It is argued that Intelligent Design must not be in the realm of Science because it is a philosophy, not a science. It cannot be tested. It cannot be verified or falsified. It's faith, not science. Now, the broad definition of "science" is "any systematic knowledge or practice" which would include ID, but I understand we're not talking about the broad definition. No, this "science" of which we speak is based on the concepts of "observable, empirical and measurable evidence." And I suppose I'm technically fine with that.
So Science stands with its hands on its hips, blocking religious ideas access to the laboratory because, after all, you can't test religion. "Theology," Science would argue, "has no place in the laboratory." So when Darwin offered up his Theory of Evolution, Science ushered it into the lab but blocked Theology from walking in behind it because these two are at odds with each other and never the twain shall meet.
Unfortunately, it seems to me that we have a false dichotomy going on here. In fact, there appears to be a couple of logical dilemmas going on here. First, the false dichotomy. It is assumed that if we can observe and measure physical events and explain how they work, it necessarily excludes Theology. The assumption is an either-or position where you can either have science or you can have religion, but not both. Why? Since God would be defined as supernatural -- that which is beyond the physical realm -- it doesn't follow that He cannot be involved in the natural. And that brings us to the next logical dilemma. If Science in general and Evolution in particular are going to necessarily exclude God from the natural, isn't that a theological assumption? It certainly isn't a scientific one because just as we cannot test to show that God is "in the machine" so to speak, neither can we test to show that He is not.
I've heard many people say that Evolution was their first step toward atheism. (This is not to suggest that "Evolutionist" = "atheist" in any way.) Even if it isn't atheism that it leads to, Evolution often tries to stand apart from God. Evolutionists need to understand that this is, by definition, a theological statement. If you're going to allow theological statements into your laboratory as the basis for your work, is it really fair to keep ID out? Now, I'm not suggesting that ID be included. I'm just suggesting that Evolutionists should keep their fingers out of the theology pie while complaining about keeping theology out of the laboratory. It looks a lot like a double standard.
6 comments:
A lot going on in this one.
How can Intelligent Design be blocked for “theology” or “religion” when its adherents claim it is not a religious or theological statement? They can’t have it both ways. They cannot claim “Oh, we are not saying anything about the Designer—whether it is God, or Aliens, or its characteristics” and then in the next breath complain, “You are keeping us out because of our religion and theology.”
Which is it—is Intelligent Design a religious/theological statement or not?
Further, science is not blocking Intelligent Design because it is a philosophy—it is blocking it because it fails to present any hypothesis that science can deal with! Like asking a mathematician to add up “2 + 2 + a blanket” (a favorite statement of my daughter when she wants to trip up our mathematic skills.) The mathematician is not refusing to answer because of any philosophical/theological/religious conviction—it is a question mathematics is not equipped to handle.
Science (in this particular field) is observing the world about us and making particular hypothesis about what happened, what is happening and what will happen. But in order for those hypothesis to be beneficial—they have to be testable. They have to provide some measure of information which we didn’t know before, and could reasonable predict again.
The problem with Intelligent Design is that if fails to provide, even on its own, any ability to test its own theory! If it came forward and (finally) said, “Look—here is a test in which we can get either true or false answers, which we can differentiate, and reduce possibilities and learn more information” then science would welcome it with open arms. Give it something it can actually work with! Like giving a mathematician numbers instead of blankets.
For the same reason, science blocks astrology, water divination, and crystal healing. Not because of any religious/theological implications—but rather because these are claims which are not testable. Something science is not intended, not designed, and not equipped to handle.
Stan: …you can’t test religion.
Well, I would agree with that. I am not sure how one would “test” any particular religion. What would be the barometer or scale upon which to “test” it, I wonder? However, we can test religious claims. If a religion claims prayers will enhance healing, we can enact double-blind tests to generate results. Are the results absolutely conclusive? Of course not! (And even “healing” can be a bit subjective.) But at least it is a method by which we can do a test and get either a result of “true” or “false.”
If a religion claims certain historical events, we can “test” them by archeology, history, texts, etc. I would certain argue, for example, that Textual Criticism is a science—which is a facet within the Christian religion. If a religion claims future events will happen—we can test that. If nothing else, wait it out. *grin*
And, of course, there are some things within religion we cannot test. Do we really want scientists working on what the architecture of a supposed heaven would be like? Or how many angels dance on the head of a pin?
I am not sure why we can’t have science and religion. Many scientists, even any who are persuaded by evolution, believe in a god. Last I knew somewhere in the 40% range of all scientists believe in a personal god. (Albeit it is true in the physical sciences the percentage is less.) The problem comes when someone states a supernatural being (god) crosses over into the natural world and performs some action—how can we tell that has happened, since ALL results are natural?
