Evolution vs Intelligent Design 

In recent days many debates have taken place concerning the origin and development of life—most especially human life.  It has been my experience that the secret to successful query is not finding the answer so much as framing the question.  Most times the answer is self-evident if the question is tightly and artfully expressed.  Also, I believe that success in debate is often acquired by first analyzing the motivations of those with whom one is engaged as well as one’s own feelings. Almost always the ostensible issue is not alone, and sometimes not even the primary motivation of those involved.

Players

Scientists:  Early Greek philosophers, (lovers of wisdom), created science as a tool to assist them in seeking knowledge. Over the centuries philosophy’s child developed an independence, maturity, and life of its own. The scientific methodology is tedious and exacting. Scientists make observations then subject them to rigorous criticism to test their accuracy. A true scientist will rule out all confounding variables that can be isolated to determine what influence they may have. The scientist will critically analyze accuracy of the observations themselves. Once an observation endures the rigors of observational analysis, it is reinforced by continued observations and statistical analysis. This methodology has produced space travel, microscopic cures for diseases, ability to identify one person on earth from a smug of DNA and so on.

An honest and sophisticated scientist will never proclaim 100% certainty of any observation since the vary nature of statistical analysis will not allow such and absolute.

Absolute certainty is not necessary for satisfactory scientific enquiry. The illustrative story is about statistical certainty is about the theoretical and applied statistician both being offer the opportunity to move half the distance to each man’s true love each day. The theoretical statistician declines because he knows he will never reach her. The applied statistician accepts because he knows he will get close enough. (For those of you who are too wrapped up in this debate…that was a joke) 

In the same manner scientists have observed that matter, (and energy—but let’s not go there right now), are drawn to earth. Newton has been given credit for scientific observation and inquiry concerning this observation although Galileo broke this ground much earlier. These observations gave rise to a theory that was consistent with observations of planets and stars in our universe and expanded upon by such great scientists as Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking.  Mass creates an attractive force called gravity. Although a scientists should admit that all of the observations and science concerning gravity do not give rise to absolute certainty, they will do so while confidently being stuck to the floor. 

Religionists:  Religion or those seeking spirituality have been with mankind since the beginning of known history. Some seek spirituality but not a god such as the Buddhists and others pay homage to many gods such as Hindus. Those most involved in the debate concerning Evolution vs Intelligent Design in the United States are a segment of Christian fundamentalists. They are distinguished from other Christians in that they interpret the Old Testament and New Testament to be literally true in every aspect. This, of course would include the story of the creation. The Christian religion is an important and influential religion throughout the world, albeit a minority religion. Many Christians do not accept any aspect of the story of creation in Genesis as metaphorical, yet a large contingency do. One could argue that the story in Genesis follows the sequence of the theory of evolution and it isn’t essential to believe the story literally to believe in the Christian God. A persuasive argument can be made that a “day” to God has little relevance to our conception.[1] Most Christians I have asked in my informal, unscientific study declare that if evolution was proven to them to be correct, it would not cause them to lose their faith in God.

Since the United States is a melting pot of cultures, there are many religions that exist in its borders today that are not Christian.  The religions of Native Americans were not Christian but the Native American cultures were overwhelmed by superior numbers and firepower of the predominantly Christian Europeans who immigrated here in the past few centuries. The political tradition of the United States is to separate religion and government and to provide a free society for all forms of worship.

Others: Many in the United States and elsewhere are “main stream” people that are merely observers of the debate and have little emotional or religious investment in the outcome. They merely go about their lives and view the debate with detached interest, worrying instead about the day-to-day challenges of life.  The importance of “others” is that the final political outcome of such debates among activists many times falls in the common sense hands of the “swing vote” populace.

Issues: The study of life is an interesting endeavor. Even defining life can be an impossible task. The tiniest particle in the most “lifeless” object is charged with matter suspended in a field of energy. These little universes display characteristics of intelligence and communication. The basic elements of even the most sophisticated forms of life share the characteristics of these universes of energy and tiny particles of matter.  The natural desire of survival of “life” is never-ending and persuasive. Some animals can change their sex if necessary for survival.[2] Some fish have developed lungs.[3] The list of incredible adaptation by life forms is endless. Ironically, the strong instinct for survival and adaptation is supportive of both evolution and Godly influence.

The ostensible issue of the debate would be whether science or (Christian) religion is right as to how life began and attained the characteristics it has today. But is that really the question or even the motivation for the debate? The following are some thoughts about the issues:

1. Can all scientific observations be wrong? Of course. A good scientist will tell you so. We could have been created by a supernatural force yesterday and given the memory we now share—just not likely. 
2. Should we give up science because of that possibility? No. Good science has a history of repeatability and possesses a probability of being right to such an extent that it is useful in our pursuit of knowledge and improvement.
3. If science is right about evolution, does it necessarily negate one’s belief in a Christian God or any other God?  No. Science may merely be explaining God’s way of doing things. There may be a necessary Godly explanation for those events not yet explained by science.[4]

The political issue is:  Should scientists, while teaching biology in public schools, explain a religious position?  This question is more to the point of the debates.  On one side the educators in public school teach “facts” when it may be more appropriate and better science to discuss the scientific methodology and highly probable conclusions. It is at best problematic to require Intelligent Design teaching in science class for several reasons:

1. Awareness of God is a product of inspiration and faith and not scientific methodology
2. Science teachers are not necessarily qualified to teach faith
3. Faith is not “taught” but is by spiritual inspiration
4. Which version of Godly creation would one teach? Most religions do not accept Genesis as divinely inspired and there are as many divisions of interpretation of the Genesis creation among Christians and Jews as there are alternative major religions.

There is no question that we observe what can be called changing of species structure in our every day lives. The bird flu is changing quickly to a life form that can be spread among humans. Our biologists change species of plants to become more disease resistant and yield larger bounties. The careful observations by anthropologists and biologists give us practical knowledge about life that helps us understand our environment and ourselves. Science is an irreplaceable discipline that helps us take advantage of our nature as living beings.

To argue against this science by Christians is a distraction.  The outcome of the debate should not cause one to believe or not believe in God. It has nothing to do with the issue of religion or spirituality, or more specifically, the teachings of Christ. Rather than debating species evolution, a Christian would be better served contemplating the nature of selfless love. If convinced that evolution as described by Darwin has occurred no one should lose spiritual inspiration. If that be the basis for spiritual inspiration then it is misplaced and has little value to begin with. The debate concerning the literal meaning of Genesis has an uneasy similarity of the legalistic arguments of the Pharisees and Sadducees of whom Christ was so opposed. Certainly past acts by the Christian Church against scientists to protect the faith have been counterproductive and set back the cause of religion.[5]

Question:

If I am correct in my description of scientists and religionists, then it would seem reasonable that there really isn’t a contest between the two on ostensible issues.  A hidden agenda for the religionists might be playing to the general audience for political gain rather than fighting for biology teachers to undertake the task of additionally teaching a collection of religious views as to how a god might play into their scientific observations or explain the scientific unknown. After all such a delegation might prove to be a nightmare to all concerned. Yet, at the same time it seems reasonable from a scientific prospective to explain to students that true science must be open to all possibilities in its exploration for the truth.

If this be true then the question isn’t Evolution vs Intelligent Design but instead, how do we teach intellectual honesty and curiosity to our students?

[2] As far as frogs are concerned (and other organisms that display this

Phenomenon), apparently there are chemical triggers that respond to the

number of sexes in a population that will allow for the disintegration of one set of sex organs and creation of the other—thus assuring their reproductive

success.