Darwin was a human, working in an age of relative ignorance, and his writing represents an incremental advance toward understanding that has been improved upon over time. What is undeniable is that his approach won out, not because it was a piece of revealed truth, perfect in every word, from a person of perfect understanding and intellect, but because his ideas were fruitful. Others tried hard to advance different approches- they were not censored by an intellectual establishment, but fell aside when the evidence did not support them. Darwin is considered great in retrospect- because his ideas worked, and he was able to see (however partially) when many of those around him did not. His name is given to the theory because he was an early articulator, not because he wrote an evolutionist's bible, or because he is the world's greatest authority. He lit a lamp (though not him only), by which others continued the journey.
Now creationists are forced to revisionist history, trying to invent atheist cabals and satanic plots in order to discredit the output of hundreds of years of science and the work of tens of thousands of people (many of them Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Moslem etc.). The world is as it is. It is old, life evolved, the universe is unimaginably vast. Did God make all this? We can't tell, what does your heart say? If you experience some Thou speaking to you, then you need to be willing to wrestle with what God has done in creation - (including evolution). Unless you worship a trixter god, who has made the world an illusion to test the faithful, of course. But then, if the world is an illusion, why discuss science at all?
Saturday, November 26, 2005
Sunday, November 20, 2005
Save us From True Believers
True believers are certain that they understand the bible and read it correctly - and believe it to be authoritative over matters both spiritual and natural. They have a simple and honest faith, reflecting the New Testament. Eveyone else who is religious are the lukewarm, who will be spit out of Jesus' mouth (Rev 3:16).
Then there are the scientists, who do not recognize the authority of the bible to say anything at all about the natural world.
There is no common ground here. The founding fathers lived in memory of Puritan pastors banned from coming anywhere near their parishes, protestant versus catholic pogroms, and all sorts of bitter contest between rival factions, each claiming to have the ONE TRUE FAITH. You would think that this bloody and shameful history would at leach teach believers humility - but it does not seem to be working.
My hope is that the constitution will continue to defend us from true believers.
Then there are the scientists, who do not recognize the authority of the bible to say anything at all about the natural world.
There is no common ground here. The founding fathers lived in memory of Puritan pastors banned from coming anywhere near their parishes, protestant versus catholic pogroms, and all sorts of bitter contest between rival factions, each claiming to have the ONE TRUE FAITH. You would think that this bloody and shameful history would at leach teach believers humility - but it does not seem to be working.
My hope is that the constitution will continue to defend us from true believers.
Saturday, November 19, 2005
Does the supernatural exist?
Consider that most supernatural events in the Bible have explanations - causes - associated with them. For example, God causes the sun to stand still (Joshua 10:12), to allow the Israelites more time to defeat their enemies. Consider that these explanations were seen as perfectly reasonable within the understanding of physics and cosmology of the day. Gods and other supernatural beings were seen as being able to manipulate the world - to exert force- just on a scale and to an effect not available to mortals. The concept of supernatural precedes naturalism - it is a later gloss to view the supernatural as a violation of natural laws. The gods acted naturally to the pre-scientific mind, just more potently.
As such, I propose that a better definition for the supernatural is simply those things done directly by God. This acknowledges the unexceptional admission that most stuff “just happens,” but sometimes God intervenes directly in the world. It is this direct action, and not the mechanism, that defines supernaturalism.
The mind exposed to the scientific method (however superficially) expects to find "real world" evidence of God's activities. Many Christians, for example, regularly attest to concrete experiences of God's activity - the activity of the supernatural - in their lives. For that matter, large numbers of people see ghosts, experience physic effects, contact the dead, receive spiritual, emotional and physical healing, experience strange coincidences, act on unexplained urges that result in them taking actions that save themselves and others from harm - in short, it is nature of the experience, not the scientist’s understanding of its causation, that marks something as supernatural in most folks eyes.
