Is Intelligent Design Real Science?

PREACHER: Current advancements and discoveries in science suggest that the universe was after all created by an Intelligent Being.  There are competent scientists in almost every field that would agree that it takes more faith (a better word might be conjecture) to believe that there is no Creator God than to believe that there is.

SKEPTIC: When you say "discoveries in science," I assume you're talking about Intelligent Design. However, the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that Intelligent Design is not really science at all, but rather a pseudoscience that is nothing but an attempt to dress up traditional creationism in a "scientific" package. Its only proponents come out of the Discovery Institute, a right-wing conservative think tank. The whole idea came about after the Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that creationism couldn't be taught in public schools because it was intended to advance a particular religion and therefore violated the separation of church and state. No problem, thought creationists, we'll just repackage creationism as "science" and leave the religion part out of it, and then we'll be able to sneak it into America's classrooms. Unfortunately for them, the courts weren't quite as gullible as they had counted on, and they were shot down in Dover, Pennsylvania when they attempted to introduce ID into the Dover school system in 2005. The judge stated that ID was NOT science, and ruled that it was unconstitutional because it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." D'oh! It's back to the drawing board...

PREACHER: Pardon me, but I think you are a little out of date both from the science angle and the news angle. Furthermore, such good creationist groups as Answers in Genesis are not asking that Intelligent Design or creationism be taught in the public schools. An atheist science teacher would do a bad job of it, just as Christian science teachers probably do a bad job of teaching evolution. What they are asking is that students be allowed to use critical thinking in the science class, and be able to question the erroneous assumptions that are behind so-called molecule-to-man evolution, and competent biologists who are not religious would admit the problems (that which they just assume). 

SKEPTIC: You say that creationists aren't asking for ID to be taught in public schools, but that evolution should be questioned in the science classroom. So the next step isn't to introduce the idea of a Biblical creation? Is that what you mean? You're willing to just leave it at having teachers introduce the idea that evolution could be wrong, with no reference to creationism or the idea that God (or an "intelligent designer") created the world? Forgive me if I find that hard to swallow. You want to teach creationism? Teach it in a comparative religion class, not a science class. And by the way, if a Christian can't find a way to teach evolution in a science classroom, he has no business being a science teacher.

PREACHER: Christians are indeed teaching evolution in the science classroom, but many times they tell their students that they don't need to believe it. They say that because they are not convinced that evolution is a proven fact. Shouldn’t science be about the real world that we can observe and about facts that are indisputable, that can be verified? Don’t all views about origins including the theory of evolution (since it can’t be verified) fit better in a comparative religion class? Evolution would be in the category of naturalism. I believe, and you do too, that science is about what is verifiable. Since evolution isn't occurring before our eyes, it is not verifiable by science. Whether you believe that the world came about by natural processes or by the supernatural creative work of God doesn't make you a better or worse scientist for neither are verifiable by experimental science. However, observable science suggests to me that there has to be a Creator. Everything is designed too well to have come about by natural processes.

SKEPTIC: Firstly, you're right that "evolution isn't occurring before our eyes." But it has been observed and recorded over time, and has been verified to the satisfaction of pretty much the entire scientific community around the world. Secondly, having a fundamentalist Christian science teacher telling his students that they don't need to believe in evolution would be a bit like having a history teacher telling his students that the holocaust didn't really happen. Finally, when you talk about "everything being designed too well to have come about by natural processes," you are invoking the well-worn watchmaker argument. Of course, the biggest problem with that argument is the question of "if complex organisms require a designer, then who designed the designer?

PREACHER: An eternal designer doesn’t need to be designed, He always existed. What has been observed is the genetic change in certain organisms, particularly microorganisms that change rapidly. These changes have always been a process of the loss or reshuffling of genetic information, not the attainment of new genetic information, so they are not the kind of process that leads from the simple to the complex as in molecule-to-man evolution. The assumption that at particular times in history new genetic information developed in organisms that caused them to advance is based only on conjecture. There is no way to verify that it actually happened. Evolutionists extrapolate on so-called genetic changes and figure that with a lot of time all species could have developed from the simplest kind of life form. Such an extrapolation is based on an unverifiable assumption that those genetic changes would actually produce more advanced kinds of organisms. History records for us that the opinions of much of the scientific community around the world have been wrong many times before. Add to that that many in the scientific community are professing atheists, it is not surprising that their worldview makes them jump to absurd conclusions.

