions run high that theories of ID are nothing more than a Trojan horse, designed to slip creationism and religion under the banner of science. Science, it is argued, critiques and refines Darwinism on a continuing basis. Rather than turning a deaf ear to arising contradictions, evolutionary theory is constantly being reformulated to take contradictions and new evidence into account. Your father’s evolutionary theory, in other words, is not the evolutionary theory of the twenty-first century. Rather than a monolith with its feet planted firmly in the nineteenth century, evolutionary theory is continually evolving. The so-called “gaps” are daily being filled-in without resort to the supernatural or extra-natural. Richard Dawkins, Oxford University Professor of Public Understanding of Science and author of The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design,cautions in River out of Eden, “Never say, and never take seriously anyone who says, ‘I cannot believe that so-and-so could have evolved by gradual selection.’ I have dubbed this kind of fallacy ‘the Argument from Personal Incredulity.’ Time and again, it has proven the prelude to an intellectual banana-skin experience.”
What should we say then? Should we resort to Rodney King’s plea of a decade ago and gently chide, “Can’t we just all get along?” Simply resolving to be nice is probably not enough. Critical issues are at stake and beg to be addressed. The issues are more likely to be addressed, however, in an arena of thoughtful dialogue. Just as we are hearing the call for alternative religious voices in the political discourse of our country, we need to make certain that moderate/progressive voices are heard in the debate of science and religion. Rather than drawing the debate in terms of its extremes—the anti-science biblical literalist over against the godless scientist—responsible discourse can best take place in an atmosphere that makes no attempt on the one side to equate religious faith with magic and empty-headedness or on the other side to equate science with arrogant godlessness. Although religious faith may degenerate into magic and empty headedness and science may degenerate into arrogance, an atmosphere of mutual respect affirms science when it questions “how” the natural order has evolved and religion when it raises questions of purpose and meaning. Science is doing exactly what it should when it pursues natural explanations to fill in the gaps in its explanation of the natural order. Religion and philosophy are doing what they should in affirming that questions of purpose and meaning are legitimate and are enhanced, not threatened, by an ever-expanding understanding of the natural universe in which the questions are raised.
Some who affirm intelligent design could serve as voices of moderation, conditional, however, on their acknowledgment that they are engaging in philosophical or religious analysis when they infer a Designer. Knowledge of the universe can serve as pointers, evidence for eyes of faith, but not as proof. Christian scriptures, for example, readily acknowledge that while the miracles of Jesus were for some signs of the presence of God, for others they were signs of the demonic. Wonder and awe at the complexity of the universe may inspire, bolster or enrich faith. It does not demand or prove it.
On the side of religion, theologians and proponents of religion bear the responsibility of being clear that they [or we] are not seeking dominance. Rather than exhibiting a fearful, protectionist mentality that seeks to put a lid on the questions that may be pursued and the answers that may be gained, we should model a faith so secure that it does not merely allow but actually encourages science’s pursuit of the mysteries of the universe.
Science and faith overlap in matters of ethics. Often that word is heard with some degree of trepidation, anticipating that once again the issue of dominance will raise its ugly head or matters more appropriate to private decision-making will be wrest again into the public square. Science and faith meet, however, and may choose to become partners rather than opponents in matters affecting the well-being and future of humanity and the earth. Global warming, for example, falls within rightful areas of concern for both. A faith community’s theology of ecology may and should provide a strong impetus and a ready clientele for shouldering the weight of global responsibility, while science provides critical diagnosis and prescribes appropriate avenues of treatment.
We should be clear, then, that the issue of ID is not whether a scientist may have religious faith or whether religious faith does or does not have its own legitimacy. The issue of ID resides exactly at the point of the claim that it is scientific theory. The Seattle-based Discovery Institute’s Center of Science and Culture identifies its mission, for example, in terms of supporting research dedicated to “challenging various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory” and “developing the scientific theory known as intelligent design.” Michael Behe, whose book, Darwin’s Black Box, is at the center of our discussion today, is one of the center’s Senior Fellows. Founded in 1996 and funded by prominent Christian and political conservatives, the center sponsored a briefing on Capitol Hill in 2000 as Congress debated overhaul of federal K-12 education programs. Co-sponsors included Rep. Thomas Petri (R-WI), a member of the Discovery Institute’s Board of Advisors and current Vice-Chair of the House Education and Workforce Committee. The institute has since become a critical player in confrontations in school districts and state capitals across the country. It opened an office in Washington, D.C., in the fall of 2004, moving in January to employ the same Beltway public relations firm that promoted the 1994 Contract With America. The institute’s strong funding has issued in significant success as it has pushed a “teach the controversy” approach to evolution. It has, in the words of the New York Times (“Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive” August 21, 2005, 1), “transformed the debate into an issue of academic freedom” rather than a confrontation between science and religion.
ID is poised as a significant political issue in emerging local, state and national battles. By June of this year, ten bills had been introduced into the state legislatures of nine states (Science & Theology News, June 2005, 3.). After prolonged and heated debate, on August 9 the Kansas State Board of Education approved by a 6-4 vote its latest draft of state science standards, formulated with the aid of a local ID network and designed throughout to systematically question the scientific status of evolution. On September 26, hearings will begin in a First Amendment lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union against the Dover, Pennsylvania, school district over its decision to introduce ID into its biology curriculum—an event observers predict will be likened to the Scopes Trial in Dayton 80 years ago (see Chris Mooney, “Inferior Design,” The American Prospect, September 2005). On August 1, President Bush waded into the fray when he responded to a reporter’s question about ID by suggesting that alternative theories and criticism should be included in biology curriculums “so people can understand what the debate is about.” Presidential hopeful Senator Bill Frist voiced similar views a couple of weeks later. White House science adviser, John Marburger, moved to prevent the President’s remarks from being “over-interpreted” as recommending equal treatment of ID in public classrooms. Reiterating his own previous assertion that “evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology” and “intelligent design is not a scientific concept,” Marburger assured The New York Times the President’s remarks merely had reference to the “social context” in which science proceeds.
Many who have had a long running battle with the teaching of evolution are breathing a sigh of relief that finally a scientific theory that at least puts God back into the process will find its way into the classroom. Others, not particularly religious, but weary of the long and vitriolic battle, are lured by the idea of a happy compromise. After all, they reason, what harm could it do? It might even give children a harmless dose of morality.
Teaching ID as science, however, should give the person of faith as much difficulty as it does the scientist. For the scientist it poses problems in that it moves beyond science’s pursuit of the question of “how” into the religious questions of “why” and “who” and utilizes supernatural or extra-natural explanations for natural phenomena. For the person of faith it poses serious issues in its reliance on a “god of the gaps.” As Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Bishop John A.T. Robinson pointed out a half-century ago, using God to explain gaps in our knowledge has the certain disadvantage of relying on a god who is always in retreat. As science continually moves forward, finding natural explanations of points in the process that once were a mystery, the “god of the gaps” is pushed back further and further. Rather than a harmless view of faith that might even do some good, I would propose as a person of faith that its stopgap process is a poor substitute for a robust faith that confidently engages the world.
All indicators are pointing toward ID becoming an increasingly hot political issue. That is unfortunate. It will not be good for science, faith, or the political well being of our country. It will divert us from progress in areas in which science and faith can form vital partnerships and substitute for open and honest discussion of issues in our nation too long delayed. Once again the enmity will focus on our children—our public schools. And that is not good for our children or our social fabric as a nation.
ID may attest to one’s religious faith, although even there it has its limitations; but it is not science and should not be taught as science. And we should not allow it to be used as yet one more political wedge to divide us.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
