Mike has been Facebooking and blogging about the subjects surrounding the material in the Ben Stein documentary, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” Primarily, Mike got to thinking about it after reading an article by evolutionary theorist, Richard Dawkins, where he says that Stein distorted things Dawkins said in the documentary. Admittedly, Mike hasn’t actually seen the movie (as of this writing), and neither had I when I first read his post, but thanks to the wonders of Netflix Instant Queue, I took the time to watch it.
In his blog post, Mike argues that one of, if not the, primary issue in the debate is a lack of civility, where both sides (Creation vs Evolution) take things so personally that they cannot have a reasonable argument about the matter. I’ll leave that discussion to Mike, however, as my problem with the whole thing is a general ignorance of the definition of “science.”
science –noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
…
Now, the key in that definition is “…gained through observation and experimentation.” I know I’ve talked about this before (stupid Lee Strobel…), but the definition of science is quite important to understanding what the problem is with the debate.
By the definition put forth above, Intelligent Design (and, relatedly, Creationism) is not science. I can say this with conviction because I know that in order for it to be science, it must be testable. If you cannot test a theory, then you cannot consider it science and it must stay firmly in the realm of philosophy.
philosophy –noun
1. the rational investigation of the truths and principles ofbeing, knowledge, or conduct.
…
5. a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs.
Philosophy is very good about providing analysis of an argument. One could even describe them as “thought experiments,” where one ruminates on a particular moral or existential issue and comes to a conclusion. However, those conclusions are hardly “evidence,” as they cannot be reproduced by other individuals performing the exact same experiment with the same parameters. If one person has a “thought experiment,” their experiences in their own lives will inform their conclusions, leading to differences between individuals. Science, on the other hand, holds specific variables consistent so that any individual can come to the same conclusion, irrefutably. If I drop a ball in Iowa and you drop the same ball in Missouri, or China, they will both hit the ground in the same amount of time (assuming the ball is held the same way and the height it is dropped from held constant, but only the location of the experiment has changed).
This is, inherently, the issue: Evolution (in the form of Natural Selection) can be, and has been, tested in many, many different ways and it has held up to the toughest of scrutiny; Intelligent Design cannot be tested and, therefore, is not science. Have all facets of evolution (in the form of Natural Selection) turned out to stand up to that scrutiny? No, and the Theory of Evolution has been modified when that new evidence has appeared. I can’t think of a time when Creationism/Intelligent Design has been modified when new evidence has been presented.
Creationists have been trying to get Creationism in public schools for decades, believing that Evolution is not only incorrect, but is somehow anti-Creation. I’m not going to get into that part of the debate, although I have some pretty clear opinions on it. I don’t even necessarily have a problem with teaching religion in public schools, as long as they’re all treated equally (i.e. you can teach Christian tenets as long as you also teach the ideas of Islam, Judaism, etc.). But I do have serious problems with passing off Intelligent Design as science, and serious issues with the people that purport that Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools in science classrooms.
Whether my comments are “civil” or not, I don’t know (they probably aren’t…), but I do know that the proponents of teaching Intelligent Design in science classes are wrong and are doing a disservice to students everywhere. Science is difficult enough to understand as it is, let alone adding things into the classroom that don’t belong there and simply confuse everyone involved.
Clear, concise, correct; and yet your post makes me sad.
I can’t comprehend why, as we start into the 21st century we’re still having debates over the validity of bronze age creation myths, and their offshoots.
🙁
I get to teach Evolution to a bunch of high school kids. It’s actually pretty fun, and very productive if you put a lot of work into it. At first, you get kids that just say things like, “I don’t believe in that crap”. But the more and more you show them and teach them the more you can see them start to get it.
I will tell you what I hate. When I get emails from parents essentially saying, “Good luck with Bobby in the evolution unit. He’s a Christian.”
Where is this perception that Evolution is on one side and God the other?
That said, I’ve yet to hear you or Mike discuss what it means to believe in God and also “believe” in Evolution (I am unsure that evolution is something to be “believed in” but you get the drift). If God’s around then he certainly caused all of this- but evolution obviously occurred…
That’s something I feel like I have a fair handle on myself and also something I burn to be able to teach in my classroom. But rightfully so, I cannot.
Well, I can’t say I’ve got a good answer for you on that front… I guess I typically treat it like the way the homosexuality and abortion is treated in most churches I’ve attended: “if I don’t talk about it, maybe the issue will just go away…” 😛
In all seriousness, I know for a fact that Evolution occurs. I also know that Natural Selection is, arguably, the most likely way that Evolution occurs, but there is probably more to it that we don’t understand yet, and thus, the “Theory of Natural Selection” will continue to evolve itself.
However, I cannot discount the ability of an “all-knowing creator being” from having a hand in anything, as I cannot prove or disprove it. I’ve seen enough Star Trek in my time to open my mind to the possibility that things exist that are beyond my comprehension, and that I should try to keep my head firmly grounded into what my feeble mind can deal with, only dreaming of the things I cannot.