SKEPTIC: Right, because if a scientist is an atheist, he naturally will jump to absurd conclusions. That's pretty insulting. The fact is that science has always represented man's best effort at finding the truth in a logical and methodical manner. When evidence is presented that science may have gotten something wrong, it is able to make a course correction - something which is virtually impossible to do when it comes to matters of faith, which rely heavily on rigid dogma.

PREACHER: You might be surprised to discover that it is the Bible that reveals a God who gave the universe order so we can understand it. It is because of the world view that is presented in the Bible that science works. It seems clear to me that neither science nor reason are aligned with atheism. How can atheists in sincerity claim that what they believe is at all scientific or reasonable? How do you know that atheism isn’t just an absolute lie?

SKEPTIC: Why do I believe in atheism? It's not a question of believing in atheism - it's a question of what makes more sense when it comes to the question of evolution versus creationism - that we have arrived at where we are today through a series of infinitesimal changes over billions of years, or that some sort of magical, supernatural being just one day a few thousand years ago commanded that everything appear and "voila" - humans, animals and all living things just suddenly appeared on the earth? Natural vs. supernatural, reality vs. myth, science vs. religion...

PREACHER: It looks to me like you don’t understand the difference between science and history.  Scientific method only deals with the present, what you can actually measure and observe now. History tells of the past through written documents, and cannot be verified by the scientific method. We must trust those documents based on the character of those who wrote them. So called, supernatural events in the past are attested by written documents. Using the scientific method to verify those events is about as absurd as using bathroom scales to measure the distance between Okinawa and Okayama. So, why did you decide to be an atheist?

SKEPTIC:You know, I remember when I was ten I asked my Sunday School teacher, "If there are all those other people in other countries who believe in a different religion, how do we know that ours is the true religion? Her answer was, "we just have to have faith!" It was a less than satisfying answer. Even as a dumb ten-year-old kid, I was smart enough to know that those people who belonged to other religions probably also claimed to have an equal amount of faith. So it became clear to me that not all religions could be true, but that all religions could certainly be, and probably were, false.

PREACHER: Your Sunday school teacher gave you a correct answer in as much as faith pleases God. And of course that faith has to be towards the right Object of worship. Faith in a lie doesn’t please God. But, I can see that her answer wasn’t sufficient for your inquisitive (not dumb) mind. I can see that even at the age of 10 you had some unverified assumptions about reality. Your statement: “I was smart enough to know that those people who belonged to other religions probably also claimed to have an equal amount of faith” is very telling! Even at that early age it sounds like you placed more credibility in the opinions of men than in the revealed Word of God. I asked the same kind of questions to my Sunday school teacher when I was that age. He gave my mind a lot more information to chew on than your teacher did. And did that make a difference!

The Evolution of God

(In the video above, Robert Wright is interviewed by Bill Moyers about his new book, The Evolution of God.)

PREACHER: I would like to commend Robert Wright on his definition of religion. It fits well with what I have always thought, that no one is really non-religious, because we all value something. I see religion simply as a way of valuing. And, since that way of valuing inevitably includes presuppositions about reality that can't be proven true or false for the time being, it also includes faith or believing something without conclusive evidence. The word non-religious can only be ascribed in the sense that one is not an adherent to a particular religious organization or tradition. Even Richard Dawkins materialistic belief system is compellingly religious and he is deluding himself to say it is not.

I also appreciate Robert's air of humility in admitting the inability of the human mind to really comprehend ultimate reality. It is too bad though that he has exchanged the One who communicates quite clearly about Himself for the meditation techniques of some Buddhist monks and a vague recognition that there might be something out there. He is a textbook case of a person who went through the motions of becoming a Christian at an early age and then rejected that tradition after he was exposed to "education". If when he was struggling with the creation vs. evolution issue, some real scientists with PhDs instead of a preacher with a Bible school education had come to talk with him about the issue he might have remained a Christian.

When we use such phrases as "the evolution of God", it assumes that God really doesn't exist, or if He does he has no connection with us. All our thoughts about Him start with us. And, those thoughts have evolved over the years to what they are today and they will continue to develop through a process of natural selection. This is a religious statement in the faith of a god that only exists in the minds of men. I choose to have faith in the One who has revealed Himself apart from the limitations of our minds, and He has progressivily revealed Himself to mankind at certain times in history, and will continue to do so in the future.

