More on Intelligent Design Vs. Evolutionary Biology
I’ve been told that I sound too angry lately…even that I may need to get on some anti-depressants. I’ll admit that the whole Social Security thing did get me pretty worked up…but I promise that the righteous anger that whole subject invokes in me doesn’t make me yell at my kids or curse at my neighbors. Overall I’m a happy guy though I’ll admit that I do grumble when writing my regularly scheduled tax payments…it sure stinks to be paying the whole 12% employee tax up front on your wages. Owning and operating a business can give one a new perspective on how government is funded. I don’t think it is a coincidence that most small business owners are also conservatives or small “l” libertarians.
This post isn’t about all that. I found an interesting follow up on the whole Intelligent Design (ID) being taught in schools discussion at Hugh Hewitt’s website. As I said before I’m against ID being taught in science classes because it is not science. That said, the post linked above is an interesting discussion on the nature of the argument about ID verses Evolutionary Biology (EB) from the perspective of a Christian who is bugged by the portrayal of the conflict by the mainstream media (in this case the Washington Post). I’ve included the complete text of a letter Mr. Hewitt posted in the above linked blog post because I thought it was a fun read and because it helps explain my thinking to John, a frequent and intelligent commenter on this site, who has been critical of the idea that I could maintain my religious beliefs and still support many of the existing scientific theories of EB.
UPDATE: Here’s another great discussion of these ideas from the perspective of someone who doesn’t claim a belief in ID.
Here is the unedited email Mr. Hewitt posted:
“Dear Hugh;
The thrust of your long post on the war between proponents and opponents of “intelligent design” (ID) vice evolutionary biology (EB) is completely correct and, I think, beyond dispute: the MSM has an agenda of belittling anyone who believes in ID or doubts any aspect, no matter how small, of the current understanding of EB. They have no interest in researching the subject; and it is part of the larger and ongoing war against religion in general and Christianity in particular.
That said, and not to dispute anything you wrote, there is also another problem: too many adherents of ID likewise dismiss any scientist who supports EB (that would be all of them, by the way) as an atheist secular-humanist liberal who, many religious imagine, spends his free time plotting the demise of Christianity.
Polarization is rarely a good thing — as a man who calls himself a practical conservative should understand better than most. For full disclosure, I’m a secular Jew, a true agnostic (not an atheist in drag), a trained mathematician, a published novelist, and politically non-Euclidean… but voting straight Republican until such time as the Democrats are no longer a threat to freedom and democracy in America and worldwide.
Nevertheless (or maybe I should write “therefore”), I have to note that there is no conflict between ID and EB. Much as both sides want to turn the issue into a strict either-or, the two ideas happily exist side by side.
EB covers only one subject: how, that is, the mechanism, by which life changed on this planet (and presumably others), becoming more complex and specialized as the eons passed. ID is concerned with an entirely different point: whether an intelligent God directed the creation of the universe, the world, and the life thereon. The point is that the most die-hard, evangelical Christian must acknowledge that God, being omnipotent, could have created a world in which evolution would occur, had He wanted to do so; and had He done, He certainly would have known exactly what creatures such a system would produce (since He’s omniscient). This process is just as correctly described as intelligent design as it would be if He made it all in a single nanosecond, or if he made it all in six literal, twenty-four hour days.
Similarly, any rational EBist should admit that science says absolutely nothing, indeed by definition cannot say anything, about how the physical laws of the universe got there in the first place. Indeed, it says little about how life itself began, in the most basic sense… though that, at least, is subject to scientific inquiry. Thus, there is not a single tenet of EB that can logically deny that God could have intelligently designed all life by creating an evolutionary system that would, in the end, produce just the sort of creatures He wanted to see. And of course, EB can have no opinion whatsoever about whether the soul exists, and if it does, what its nature may be.
I have always been fascinated by the Bible, and have read the King James version cover to cover, as well as having read fairly extensively in the current Catholic Bible and the best current translation of Tanakh, the Jewish Bible. In addition, I have read various creation myths from other cultures — Norse, Greek, many African and South Pacific cultures, and so forth. One fact has always struck me forcibly… the astonishing parallels between the Biblical account of creation and the current understanding of EB, parallels which do not exist in the creation stories of those other cultures. The order in which Genesis describes creation as occurring is almost exactly the same as the order in which EB envisions the evolution of life — indeed, going back before life to the creation of the solar system itself.
Note, for two simple examples, that in Genesis, the first thing created is light, before the creation of the planet (clearly part of the separation of form from the void). Astrophysics and planetary physics concurs: the sun was created first, and the planets only coalesced after billions of years. Most other creation stories (such as the Norse) have the Earth being created first, and in darkness, until the sun is created later; others, such as Shinto, don’t address the question… but there are no stories of the sun goddess existing before the Earth exists. Only the Bible agrees with science.
Likewise, in Genesis, humans are the last to be created of all the living creatures; in most every other creation story, humans are created either first or nearly first, and other creatures are created later. For example, in Norse mythology, the Earth is created in darkness and is ice-locked. Then a lump of ice melts, revealing a cow. The cow begins licking another lump of ice, finally revealing the first man. Other creatures come along later. Again, only the Bible depicts the creation of life in pretty much the order that EB tells us it evolved… a counterintuitive idea, since most cultures (including ours) believe that humans are more important than animals and plants, hence (one would think) would be created first.
