Food for thought
The question of how things came into being—the origin of the universe and life—will always be an extremely controversial subject. It seems to me that irrespective of what one thinks of the tenets of evolution vs. the Biblical account of creation one would have to adopt one of two approaches as to the origin of all things: it had to occur either naturally or supernaturally.
Intelligent design proponents have recently made inroads in secular society where strict creationist have not by making a concerted effort to avoid specific Biblical or theological references in setting forth an alternative to naturalistic evolution. The core tenet of intelligent design is that some things in creation/nature (whatever you call it) are so far beyond any scientific explanation or are irreducibly complex so that they couldn’t exist but for the prior existence of some intelligent designer. This belief is deduced not on the basis of a pre-existing religious conviction but rather on what has been discerned from science itself. The more life is probed, the more complex it becomes, then logically the less likely that it happened on its own or naturally. All this in turn suggests the existence of some designer.
Many people, however, especially in academia are appalled at the notion of this proposition being offered to students alongside the classic evolutionary model. They say that the theory of intelligent design is different from the theory of evolution in that intelligent design isn’t really a scientific theory at all. It should be relegated to the philosophy or religion class.
What I find amazing, though, is the presupposition that evolution is based on science and that it has a monopoly on science in the context of origins. At the heart of intelligent design is the thought that somewhere in the equation of how things came into being is a supernatural event and/or being. Naturalism, or evolution as its taught in schools today, rests on the conviction that nothing—especially the origin of the universe and life—happened supernaturally.
The problem, though, is that this presupposition is a statement of faith no different in essence than that proffered by intelligent design theorists. Can the committed naturalists prove scientifically that there wasn’t a supernatural element to the origins of life? In fact, neither side can test or verify their respective theories through any scientific process. Because both sides begin from an unverifiable premise and use the same data to draw their conclusions, doesn’t it stand to reason that both positions should be presented in a class that is tackling the issue of biological origins? It seems blatantly unscientific to me to intentionally exclude an idea from a curriculum—to deny students information to use in drawing a conclusion—simply because it presupposes the supernatural rather than the natural.
Ultimately, the issue of origins is the one issue of science that in the end can’t help but delve into the theological, philosophical, or metaphysical. Even the strict naturalist who swears by atheism has to grapple with the initial origin of matter. Can something come from nothing? In trying to answer these questions, one quickly leaves the realm of science and at the least enters a metaphysical nightmare that requires some basic presuppositions that will ultimately fail to find any adequate scientific scrutiny.
All this to say that the subject of origins can’t be fairly dealt with in the final analysis if the supernatural is not at least considered along side the natural.
Intelligent design proponents have recently made inroads in secular society where strict creationist have not by making a concerted effort to avoid specific Biblical or theological references in setting forth an alternative to naturalistic evolution. The core tenet of intelligent design is that some things in creation/nature (whatever you call it) are so far beyond any scientific explanation or are irreducibly complex so that they couldn’t exist but for the prior existence of some intelligent designer. This belief is deduced not on the basis of a pre-existing religious conviction but rather on what has been discerned from science itself. The more life is probed, the more complex it becomes, then logically the less likely that it happened on its own or naturally. All this in turn suggests the existence of some designer.
Many people, however, especially in academia are appalled at the notion of this proposition being offered to students alongside the classic evolutionary model. They say that the theory of intelligent design is different from the theory of evolution in that intelligent design isn’t really a scientific theory at all. It should be relegated to the philosophy or religion class.
What I find amazing, though, is the presupposition that evolution is based on science and that it has a monopoly on science in the context of origins. At the heart of intelligent design is the thought that somewhere in the equation of how things came into being is a supernatural event and/or being. Naturalism, or evolution as its taught in schools today, rests on the conviction that nothing—especially the origin of the universe and life—happened supernaturally.
The problem, though, is that this presupposition is a statement of faith no different in essence than that proffered by intelligent design theorists. Can the committed naturalists prove scientifically that there wasn’t a supernatural element to the origins of life? In fact, neither side can test or verify their respective theories through any scientific process. Because both sides begin from an unverifiable premise and use the same data to draw their conclusions, doesn’t it stand to reason that both positions should be presented in a class that is tackling the issue of biological origins? It seems blatantly unscientific to me to intentionally exclude an idea from a curriculum—to deny students information to use in drawing a conclusion—simply because it presupposes the supernatural rather than the natural.
Ultimately, the issue of origins is the one issue of science that in the end can’t help but delve into the theological, philosophical, or metaphysical. Even the strict naturalist who swears by atheism has to grapple with the initial origin of matter. Can something come from nothing? In trying to answer these questions, one quickly leaves the realm of science and at the least enters a metaphysical nightmare that requires some basic presuppositions that will ultimately fail to find any adequate scientific scrutiny.
All this to say that the subject of origins can’t be fairly dealt with in the final analysis if the supernatural is not at least considered along side the natural.
2 Comments:
Hi, I'm Javier;
Just wanted to tell you that the origin of live and the evolution theory are different issues.
From our human brains it's impossible for us to concieve an origin out of nothing...but once we acknoledge there's something (i hope you do), we CAN explain it. You could critisize gravity, calculus and the hole human science just because they don't mention that the origin is unknown, but that dosen't lead you anywhere (but be sitted watching tv doing nothing).
Where do you really want people to go?
PD: I liked your style writing. Greetings from Chalon, France.
Hey Jordan,
I am glad to see you decided to comment on the Evolution v. Intelligent Design debate so lately popular in the media. I am fresh from reading an article in this week's TIME magazine that incensed me. I am cancelling my subscription to TIME as a result of its pointed attack on intelligent design. The article is unbalanced and decidedly liberal in viewpoint from start to finish: the title, "Stealth Attack on Evolution" immediately alerts the reader that the journalists intend to protect their precious ideal of Darwinism. The thing that horrified me was their resistance to even examining Evolution. Educators in the Kansas City area were quoted as being angry that proponents of I.D. were calling evolution a THEORY. One educator in KC said "They are playing on the public's lack of understanding of what a scientific theory is, it's more than a guess. It's a set of hypotheses that has been tested over time." BUT IT'S STILL A THEORY! These tests have shown the inconsistencies, the gaps in understanding, and even the improbability of evolution occuring in any environment. Liberals and their pet journalists (most journalists these days are nothing more than deaf and blind pack animals, pouncing on any piece of controversey tossed their way and dramatizing it for personal gain and partisan aims, they disgust me)will dogmatically defend their ignorant theory because they are terrified of any explanation that involves the supernatural. The supernatural might suggest a God who would require something from them...and they won't have that!
Keep writing Jordan...I might even get into this blog thing...it's really fun when you want to opine!!
Kim B.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home