SKEPTIC: I think your definition of religion is interesting, but seems overly broad. I think the more common definition would be something like "a set of beliefs that are accompanied by certain dogma and usually has some sort of sacred text." So if that's the definition, it's clear that there are lots of non-religious people in the world. Beyond that, I'm not sure exactly what purpose is served in trying to delineate the matter further.

I'm confused when you talk about the Christian God as "the One who communicates quite clearly," when it's pretty obvious that the meaning of God's message is seen differently even within the Christian community, from denomination to denomination - a point Wright was eager to make in the video. If God has given us such a clear message, it's a mystery to me why there is such an abundance of different understandings of it.

I'm confounded by your third paragraph. First, you seem to denigrate "education," implying that it's fatally flawed or something, then you claim Wright might have remained a Christian if only some real scientists had explained evolution to him, instead of a preacher. Am I to understand that by "real" scientists, you mean scientists who have twisted themselves in knots in an attempt to reconcile scientific evolution with biblical creationism?

I think Wright's book sounds intriguing, and I plan to pick up a copy. I think it's clear that his bottom line is that he believes that Man created God and not vice versa. His explanation that religion first appeared on the scene as an attempt by Man to try to "explain to people why good things happen and why bad things happen, and how you increase the number of good things and the number of bad things" sounds pretty reasonable to me. More generally, I think it's a fair statement to say that religion came out of man's desire to understand those things that seemed incomprehensible to him. These days, when we have a much higher level of understanding, our need for religion is decreasing. Wright's purpose appears to be to explain how man's perception of God has changed as our understanding of the world and the culture has changed.

PREACHER: I would contend that your atheism does fit your definition of religion. It is a set of beliefs and dogma that claim that God doesn't exist. One of many sacred texts would be Darwin's Origin of Species. Since it attempts to explain the origin of life forms apart from a creator, it is your account that replaces the first chapter of Genesis.

I would agree that there are parts of the Bible that are hard to understand and Christians differ on the what they mean. However, my point is that there are doctrines in the Bible that are very clear and Christians who still accept the Bible as their rule of faith and don't twist what it says agree on them. I suppose though, for someone who chooses to be blind, even that which is clear seems unclear.

I would consider any education that leaves out the Creator is fatally flawed from the start. I have listened to scientists who are from all sorts of persuasions within those who accept evolution (atheist to progressive creationism). They don't speak so confidently about evolution as you do. You are expressing a faith factor there, so that is what I call your religion. To say, "These days, when we have a much higher level of understanding, our need for religion is decreasing," assumes that the ancients were all ignorant superstitious people. I don't believe that. Man's need for religion hasn't decreased, but its content (including what G(g)od is supposed to be like) has changed. Isn't that what Wright is writing about?

SKEPTIC: I'm not sure exactly why it's so important for you to believe that atheism is a "religion." How does that bolster your position? To me, calling atheism a "religion" is a bit like calling baldness a hairstyle. And it seems rather Orwellian on your part to call me "blind" because I choose not to believe in fairy tales and then label my belief in evolution "faith." My dictionary says that "faith" is believing something to be true without evidence. I've got plenty of evidence to back up my belief. You have none. In fact, what you demonstrate is "blind faith."

As to your belief that ancient people were not ignorant and superstitious, I think it's pretty clear that they were. Not ignorant in the sense of being stupid, but ignorant in that they lacked a very large body of knowledge that we are fortunate enough to possess in the times we live in. And they certainly were superstitious in the way that they created the different religious myths, although perhaps not that much more than many people today.

PREACHER: I call atheism a religion because that is what it really is by the definition that I use. It is the definition that I have used ever since I took college level courses in comparative religions. It is a definition that fits all, so I like it and will continue to use it. My faith is not blind. Blind faith twists reality. True faith should and will be in alignment with reality. As for evidence, I use the same evidence that you use. The difference in our conclusions is based on the interpretation of that evidence. We both look at this visible world: I see an invisible Cause and you see nothing. We both look at science: I see a difference between scientific fact and scientific speculation, you lump them both together (not very scientific). We both look at history: I accept what it says unless proven wrong, you rewrite anything that doesn't fit neatly into your limited world view. Another aspect that we would consider to be more subjective would be personal experience. I can honestly say that I have experienced God. You can claim that I am deceived, but all you have is your inexperience.