By Bob Rigsby
(May 3, 2006)
Although each of us believes we have functional definitions of religion and of science, in effect, our definitions vary widely. Furthermore, is religion comprehensible only to the "religious"? Or is science the sole domain of the "scientist"? These divisions fail us woefully, I’m afraid. A scientist may not comment on religion, and a "religionist" (what is that?!) had better not dare enter the world of science. However, all manner of (probably) sensible people try to bridge these realms, for they appreciate the contributions of both.
From my little window on the universe as a scientist (physicians are sort of scientists—aren’t they?) and as a religionist (longtime Seventh-day Adventist, believer in, and worshipper of, a personal God—that should qualify me as religious, right?), I imagine that I am one of these sensible sort who tries to blend all this into a cohesive whole.
But I admit a little confusion and consternation at times at some of the forays each side sometimes makes into the other’s territory. Science claims its domain is the measurable universe. Fine. Measure on. Religion, seeking to make sense of what seems inherently "unmeasurable," and adding a new element of "revelation," postulates a God who is real but unmeasurable. They don’t say undetectable, just unmeasurable.
Science, whose declared realm is the measurable, protests that it is unfair for it to have to consider the detectable but unmeasurable. Religion says "Tough; realities exist that your ’scopes and ’ometers and gauges can’t touch." Scientists are bewildered—maybe even scandalized—when its members stray into the territory of religion. Some religionists, perfectly comfortable in ascribing all the data of the scientist to the actions of God, become equally discomfited by the suggestion that science has no need for a God.
And onto this scene enters the theory of intelligent design. "It’s science!" rejoice the religionists—eager to breach the hallowed and seemingly impenetrable halls of science and thereby lend much desired credibility to its convictions. "It’s religion!" shout the equally fervent scientists—aghast at the thought that mere impressions and revelation might pollute and skew their measurings.
I must confess that I cringe to hear some religionists declare that intelligent design is not science. To me, this unmasks the likelihood that they have not read, or perhaps not comprehended, the refined, detailed, and exquisite articulations of questions that science seems unable to ask of itself. I console myself that what these fellow religionists are reacting against is those creationists who are smugly relieved finally to have some scientific validation for their convictions but thereby misstate and obscure what men like William Dembski and Jonathan Wells and Michael J. Behe are actually saying.
It seems to me that these religionists should not criticize intelligent design just because of the optimistic overreaching of those creationists who have little patience for the actual data. It is not the fault of the theory itself that certain creationists rush headlong to the implications of the theory, drawing conclusions the theory may allow, but certainly doesn’t sustain.
At the same time, I am puzzled by the assertion of these same religionists when they say that God’s creation was accomplished via the mechanism of evolution. Such pronouncements seem embarrassingly unaware that the essence of evolution is that it needs neither cooperation nor input from God; for it is random, purposeless, and utterly ignorant of its destination. To assert that "God used evolution" seems a blatant negation of the very theory it seeks to accommodate, for, if God used it, it is no longer evolution.
Thus, it seems contradictory and disingenuous to say that intelligent design is not science, as if to guard science from encroachment by religion, only to turn around and embrace the ultimate encroachment on science by making evolution a tool of God. Ah, definitions.
Be that as it may, the entire topic holds deep fascination for me. It seems pointless, as well as irresponsible and unfair, for me, or anyone else for that matter, to implicitly expect someone else to accept something that makes no sense to them.
Not much is certain, but these two things are. First, we exist, so we had to have gotten here somehow. Second, where two minds exist, differences of perception and of opinion do, too. Rather than allow this reality to cause consternation and division, though, it seems it should multiply the wonder of this thing we call life, and of experience as consciousness.
We would do well to remember that, although reality simply is, our ability to measure, perceive, and comprehend it has limitations. And so into the future we plunge. Together. And in the fullness of time, I’m confident that each will have his or her opportunity to exclaim "So that’s how it happened! How elegant! What was I thinking?!"
What are your thoughts on science, religion, and intelligent design? Click here to share them with other readers.
EMAIL THIS ARTICLE
|