The recent focus on studies that investigate intercessory prayer, and the explorations of Intelligent Design, are examples of this process of looking for the fingerprint of God in the accumulated experience of daily living. If you believe in a God who acts in the world, you expect (insist?) on finding this proof – how could it be otherwise? If you believe in a God who is somewhat more subtle, you may have lowered expectations for the result of these investigations.
Today’s difficulty is that we don’t understand the mechanism of many of the miracles. For example, in Joshua 10:12, both the sun and moon stand still – which I take to mean that the earth was halted in its rotation. Here is a particularly interesting case study for literalism, by the way, because if the sun was stopped in its movement through space (relative to the earth?) would it have made any difference to the length of the day? In any event, we don’t know how to stop the earth’s rotation, what with all the problems that that would entail. But that does not mean that God could not have done it. My objection to the traditional notion of supernaturalism is that it does not imply that we don’t understand the mechanism, but that there could have been no (natural) mechanism (with the caveat that, since supernaturalism = not following any natural process, the religious can imagine anything they want happened).
When most religious folks I know talk about the activity of the supernatural, they don’t speak of non-natural mechanisms; they speak of concrete manifestations of the power of God in the world.
But the question is, “Does the supernatural exist?” My personal response is that if it does, it will leave evidence. I recognize that it is not enough to show that people of a particular religion act, in aggregate, in a way that demonstrates Devine intervention, or that something occurred (a healing, for example) that confounds medical experts. You will also have to show that there are no “natural” explanations. This is made even more difficult by the fact that ruling out all known causes does not rule out the possibility that some natural cause exists that has not yet been identified. In fact, this is the “God in the gaps” approach to the supernatural – find something that cannot be explained, and attribute it to God’s direct intervention.
Many people of faith have accepted this working definition of the supernatural, and believe that sufficient evidence has been provided to convince them of God’s intervention in “ordinary” life. Personally, I have experienced many things that I attribute to the supernatural – so I say it exists. Can I prove it? Well, I am fairly perplexed that when I look at broad measures of Christian behavior, I fail to see the significant differences I expect.
As such, I propose that a better definition for the supernatural is simply those things done directly by God. This acknowledges the unexceptional admission that most stuff “just happens,” but sometimes God intervenes directly in the world. It is this direct action, and not the mechanism, that defines supernaturalism.
The mind exposed to the scientific method (however superficially) expects to find "real world" evidence of God's activities. Many Christians, for example, regularly attest to concrete experiences of God's activity - the activity of the supernatural - in their lives. For that matter, large numbers of people see ghosts, experience physic effects, contact the dead, receive spiritual, emotional and physical healing, experience strange coincidences, act on unexplained urges that result in them taking actions that save themselves and others from harm - in short, it is nature of the experience, not the scientist’s understanding of its causation, that marks something as supernatural in most folks eyes.
The recent focus on studies that investigate intercessory prayer, and the explorations of Intelligent Design, are examples of this process of looking for the fingerprint of God in the accumulated experience of daily living. If you believe in a God who acts in the world, you expect (insist?) on finding this proof – how could it be otherwise? If you believe in a God who is somewhat more subtle, you may have lowered expectations for the result of these investigations.
Today’s difficulty is that we don’t understand the mechanism of many of the miracles. For example, in Joshua 10:12, both the sun and moon stand still – which I take to mean that the earth was halted in its rotation. Here is a particularly interesting case study for literalism, by the way, because if the sun was stopped in its movement through space (relative to the earth?) would it have made any difference to the length of the day? In any event, we don’t know how to stop the earth’s rotation, what with all the problems that that would entail. But that does not mean that God could not have done it. My objection to the traditional notion of supernaturalism is that it does not imply that we don’t understand the mechanism, but that there could have been no (natural) mechanism (with the caveat that, since supernaturalism = not following any natural process, the religious can imagine anything they want happened).
When most religious folks I know talk about the activity of the supernatural, they don’t speak of non-natural mechanisms; they speak of concrete manifestations of the power of God in the world.
