Christopher Moore is an Assistant Professor of Physics at Coastal Carolina University. He lives in Myrtle Beach, SC with his wife and two children.Among scientists the title of this post is not at all controversial. But among evangelical Christians, the topic is open to debate. I’m currently working on a longer article about what is an isn’t science, but I thought I’d take a quick break and jump into this topic. It is important, because there is a growing movement promoting the teaching of Intelligent Design along side evolution in public school science classes.
What is “Intelligent Design”? The Center for Science and Culture states the following:
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
Based on this statement alone, and without examining the implications, it is fairly easy to conclude that Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. To begin, what makes a theory scientific? For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must be:
Consistent
Parsimonious
Useful
Empirically testable & falsifiable
Based upon multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
Correctable & dynamic
Progressive
Provisional or tentative.
A good scientific theory is all of these things, but in order to be considered remotely scientific a theory must meet at least most of these conditions. Intelligent Design does not. Intelligent Design relies on accepting a priori that an intelligent designer constructed the universe. And since this intelligent designer is “outside” nature, there is no way to prove this assertion. This does not make the assertion necessarily incorrect, just unfalsifiable and therefore un-scientific. And since Intelligent Design is founded on an un-testable axiom (by definition neither provisional or tentative), it is far from dynamic.
But even accepting as axiom (on faith) the existence of an intelligent designer (which I do), it does not necessarily follow that evolution is bunk, and that the Earth is 6,000 years old. This requires acceptance of a VERY literal interpretation of the Christian Bible, which would also lead one to the conclusion that the Earth is flat and at the center of the universe. In fact, Intelligent Design proponents come to varied conclusions about its implications — from those who claim that the Universe literally was created in six days, to respected scientists who simply believe that God created the universe in the manner modern science describes. I would fall into the latter camp, though I’m not sure how respected I am. ;) Because of the wide disparity of conclusions that can be drawn from Intelligent Design premises, it fails to be useful in describing nature and is far from progressive (in that, say, Newton’s Gravitational laws cannot be reasonably derived from ID).
Although a theological argument can definitely be made for an “intelligent designer”, the claim that it is science is fraud. I personally believe God created the heaven and the Earth. My claim that there is an intelligent designer (God) is not a scientific statement; it is theological. A belief in God cannot be based on science, nor does a certain belief have to be scientific to be acceptable. But as a scientist I have to look at the data, and the data suggests that the Earth (and the universe) is much older than 10,000 years. And that life evolved. This doesn’t call into question my faith in God. The complexity of the natural world actually strengthens my faith. I would argue that the Big Bang is the manner in which God created the universe and that planetary and biological evolution was and is His plan. Dr. Moreland, author of “Love Your God With All Your Mind”, states the following:
Now, when it comes to the…flat earth and the rising and the setting of the sun: it was scientific evidence that caused people to say ‘maybe we’d better re-look at those passages.’ So now the question was raised by the church interpreters: ‘Is there anything essential to this passage that’s violated if we take the four corners of the earth to be metaphorical?’ Now, their answer was, in that particular passage, ‘no.’ That particular text can allow for that without violating the teachings of the scriptures in that particular text. Now, is this procedure risky in other passages? You bet. But does it follow that it should never be applied? No, you’ve gotta take texts–each text, on its own. So, the devil’s in the details, and you’ve got to be very, very careful.
If scientific evidence suggests that life evolved via natural selection, then Christians should re-examine their understanding of the manner in which God created man. Natural selection may have been His intention and plan. There is no need to create a false “science” to justify His continued existence and importance in our lives.
The world is as God created it. Who are you or I to question the manner in which He created it. We can merely explore that creation through actual science.
Great task you took, by making this topic! :) by the way, have to say something, as someone who quite studied all these phenomenons. Studied even the original language of the Bible, studied now-a-days scientific known facts & explanations for it, and so on. What i found really interesting was that, in the original languages of the Bible, the word for “corners” does not necessarily translate by “corners”, but also by kind of “points”, and can be understood also as “directions”. So, the “four corners of the Earth” can very well be “the four cardinal directions” (East, West, North, South). As about “Earth as the center of the Universe”, also, 2 interesting observations: the fact that “Sun rotates around the Earth” or “the Earth rotates around the Sun” is so relative, that is true in both cases; in fact, this is true because you can take as a “reference point” either the Earth or either the Sun. It’s like i would say, while i am in a car, that i am moving over the Earth, or the Earth it’s moving under/alongside me. Both of these statements are true, depending on what i will have as “referring point” in the moving. Also, actually, as someone who writes poems, i can use any side of the description of the fact (i’m moving over the Earth/The Earth is moving under me), to emphasize whatever i want in my poem. Notice that those statements you said are in the poetry part of the Bible (Psalms, Songs…), where you need to understand the idea, not to make scientific theories from it.
Last thing that i want to say it’s that the Bible is actually not for people who on intention misunderstand different portions of it to excuse their behavior or their intentions (meaning like a thief who would say that everything belongs to God, so why not using anything he finds anywhere – even he finds that “anything” in the pockets of his friends), but the Bible is for honest, sincere people who try to understand honestly “what God actually wanted from these people, or from me, with this words?”, and understanding the sincere and correct thing from it, for us to do, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, if you believe in spiritual world (which i do :) ).
Thanks in advance for the patience to read all of this! :)
warmest wishes,
Andrei