Intelligent Design vs. Evolution
| Those who support the theory called Intelligent Design want science to be what it should not be. Like those who for many years would not accept the facts that the earth was not the center of the physical universe these people will not accept evolution as a scientific theory. Evolution, they believe, would diminish their relationship with God and make it harder for their children to find God. Science is and should be the natural study of the world with careful tabulation of various observations and tests related to the specific topic at hand with the goal of making some general conclusions (ie. theories). Theories are never immutable but a great theory will see no current exceptions. For example, Newton studied the motion of bodies both with natural forces on them such as gravity and under the influence of man made forces. His laws of motion held sway until the beginning of the 20th century when scientists discovered the forces on small particles like electrons. Quantum theory emerged for these small particles yet for the apple falling from the tree the Newtonian theory was still fine. Theories relating to the origin of life and the development of various species are much more difficult to study than the physical universe because direct observation is not possible. The current theories on evolution, as seen by the vast majority of scientists, now have the common thread of DNA and this allows for a reasonable mechanism for change and for similarity between the multitude of species. This is a case where in the last hundred years the theory has only gotten stronger because of verification through progress in the related disciplines of chemistry and genetics. As more natural information is obtained the theory will change. In no case do we invoke religion to explain Newtonian mechanics nor quantum mechanics; however, many a philosopher and theologian has invoked the mystery of the quantum as a recognition of complexity and mystery of God’s universe. Similarly and unfortunately there have been those philosophers who invoked Newtonian mechanics as proof that man had no free will and those who saw survival of the fittest as applying to human morality which it does not. As Galileo and more recently Gould has pointed out the answer to this problem is that religion and science are separate spheres of inquiry and should not be confused with one another. Gould shows that in the case of Christ and the doubting Saint Thomas the two views are different. To Thomas and a scientist it is necessary to have proof that Christ had risen by putting their hands in his wounds. Christ to Thomas says why do you doubt me and ‘blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe’. For in the religious sphere faith is the building block to a loving God and the key to loving one another. Thus, the concept of Intelligent Design should be taught but only in religion or philosophy classes and it has no place in the science classroom. It is my philosophical belief that the last 100 years of progress in science and medicine enforces mans belief in God but that view is not science. The bigger issues such as disease, war, famine and poverty are more important and we should get beyond this debate. | ||||||||||||||||||||
see comments or
post your comment
see previous blog
see next blog