But the question is, “Does the supernatural exist?” My personal response is that if it does, it will leave evidence. I recognize that it is not enough to show that people of a particular religion act, in aggregate, in a way that demonstrates Devine intervention, or that something occurred (a healing, for example) that confounds medical experts. You will also have to show that there are no “natural” explanations. This is made even more difficult by the fact that ruling out all known causes does not rule out the possibility that some natural cause exists that has not yet been identified. In fact, this is the “God in the gaps” approach to the supernatural – find something that cannot be explained, and attribute it to God’s direct intervention.
Many people of faith have accepted this working definition of the supernatural, and believe that sufficient evidence has been provided to convince them of God’s intervention in “ordinary” life. Personally, I have experienced many things that I attribute to the supernatural – so I say it exists. Can I prove it? Well, I am fairly perplexed that when I look at broad measures of Christian behavior, I fail to see the significant differences I expect.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Kansas Board of Education Vote
Of course there are people who view science as giving them an intellectual justification for rejecting religion. In the same way, many people find that they must distance themselves from science in order to keep hold of their faith. Then there are some who try to keep hold of both. What is very clear is that this involves some compromise.
While some people insist they hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible (for example), they do in fact hold a much more liberal view than the original hearers. Obvious examples for conservative Christians are the fact that the earth circles the sun, the stars are not fixed in the sky, that snow is not stored in storehouses, and that creatures are not spontaneously generated from the earth (as Genesis 1 implies, and as was widely held until recently).
Science will from time-to-time demonstrate facts that contradict aspects of one religion or another. The constitution does not protect religion from such "attacks," nor should it. What is more normal, and what is happening here, is that science is being attacked by religion, and truth is being suppressed in order to support the YEC view of Genesis. This is also fine (though depressing), just not in the public education system.
One thing hasn't changed - some people think God is found in the gaps of our understanding about the natural world. I for one tire of the constant retreat to just beyond the frontiers of science, where my co-religionists throw taunts - "You'll never figure this one out!" Oh. "I meant this - you'll never figure this out!" Oh...
My own personal frustration with this anti-science position is that it sacrifices science to defend creationism.
Never mind that it encourages superstition and bigotry (because that is what is left when you remove the truth).
Never mind that it opens the door to astrology, para-psychology and a host of other superstitious errors demanding equal time on exactly the same basis as creationism is being ushered in.
Never mind that it teaches students that truth is whatever you want it to be - the exact mind state desired by racists and demagogues of all stripes.
Never mind that it waters down science by introducing all sorts of special pleading- a real turn-off for the few folks left who want to get on with it.
Never mind that it forces us to pretend that we know less than we do, and pretend that we seriously consider ideologically-motivated fantasy and reasoning from "first principles" as equal to the results of scientific discovery.
After all the special pleading, apologetics, distortions, lies and mis-information, it is truth that will have suffered, kids' education that will have suffered- and only to promote a YEC-view of Genesis. This is what is frustrating about the KBE decision.
For what it is worth, as the election after the last KBE decision like this showed, and as the recent vote in Dover emphasized, this kind of nonsense does not represent the will of the people. It represents how special interest groups can "storm the gates" and pack the board. When the general population wakes up, they rectify the situation. I'll be looking for ways to help rectify this come the next election.
While some people insist they hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible (for example), they do in fact hold a much more liberal view than the original hearers. Obvious examples for conservative Christians are the fact that the earth circles the sun, the stars are not fixed in the sky, that snow is not stored in storehouses, and that creatures are not spontaneously generated from the earth (as Genesis 1 implies, and as was widely held until recently).
Science will from time-to-time demonstrate facts that contradict aspects of one religion or another. The constitution does not protect religion from such "attacks," nor should it. What is more normal, and what is happening here, is that science is being attacked by religion, and truth is being suppressed in order to support the YEC view of Genesis. This is also fine (though depressing), just not in the public education system.
One thing hasn't changed - some people think God is found in the gaps of our understanding about the natural world. I for one tire of the constant retreat to just beyond the frontiers of science, where my co-religionists throw taunts - "You'll never figure this one out!" Oh. "I meant this - you'll never figure this out!" Oh...
