The Barbershop has re-located

The proprietor has moved the shop to ChicagoNow, a Chicago Tribune site that showcases some of the best bloggers in the Chicago area. You can logo on to the Barbershop home page here. The ChicagoNow home page is here.

You'll still be able to post comments with the same ease as in this location. The proprietor also will keep this web site alive if you wish to review old posts.

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

Intelligent Design and Science

What's so scary about intelligent design?

By Dennis Byrne,
Chicago Tribune, Dec. 19, 2005

Here is a question for scientists who ridicule intelligent design, yet say they believe in God: When you pray, is it to a God who just sat around and watched the universe spring into existence all by itself?

Or did God give himself something to do, and thus, here we are?

It's hard to envision an all-perfect and almighty God who just likes to watch. But that's the kind of God that the critics of intelligent design would impose on us. Scientists, of course, would vehemently deny that they are in any way trying to tell people of faith what kind of God they should believe in. But they need to honestly admit that this battle between evolution and intelligent design is a two-way street:

People of faith should not be directing scientists how to do their work and scientists ought to be more thoughtful and respectful about how their work complicates or complements the world of belief. Science as well as theology, philosophy and religion have legitimate claims to exploring and discovering answers to the Big Question: How did we get here, and why?

Some things science just can't explain. Such as the mystery of how a perfect creator turned himself into one of his less-than perfect creations--a man--but still remained perfect. Based on faith alone, millions of people celebrate that inexplicable miracle on Christmas.

Scientists, in fact, can't explain a lot of things, and that's no knock on scientists. It's because a lot of answers cannot meet the scientific standards of observation, experimentation, replication and verification. But it's also no reason that any subject of scientific interest cannot also be explored by theology, philosophy and religion. Yet the fight between intelligent design and evolution is popularly framed as an effort by theologians, philosophers and the faithful to impose their unscientific conclusions on science. Perhaps a few dominators do, but most of us do feel the need to reconcile what science and faith tell us--about our world and us.

The reality today is that when theology, philosophy or religion dares to examine the Big Question, its practitioners find themselves increasingly bumping heads with scientific claims of exclusive competence. This is wrong. Neither science nor theology has the right to tell the other to butt out of this quest. In this, no one has the right to demand that the study of intelligent design be kept out of schools. Out of the science class, perhaps, but not out of all classrooms.

Centuries ago, science on one hand and philosophy, theology and religion on the other were separated--to the relief of those who correctly believed that the church had gone too far in using dogma to block scientific advances. Exploring reality through the prism of science requires one form of knowledge, while discovering and refining our understanding of God and his presence in the world require another. Now that pendulum has swung too far the other way, to the point that science and philosophy, and
theology and religion are regarded, by some, as mortal enemies. The idea of unified knowledge has come on hard times. Few people are exploring how the two approaches can help each other. That science is rushing toward a unified theory that "explains everything" is not a reason to abandon non-scientific ways to approach a comprehensive understanding of everything.

This requires an admission that there is a higher level of knowledge beyond science alone or theology alone. Vast areas of knowledge are open to those who realize that just as a branch of physics examines the "first principle of everything," so does metaphysics. Or that cosmology and theology are on the same coin,
just on different sides.

We should approach the Big Question with awe and humility, not ridicule and self-certainty. With excitement and optimism, instead of division and the kind of cynicism that rejects the possibility of parallel or complementary explanations.

To leave students without a perspective of how philosophy, theology and religion help bring us to an understanding of "all things," is as wrong as denying students the understanding that science brings.

Philosophers and theologians may--must, actually--rigorously examine the scientific theory that random chance explains everything. A denial of that right and responsibility rises from the same spirit of arrogant certitude that haunted Galileo.

dennis@dennisbyrne.net

3 comments:

Active Observer said...

You opine:

It's hard to envision an all-perfect and almighty God who just likes to watch. But that's the kind of God that the critics of intelligent design would impose on us.

Which I think sounds an awfully lot like this discredited view:

It's hard to envision an all-perfect and almighty God who would create beings in his own likeness and put them on an insignificant rock far from the center of the Universe. But that's the kind of God that Galileo and Copernicus would impose on us.

My personal belief is this:

It's hard to envision an all-perfect and almighty God who would give us an appendix, wisdom teeth, plant massive evidence to indicate that we evolved instead of were divinely created, and then punish us if we guessed wrong about our origins. But that's the kind of God that the proponents of intelligent design would impose on us.

The problem with evolution isn't that it has fundamental flaws. The problem is that it works. It explains the history and development of life, and it's consistent with the fossil record, where the Bible is not. Genesis does not begin "and God created the single celled organism, to which he gave sole dominion over the Earth for two billion years". Creationism (aka Intelligent Design) is not an opposing theory to evolution, it is a religious belief based on old books and a very shaky one at that.

First of all, I believe that the founders intended government to stay out of the founding and practice of religion, and so it’s inappropriate for tax dollars to be used to promote a fundamentally religious belief. We could disagree on that point and have a long and boring argument. But there’s a more interesting argument here.

Imagine a prehistoric religion in which only God could create fire. Every now and then a lightning bolt would start a forest fire and people would collect and keep the divinely-created fire going. How well would that religion fare when people learned how to make fire themselves?

The day will come soon where humans will be able to create life from basic chemicals or fix design flaws in the human body through gene manipulation. This will have profound theological implications, and particularly if the religious community insists that the creation or design of living organisms is a divine power.

Do you really want to insist that schools teach the idea that God decided where the pancreas should go, or that there should be a blind spot in the retina instead of having the optic nerve connect solely from the back like any truly intelligent designer would have done? You are setting up your God to be demolished by scientific advances. When that happens, don’t blame science.

Anonymous said...

Re: Absence of moral authority. My first and only question is where are the parents? Who would let their minor child go away for a weekend with a male adult anyway? Let alone a priest when that's all you've heard about on the news. Duh! Quit trying to blame the Catholic church when in the end, the parents have the ultimate say-so about what their children are doing.

George Ortenzo said...

Mr. Byrne,
Wow! You nailed it just right! I am an active Catholic who is outraged more by the pathetic behavior of the hierarchy in this country than I am with the abusers. At least, the abusers are sick and need drastic help. I weep for the victims. The hierarchy, which sheltered and covered up for their offending priests, continue to support fellow bishops who placed the Church above the victims. What a disgrace to Our Lord and his Gospel. They have covered-up, lied, and distorted the truth to the point of criminality and immorality. I recently attended a ceremony at Holy Name Cathedral in Chicago, in which five bishops processed down the aisle at the beginning of a liturgy. I felt nauseated and disgusted at the sight of them. As my pastor said in a sermon, to the delight of the congregation: the whole lot of them should resign and let's start over. I and my fellow Catholic worshippers broke into applause. Thank you, Mr. Byrne, thank you so much.