Let me give you an example. Assume there is a god who sets up certain natural parameters within our world. The earth spins once a day. Rotates around the sun once every 364 spins. The moon is so far from the earth. And so on…
And within these natural parameters, we have a season in America of storms. Which means tornados at a certain period, hurricanes at another, blizzards at another and so on. Science is able to make certain predictions based upon past observation of these natural parameters set in place.
But all of a sudden Harry claims that THIS particular tornado, even though it was within tornado season, was NOT part of this god’s natural parameters. Oh, no—this particular tornado was sent specifically by this god, outside the parameters, to blow down Harry’s enemy’s house.
How do you test that? How do you test a “natural” (if you will forgive the term) and a “supernatural” tornado? Just on Harry’s word? You are right—we CANNOT test to see if God is in the machine, nor can we test to see if God is not. So..er..why again should the question of “god” be in a system which tests?
You have previously indicated that God is involved in every atom, every quark, every movement of every particle and energy beam in this universe, if I remember correctly. (If I am wrong, please forgive me—I am not trying to put words in your mouth.) If so, under your theory of science, every single test, every single claim which we could possibly manufacture of “Is your God present?” would always, always come back “yes.” Every time.
See, this is a problem for science. For science to work (since that is what it is designed to do) it needs tests which can result in “yes” or “no.” Even crazy tests. Something which we can measure results.
Again, if only Intelligent Design would come up with such a test, then it could actually join the field which is based on testing!
Stan: …Evolution often tries to stand apart from God. Evolutionists need to understand that this is, by definition, a theological statement.
Why? Math stands apart from any god. Is math a theological statement? Painting a house stands apart from any god. Is painting a theological statement? Again, if you hold your God is involved in everything—isn’t likewise everything a theological statement? Why the focus on evolution in particular?
Oh, come on! That's an easy math question. The answer is "4 and a blanket." How much easier can it be? :)
First, I'm not proposing letting ID into the laboratory, so I'm not sure how far I'd need/want to go to agree/disagree with you on that.
Second, I don't know that I disagree with your assessment regarding "testing religion". My point was simply that you can't test for God. Your point, I think, was the same.
However, on the third issue, I suppose I wasn't clear enough. By "stand apart from God" I mean "necessarily exclude God." Math doesn't, by its definition, exclude God. Painting a house doesn't, by definition, exclude God. Evolution, by the definition of many of its proponents, excludes God. It's an "if-then". "If evolution, then not God. If God, then not evolution." Darwin actually designed his theory to contradict God. The thinking is "If we can explain it naturally, then God is necessarily excluded." That is a theological statement. Math or painting houses doesn't include a statement like that. And not all evolutionists include statements like that. My comments are simply to those who do.
If science cannot test for god (or not for god)—why care whether its definition excludes god? Isn’t it a bit irrelevant?
I would agree that “evolution OR God” is a false dichotomy. Is there any reference or quotes where I could see someone who is persuaded evolution is true is actually saying that?
To be completely clear, I am looking for a quote from a person who says (paraphrased) “I believe in evolution, and either 1) evolution is true and there is no god or 2) evolution is false and there is a god.” Something along those lines.
First question: It isn't irrelevant because science would be making a truth claim ("no God") that could not be tested. (That's my point. I'm not talking about science that simply doesn't include God. I'm talking about science that includes the denial of God in its assertion. An example would be that fairly common definition of Evolution that I quoted so many times.)
I'm not sure if these qualify, but they are a few that I found.
W. Provine: "Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either."
R. Dawkins: "The more you understand the significance of evolution, the more you are pushed away from the agnostic position and towards atheism."
Just a couple, as I said.
One other thing, from the previous comment. ID is not necessarily religious and is certainly not connected to "a religion." (All major religions believe in some sort of ID.) Still, bottom line, I wasn't saying that it's kept out because it is/isn't religious or philosophical.
Thanks for the quotes.
Also, Evolution cannot be a true science. We cannot observe, test, or verify ANY of the claims of Evolution. The difference between ID and Evolution is the assumption presumed on the given empirical data. Since there is no empirical data that proves Evolution or ID, both are philosophical assumptions attributed to the empirical data. I (being a Creationist) see a flower, and think,"How beautiful a flower God has made." An Evolutionist sees the same flower and thinks,"I am so glad random chance has allowed me the ability to see such a beautiful random construction." The different thoughts are based on different philosophies, not on the empirical data.
Post a Comment