My own personal frustration with this anti-science position is that it sacrifices science to defend creationism.
Never mind that it encourages superstition and bigotry (because that is what is left when you remove the truth).
Never mind that it opens the door to astrology, para-psychology and a host of other superstitious errors demanding equal time on exactly the same basis as creationism is being ushered in.
Never mind that it teaches students that truth is whatever you want it to be - the exact mind state desired by racists and demagogues of all stripes.
Never mind that it waters down science by introducing all sorts of special pleading- a real turn-off for the few folks left who want to get on with it.
Never mind that it forces us to pretend that we know less than we do, and pretend that we seriously consider ideologically-motivated fantasy and reasoning from "first principles" as equal to the results of scientific discovery.
After all the special pleading, apologetics, distortions, lies and mis-information, it is truth that will have suffered, kids' education that will have suffered- and only to promote a YEC-view of Genesis. This is what is frustrating about the KBE decision.
For what it is worth, as the election after the last KBE decision like this showed, and as the recent vote in Dover emphasized, this kind of nonsense does not represent the will of the people. It represents how special interest groups can "storm the gates" and pack the board. When the general population wakes up, they rectify the situation. I'll be looking for ways to help rectify this come the next election.
Saturday, November 05, 2005
Why Does It Matter if the Bible is True?
The Bible bases its authority on a claim to be the story of God interacting with people. In a straightforward way, it makes unambiguous claims about people, places and specific occurrences. It uses these events to explain the nature of God, people and the purpose and direction of history. For example, the book of Mark contains a list of people who are ancestors of Joseph, Mary's husband, the mother of Jesus. Many of these people figure in the stories found in the books of Genesis through Chronicles, and in the prophetic books. The Bible treats these events as a demonstration of the nature of both God and people. If they did not happen, then the lessons derived from them lose authority. For example, the exile was God's response to a faithless Israel. If their captivity in Babylon had nothing to do with the quality of their interaction with God, then that changes our understanding of who God is and what he does (and is able to do). You may claim that the story is just as compelling even if it did not happen, and I will say that it is the difference between reading about having a gun pulled on you, and staring down the barrel of a gun pointed at you (I've done both, and for me at least, it is very different).
There is an alternative basis for authority- that many people have found the Bible meaningful, useful, and helpful even. This puts it on a level with a book like the Tao Te Ching (which claims no divinity for its authorship). All that is needed, perhaps, is some cultural insight to better understand what the author had in mind- no historicity is needed. Perhaps this is what is meant by the opening post in this thread. I will grant that any philosophy or religion can be admired and adhered to on this level, and it may even be viewed as in some way better or higher or finer that a philosophy that is rooted in the day-to-day. Again, I suggest it is like reading about being in love and being in love. I can understand how some people might prefer reading about it, after having been through it, but I sure vote for the real thing.
The Bible represents itself as an accurate record of the interaction of the Creator and his creation, from the beginning of time, to the end of time. If your accept that claim, you read it one way. If you reject that claim, you read it another way (or ways)- or, much more likely, just don't read it at all. If the question is, "Can the Bible be useful, even though it is largely fiction?" the answer is sure. If the question is, "Can you accept the Bible as an authoritative guide to the nature of God, people, and the purpose of history, even though many of its claims are false?" the answer probably should be no.
For many people, what gives them confidence in the Bible is that it is rooted in the facts of history. According to the Bible, God did break into history, influence the Pharaoh, the heads of the Babylonian and Persian empire, accurately describe the future, etc. In Isaiah, God is quoted as saying "My words do not come back to me empty, but accomplish the purpose for which they were sent." God is portrayed as an actor in history, not just an influencer of the private thoughts of people. It is these dry facts that demonstrate that this is God's nature. Eliminate the facts, and the very nature of God is changed. You may think this is for the better, others for the worse- but it does make a difference.