There are several other parallels, leading me to conclude that either the Hebrews who wrote the original passages in Tanakh were rather astonishingly insightful, or else they were — dare I say? — inspired in some fashion.
I hate to sound like Rodney King, but can’t supporters of ID and EB just get along? Instead of fighting, it seems like a more profitable effort for each to use the other: believers can use the extraordinary, divine beauty of evolution and the wonders it produces as further evidence for the existence of the God of the Bible; scientists can use the Bible to develop a moral core that elevates them from being merely human beings to actual persons, a morality that cannot possibly be supplied by science — which concerns itself with what is, not what should be. I get tired of hearing foolish errors from both sides… egregious misstatements of the facts and theories of science, biased misunderstandings of faith and philosophy.
Perhaps if some highly religious scientist were to invent a drug that doubled everyone’s IQ, we would see that there is in fact no conflict between ID and EB.
– Dafydd ab Hugh”
I don’t subscribe to everything this writer says but I agree that there doesn’t need to be a conflict between ID and EB…even for Mormons. There have been some prominent Mormons who have said that EB is bunk…but I don’t think there are any who have said, “Thus saith The Lord: EB is Bunk.”
I’m a Mormon who believes that men should adopt the scientific method to attempt to explain the natural universe around us and that science should be taught in science class…not faith. I’m also a Mormon who believes in an intelligent and loving creator responsible for the natural universe. I find the Gospel of Christ to be a better explanation for the things science has no theories to explain (such as the nature of consciousness, the existence of the soul, what form of existence was there before the big bang, where universal laws of existence such as gravity come from, etc.) than any of the other non-falsifiable non-scientific explanations the philosophies of men have been able to provide.
3 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I was asked about that a few weeks ago. I was asked if I liked you because you get so angry over the “smallest” things. When I said I did, I was told that they thought you were kind of a jerk.
I had to tell them next time they come for the first Friday night, don’t take anything you say personally. I told them that you are always full of [hot air] and liked to go off on your rants on unsuspecting people.
I am just jokeing!!!!!!!!! Don’t cut off my blog space.
Comment by Michael — December 30, 2004 @ 12:06 pm
Whoever said I’m a jerk had better watch out…because I am SOOOO MAD!!!
I guess I do like to rant a little too much. Maybe it is a good thing that I am going to try to blog more so I can vent online instead of to the mysterious strangers who you talk to.
Oh yeah…consider your space revoked. (I’m kidding…jeez…don’t take everything so personal)
Comment by Jeremy — December 30, 2004 @ 12:17 pm
A couple of comments about the post above, which you say helps explain your thinking. First, to say that the bible is inspired because there are some parallels between bible stories and science is poorly reasoned at best and, well, just plain comical to some readers. There are many other instances where the bible crashes head on with science. The author sets science as the standard for truth with which religious ideas must agree. Science, however, has called religious beliefs into question time and again through history. The humor, you see, is in the irony.
Second, why would you conclude that something is true just because it parallels a scientific theory? You can find parallels and analogies with science in lots of other religious beliefs and practices.
Third, the author says “scientists can use the Bible to develop a moral core that elevates them from being merely human beings to actual persons, a morality that cannot possibly be supplied by science”. Again, at least this has comic value. I look forward to elevating myself to the status of being an “actual person”. Its not just funny; it’s also wrong. Morality can for some people be supplied, inspired, guided, or informed by science. In fact, Freud suggested that morality built on a belief in God was fragile because when belief falters so may a persons moral behavior. Also, some religious people may behave in a moral way only to get treasure in heaven rather than out of a sincere conviction in the importance of decency towards others.
But let me try to be evenhanded. Kudos to the author for recognizing that perhaps scientists are not plotting the demise of Christianity. Kudos to you for being careful to leave yourself some wiggle room by saying that you don’t agree with everything the author says.
As for your comments, you say “I find the Gospel of Christ to be a better explanation for the things science has no theories to explain (such as the nature of consciousness, the existence of the soul, what form of existence was there before the big bang, where universal laws of existence such as gravity come from, etc.) than any of the other non-falsifiable non-scientific explanations the philosophies of men have been able to provide.” Again I would ask you why you think the Gospel of Christ is a better explanation than any other. Which version of the gospel of Christ? How does one decide which of the many religious beliefs are correct? It’s your word against theirs. There is no good way to test between them. There are some very fascinating, thoughtful, scientifically informed ideas about the nature of consciousness and the existence of the soul (see Antonio Damasio’s “Descartes’ Error” or E.O. Wilson’s “On Human Nature”), what form of existence was there before the big bang, and where universal laws of existence such as gravity come from (Brian Green’s “The Elegant Universe”) out there if you care to investigate them. The ideas in these books and many others provide much more interesting, plausible, detailed explanations than does the Gospel of Christ.
Comment by john — January 11, 2005 @ 12:40 am