skip to main |
skip to sidebar
I believe the driving force behind "creation science" and Intelligent Design is the desire to demonstrate, in concrete terms, that God exists and impacts the natural world.
From the faith position, the argument goes something like this (I am generalizing about many evangelical and conservative Christians -I realize that this does not represent the experience or beliefs of all people of faith):
A large number of people believe in God. They base this belief on a combination of personal experience and revelation. We have books that claim to contain the words and acts of God. We have subjective experiences that we believe are the result of God interacting with us. We observe effects in our life and in the social, political and natural world that we attribute to the activities of God.
From these experiences and observations, we come to believe that God has a tangible impact on our lives and the workings of the world. By tangible impact, we mean measurable, noticeable - that God is potent and effective. Isaiah 55:10-11:
quote:
10 As the rain and the snow
come down from heaven,
and do not return to it
without watering the earth
and making it bud and flourish,
so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,
11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
It will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire
and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.
The success of science in the past few hundred years has been to describe how the world works without reference to God (not in denial of God, but reflecting the understanding that supernatural intervention is not needed for all natural processes so far identified). So far, no cause-and-effect has been demonstrated to depend on God, and no experiments have been successful in detecting God's activities.
To be sure, there are many, many stories of things happening that are attributed to God - healings, recoveries, fortuitous happenings, incredible coincidences, chains of events leading to results that people feel can only be the action of God - but so far, no way to demonstrate that belief in the laboratory or in the field to a "scientific" level of proof.
This stands in stark contrast to the success of science in understanding how the natural world works.
The "creation science" and ID movement is an attempt to rectify this imbalance by demonstrating the power and effectiveness of God in terms that cannot be denied. So far, this attempt has not been successful. This has resulted in some people of faith "declaring victory" anyway, and trying to convince the rest of the world that areas of uncertainly, complexity and debate represent the genuine activity of God. The world's response has been skeptical.
For now, it seems that the kind of hard proof people of faith are looking for is not forthcoming. It makes sense to keep looking - but integrity demands that we be up front about how the search is going - full of confidence and faith, yes, but declaring victory - not yet.
Of course, there is another approach - to consider the possiblity that the world that science uncovers is the world God has made. God may not be detectable via science because what science reveals is what God does - all of it. In ways that we obviously do not understand, perhaps God makes his will known though what we perceive to be the natural processes we experience everyday. If this is true, then we will never (or always) find God via science. This does not make science any less useful, but it can make science less threatening.
Do scientists who accept evolution have equivalent a priori assumptions (old earth, evolution, common ancestor etc.) that causes them to process all facts through a filter that can yield only support for their assumption? That is, are YEC and evolution two faith-based competing theories?
I do not think so, because there are many, many independent lines of evidence that do not make sense in a YEC interpretation of Genesis, but do make sense in the context of evolution and common descent. And of course, this is how the theory developed. A YEC scientist (Darwin) went out and looked around, and realized what the facts he observed led to - evolution. After some rather contentious debate, other scientists came to the same conclusions. Years later, thousands of scientists recognize that evolution makes sense of the facts, whereas special creation does not. Some of these facts include the geological column and the fossils indexed to them, psuedogenes, broken genes, junk DNA, greater similarity correlating with shared ancestry, etc. etc.
So you have evolution emerging from the systematic observation of facts about the world, and the YEC approach coming from an assumption about how to interpret Genesis 1.
While science does not have anything to say about the existence of God, it does have things to say about things that have and have not happened in the natural world. When your confidence in God is tied to the accuracy of statements about the natural world contained in books of revelation, then science is in the uncomfortable position of “disproving” some possible interpretations of that revelation (Genesis can’t be both "true in a scientific sense" and teach that the world is 6,000 years old, for instance, if science is a reliable guide to nature).
Unfortunately for creationists, criticism of our evolution is not the same thing as defending the Genesis account of creation. It may be that mutation and natural selection are not the only forces acting on species to cause evolution. This just means that the theory will get better over time – that there is more to learn. While the theory of evolution will change and grow, there is no reason to expect that the evidence will suddenly start pointing to special creation, a global flood, and a young earth.
None of this rules out the possibility that God designed the universe, especially if He did it in some way that is beyond our detection – and in a way that also preserves the true random nature of the cosmos. This is a position that cannot be proved or disproved by science – two people look at the same facts, some see God, some see chance.
So faith and science two faith assumptions? Christians challenged to believe the Bible or believe science? I don’t think so. Do the findings of science challenge our beliefs? Of course. All Christians used to believe that the Bible taught geocentrism – today, YEC-ers argue strongly that the Bible teaches no such thing. The reason everyone agrees on this point is because scientists demonstrated a fact about the world (heliocentrism) that no one can successfully dispute. Like it or not, we have to test our interpretations of revelation against our real world experience. Science is a tool that magnifies and strengthens our ability to think accurately about our world. And that is all it does – but that is quite a lot.
I have a few objections to ID. These include:
ID is an interventionist theology, that states that God MUST miraculously intervene to do the "hard parts." By this I mean that ID in general agrees that some evolution has taken place, but that certain things (e.g. species, major organs (like the eye), the bacterial flagellum) represent too much complexity to have evolved. So God, in some unspecified and unknowable way intervened in the process of evolution and added the missing information. This is not my view of how God acted in creation, based on the evidence so far - so I am not an advocate. It also specifically EXCLUDES my theistic evolution approach *which essentially states that science is uncovering how God made the world). Id differ from young earth creationism only in that ID accepts far more of evolution and grants a much longer time frame for life on earth than those folks who think that Genesis 1 accurately describes creation events.
The whole movement is driven by a prior commitment that we know, based on our interpretation of the Bible, better than the evidence of the natural world. Though ID claims to be agnostic about the Designer, both Behe and Dembowski have admitted that they think the designer is the Christian God. The only reason to remove "god talk" is the hope that it will then stand up to constitutional challenge. ID has not made its case, so we are jumping the gun, and asserting things contrary to fact, when we advance the ID idea.
I also think that most of the furor over ID has been whipped up under false pretenses. Conservative Christians have been told that "mainstream science" promotes atheism. This is not true (though there are scientists - both Christian and atheist - who do claim that science supports their beliefs). Science is the most successful tool we have to explore the natural world. Because it has not turned up evidence of the existence of God (something it was not ever designed to do), it is now being made to suffer accusations of being anti-Christian.
Yes, there are cultural, moral and ethical issues we need to face. Yes, scientists (just like pastors, lawyers, politicians, plumbers, etc.) have a variety of personal views - some we embrace, some we reject. Science is being singled out for attack because it speaks with authority about issues that touch on the validity and accuracy of the Bible. ID is an attempt at a scientific case, but in spite of claims to the contrary, it has not yet made its case. Will ID be able to support its claims? Time will tell - and we should give it all the time it needs (however long that turns out to be), not rush it, half-baked, to the table, and then insist that it be the star of the banquet.