There is an alternative basis for authority- that many people have found the Bible meaningful, useful, and helpful even. This puts it on a level with a book like the Tao Te Ching (which claims no divinity for its authorship). All that is needed, perhaps, is some cultural insight to better understand what the author had in mind- no historicity is needed. Perhaps this is what is meant by the opening post in this thread. I will grant that any philosophy or religion can be admired and adhered to on this level, and it may even be viewed as in some way better or higher or finer that a philosophy that is rooted in the day-to-day. Again, I suggest it is like reading about being in love and being in love. I can understand how some people might prefer reading about it, after having been through it, but I sure vote for the real thing.
The Bible represents itself as an accurate record of the interaction of the Creator and his creation, from the beginning of time, to the end of time. If your accept that claim, you read it one way. If you reject that claim, you read it another way (or ways)- or, much more likely, just don't read it at all. If the question is, "Can the Bible be useful, even though it is largely fiction?" the answer is sure. If the question is, "Can you accept the Bible as an authoritative guide to the nature of God, people, and the purpose of history, even though many of its claims are false?" the answer probably should be no.
For many people, what gives them confidence in the Bible is that it is rooted in the facts of history. According to the Bible, God did break into history, influence the Pharaoh, the heads of the Babylonian and Persian empire, accurately describe the future, etc. In Isaiah, God is quoted as saying "My words do not come back to me empty, but accomplish the purpose for which they were sent." God is portrayed as an actor in history, not just an influencer of the private thoughts of people. It is these dry facts that demonstrate that this is God's nature. Eliminate the facts, and the very nature of God is changed. You may think this is for the better, others for the worse- but it does make a difference.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
The Creationist Ghetto
Many of us have a commonsense reaction to the beauty and complexity of life - "Surely all this (myself included) is not an accident." What is more, many also believe that God says evolution didn't happen. If God said it didn't happen, and our "gut feel" is that evolution couldn't have happened, Darwin's theory is a hard pill to swallow. Evolution is not a "neutral" theory in this context; it is a direct challenge to the authority of God and our sense of place in the world.
Polls indicate that a significant number of adults reject evolution, and politicians, urged on by well-financed special interest groups and conservative religious leaders, have managed to galvanize them into voting their belief. As a result, there is strong political pressure that will (apparently) require public schools to teach that ID (and let's face it, Biblical Creationism) are valid "scientific" perspectives.
A triumph of the democratic system. The problem? Evolution, in fact, accurately explains what we see around us in the world, and successfully predicted such discoveries as DNA and dinosaurs with feathers. What is more, ID introduces religion into the classroom, which is unconstitutional. "If evolution is so strong, why worry? Just prove ID wrong," might be the response. The difficulty is that there is no way to prove ID wrong, because it makes no testable predictions. Jonathan Wells' recent attempt at responding to this criticism does not help, because even if true, the claim of design is not proven, because the mechanisms of evolution could also produce the same result. In what way does something Intelligently Designed differ from something brought into being through evolutionary processes? How can we tell that this aspect of a thing evolved, and this bit was designed? How and when was the designed bit introduced into the organism?
In the recent Dover trial, Michael Behe, a main proponent of ID, made two telling statements. First, he admitted that ID is not testable, because it has no mechanisms. Second, he offered the opinion that if ID is true, there is no point in looking for more detailed answers - ID is a science-killer. "So what?" you might respond- well, for one, you wouldn't be reading this on a computer without a scientific approach to the world. For another, we would be stuck in fear, ignorance, superstition and sickness - even more than we are - without a scientific perspective on things.
So teachers are left with the unpalatable situation of having to explain to bored and hostile students that truth is what you believe it to be. Truth not judged against any objective criteria is of limited value. Behe's arguments of complexity notwithstanding, concrete examples of ID last barely long enough for publication before they are explained away, and proponents reach for new examples. If this sounds like the old "God in the gaps" approach, that's because it is. What is more, by redefining science to consider non-natural explanations, you open the door to astrology, psychics of all persuasions, and the creation stories off all the religions - not just Christian literalists.