Therefore, with all that in mind, I generally fall under the “God’s Experiment” model where the Big Bang (or something prior to that…) was initiated by a being we know as “God” and, for the most part, the Universe was set in motion without too much guidance aside from relatively small interventions. I say “without too much guidance” because that allows for Evolution to occur, and for the ability of Choice and Free Will. If I were to say that God did everything, Creation/Evolution included, then that would undermine Free Will, in my mind. There needs to be some “uncertainty in the system” for the world, as we know it, to function (I’m thinking of the end of The Matrix Reloaded here…).
I also phrase my thoughts on this as “God’s Experiment” because I don’t personally believe God is as “all-knowing” as we may think He is, with regards to all the outcomes (thus, defining an “experiment”). Again, this allows for Free Will. If God knew what choices I would make, then they wouldn’t really be my choices. I think our choices, in some sense, surprise God on a daily basis. Sometimes good surprises, sometimes bad ones. I also think the “choices of Evolution” surprise God (i.e. how organisms evolved, etc).
So yeah, this could spawn a very long discussion on the subject, but I think that’s generally where I fall on it. To briefly summarize:
Evolution occurs. This is fact. It is in the realm of Science that I can say this. However, I choose to believe that God set things in motion that allows me to be here today. That is not Science, as I cannot prove or disprove it. I can, instead, fit that belief firmly within the realm of Faith.
I agree almost entirely with what you’ve said on the subject. I do think I view God’s role perhaps a little more “hands-on” than your synopsis portrays (at least my interpretation of what you’ve written).
You really touch on something I am pretty interested in with your statements on Free Will. I think God knows everything, and how everything will turn out and even every decision we will make. Likewise, I’m sure he knows and knew the outcome of the Big Bang. I think this is much like how a painter might know what a painting will look like before they begin.
The painting still has to be painted, each brush stroke an important one. I think in our case the brush strokes are ours to make, and I really believe we make them fully independent of God’s will. Knowing the outcome doesn’t imply he caused the outcome. I might know the outcome of a fight between Andy and Paige, but that doesn’t mean I’m the one that made Paige pummel the guy. (you get the idea).
Could God make me fall in love with someone or go to college somewhere or start a fight in high school? Absolutely. This doesn’t mean he does. All of us could do things that we don’t.
I think it’s easier to understand this, knowing that “time” is something God created. He stands apart from it, able to look within it and be unswayed by it. He could very well know where the Big Bang would lead, putting in place all the natural laws we know of and allowing for such things as natural selection.** Then he could watch it all unfold, all on its own, but still knowing both what the end part will be, and also every little moment in between.
This is my favorite imagery of salvation. Being outside of time is like writing a book. You can make your character pick up a glass and start to take a drink, and then you can leave the manuscript. Maybe for years you are gone, and when you come back, he finishes taking that drink and sets the glass down. Jesus can actually spend eternity thinking about each and every person as he hangs on the cross; Looking at their lives, and knowing them intimately. Both intense, and off topic…
I think the biggest part of your post I agreed with was your summary at the end. God made it possible that I might be here. All the evidence suggests that evolution was the means to that end. Why would God create such a crazy system of science that everything seems to be bound to work in, and then side step that? Saying evolution is incompatible with God is like saying God isn’t powerful enough or smart enough to work within the rules of the very universe he created. Of course he had us in mind, but he didn’t need to cheat the system after he lit the fuse.
There is a lot more to say, as you know. But I’ll leave it at this.
*Among a huge number of other things… this is really amazing to me, and how I find I can see God’s Glory the best. Think of all the crazy stuff put into place, matter as organized energy- quarks- space time- gravity, even ecology. It’s all so complex and also oddly simple, and just really a million instruments each making a million sounds all for the same song. Those are the miracles people look for. God doesn’t write stuff on stone tablets for us, but we are able to see him arguably more clearly than any group of people before us. I think we just need to open our eyes to it.
Sorry the above is poorly edited. I decided against reorganizing the paragraphs.
That sentiment, with regards to the summary at the end of my previous comment, is generally where I fall on the issue. I’ll eventually post a Primer on “The Scientific Method” that goes into more depth on the subject, but I honestly think that many of our issues of “Science vs Religion” would be lessened by greater education standards world-wide. It’s not that Science is anti-Religion, or vice versa…it’s just that people don’t have the proper understanding of what each one speaks to. They aren’t in opposition and never really were: they just answer different questions. As the phrase goes, it’s like comparing apples and oranges.
That isn’t to say that knowledge of Science doesn’t inform knowledge of Religion, and that knowledge of Religion doesn’t inform knowledge of Science. It’s like Biology and Quantum Physics (yes, really…). A Biologist could tell you how and why a heart pumps in great detail, but a Quantum Physicist would probably have a difficult time explaining it to you. However, the Quantum Physicist could explain how the individual molecules came together at an atomic level to allow for the formation of a cell membrane that surrounds a cardiac myocyte (i.e. heart muscle cell). Both sets of knowledge help inform the other, but the individuals are trained to ask and answer different questions about the same issue.
Overall, I just think that the general population doesn’t really know what Science is. They know what Science talks about and its general tenets, but don’t really know what its limits are and how it comes to its conclusions. The same kind of training would be useful in the teaching of Religion (i.e. historical context behind the Bible, as opposed to simply taking the words as literal truths…which they aren’t…).
Otherwise, I agree with you, sir. Thanks for the insight!