Rather than engage in the scientific process (for example, ID scientists could offer their own alternative explanations to their theories, and design experiments to prove their theories wrong- a normal part of mainstream science), we get well-crafted logical arguments. "Logic is fine," we should say, "but show me results! Make predictions, perform experiments! Gather data!" If James Dobson announced that he needed 10 million dollars to fund an experiment to prove that granite can form in decades under pressure, he would have the money in weeks. Where are these studies? Why won't creationists do the research?
Instead, Creationists are both the victim ("no one will publish our papers!"), and the bully ("We want ID in our schools, and we'll have it"). What creationists are doing is pushing conservative Christians into a ghetto of ignorance and fear. Ignorance because they are taught to distrust science, and to believe things (like a 6,000 year-old earth) that are not true. Fear, because they are told that the hostile world is out there trying to destroy them. It is a hostile world, but science is a tool, not an enemy. If Christians won't use the most powerful tool people have ever devised, they will end up being as relevant to our culture as the last group of science drop-outs, the Amish (but without the close-knit community).
Polls indicate that a significant number of adults reject evolution, and politicians, urged on by well-financed special interest groups and conservative religious leaders, have managed to galvanize them into voting their belief. As a result, there is strong political pressure that will (apparently) require public schools to teach that ID (and let's face it, Biblical Creationism) are valid "scientific" perspectives.
A triumph of the democratic system. The problem? Evolution, in fact, accurately explains what we see around us in the world, and successfully predicted such discoveries as DNA and dinosaurs with feathers. What is more, ID introduces religion into the classroom, which is unconstitutional. "If evolution is so strong, why worry? Just prove ID wrong," might be the response. The difficulty is that there is no way to prove ID wrong, because it makes no testable predictions. Jonathan Wells' recent attempt at responding to this criticism does not help, because even if true, the claim of design is not proven, because the mechanisms of evolution could also produce the same result. In what way does something Intelligently Designed differ from something brought into being through evolutionary processes? How can we tell that this aspect of a thing evolved, and this bit was designed? How and when was the designed bit introduced into the organism?
In the recent Dover trial, Michael Behe, a main proponent of ID, made two telling statements. First, he admitted that ID is not testable, because it has no mechanisms. Second, he offered the opinion that if ID is true, there is no point in looking for more detailed answers - ID is a science-killer. "So what?" you might respond- well, for one, you wouldn't be reading this on a computer without a scientific approach to the world. For another, we would be stuck in fear, ignorance, superstition and sickness - even more than we are - without a scientific perspective on things.
So teachers are left with the unpalatable situation of having to explain to bored and hostile students that truth is what you believe it to be. Truth not judged against any objective criteria is of limited value. Behe's arguments of complexity notwithstanding, concrete examples of ID last barely long enough for publication before they are explained away, and proponents reach for new examples. If this sounds like the old "God in the gaps" approach, that's because it is. What is more, by redefining science to consider non-natural explanations, you open the door to astrology, psychics of all persuasions, and the creation stories off all the religions - not just Christian literalists.
Rather than engage in the scientific process (for example, ID scientists could offer their own alternative explanations to their theories, and design experiments to prove their theories wrong- a normal part of mainstream science), we get well-crafted logical arguments. "Logic is fine," we should say, "but show me results! Make predictions, perform experiments! Gather data!" If James Dobson announced that he needed 10 million dollars to fund an experiment to prove that granite can form in decades under pressure, he would have the money in weeks. Where are these studies? Why won't creationists do the research?
Instead, Creationists are both the victim ("no one will publish our papers!"), and the bully ("We want ID in our schools, and we'll have it"). What creationists are doing is pushing conservative Christians into a ghetto of ignorance and fear. Ignorance because they are taught to distrust science, and to believe things (like a 6,000 year-old earth) that are not true. Fear, because they are told that the hostile world is out there trying to destroy them. It is a hostile world, but science is a tool, not an enemy. If Christians won't use the most powerful tool people have ever devised, they will end up being as relevant to our culture as the last group of science drop-outs, the Amish (but without the close-knit community).
Sunday, May 15, 2005
God in The Gaps
A recent story in Scientific American illustrates my objections to the current approach to redefining science (see the 2005 Kansas evolution debate for an example). The story concerns recent evidence that some values we think of as constant have changed over time, and mentions in passing how unconnected these constants seem to be to each other(here is a link to a summary).
This is the point when the Intelligent Design movement steps in with the comment, "See, isn't it obvious? God made the universe, and here is proof- even scientists agree that things are just too complex to have happened by chance, and the initial conditions too delicate to be an accident."
OK, I believe in God. I think God is the Creator. So here is proof that He exists, and so... I quit my job and go to church? Well wait, maybe what these discoveries mean (as implied in the article) is that there are yet-undiscovered-laws that bridge these constants. That things really aren't just arbitrary-we just haven't discovered the key yet. Understanding these higher laws could unlock all sorts of un-dreamed of possibilities. Shouldn't we take a peek?
Is this the inherent anti-God-bias showing up? Why not just admit that God did it and leave it at that? Why go looking for an explanation that does not include God? The short response is that “God did it” is not enough of an answer. Of course God did it- but how? This is the real question from a scientific perspective. This is what gets left out of the discussions of Intelligent Design, by the way- there is no explanation of the mechanism for what we see. It is these mechanisms that science strives to explain, and these mechanisms that are either missing or only very provisional in Intelligent Design.
No doubt some scientists (just like people in every other kind of occupation) do have an anti-God bias- but does that mean that there isn't a Theory of Everything that will tie things together? Or maybe we are just not be smart enough to figure it out, or we may have come along too late in the universe to see what would have been obvious earlier on. And even if there is a theory, and we discover it, it will not disprove God- because what we see with our electron-tunneling microscopes and X-Ray observatories and super-colliders and mathematical theories is what God did. The physical earth, the universe, our biology - everything we see, hear and do is only possible because of what God did. So if there are 11 dimensions, if superstrings exist, if all life on earth traces its ancestry from a common single-celled organism to a chemical soup, to the bi-products of super-novas, back to the big bang and before that, to some unimaginable pre-history- well, that is what God did, and we will just have to deal with it.
This is the point when the Intelligent Design movement steps in with the comment, "See, isn't it obvious? God made the universe, and here is proof- even scientists agree that things are just too complex to have happened by chance, and the initial conditions too delicate to be an accident."
OK, I believe in God. I think God is the Creator. So here is proof that He exists, and so... I quit my job and go to church? Well wait, maybe what these discoveries mean (as implied in the article) is that there are yet-undiscovered-laws that bridge these constants. That things really aren't just arbitrary-we just haven't discovered the key yet. Understanding these higher laws could unlock all sorts of un-dreamed of possibilities. Shouldn't we take a peek?
Is this the inherent anti-God-bias showing up? Why not just admit that God did it and leave it at that? Why go looking for an explanation that does not include God? The short response is that “God did it” is not enough of an answer. Of course God did it- but how? This is the real question from a scientific perspective. This is what gets left out of the discussions of Intelligent Design, by the way- there is no explanation of the mechanism for what we see. It is these mechanisms that science strives to explain, and these mechanisms that are either missing or only very provisional in Intelligent Design.
No doubt some scientists (just like people in every other kind of occupation) do have an anti-God bias- but does that mean that there isn't a Theory of Everything that will tie things together? Or maybe we are just not be smart enough to figure it out, or we may have come along too late in the universe to see what would have been obvious earlier on. And even if there is a theory, and we discover it, it will not disprove God- because what we see with our electron-tunneling microscopes and X-Ray observatories and super-colliders and mathematical theories is what God did. The physical earth, the universe, our biology - everything we see, hear and do is only possible because of what God did. So if there are 11 dimensions, if superstrings exist, if all life on earth traces its ancestry from a common single-celled organism to a chemical soup, to the bi-products of super-novas, back to the big bang and before that, to some unimaginable pre-history- well, that is what God did, and we will just have to deal with it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
