I just had a light bulb moment, and want to put it out there as a hypothesis. This is with regards to creationists (and that's what they are, whether they are proponents of "intelligent design" or whatever other label they come up with next), who are trying to barge into our public school system, and why they keep misunderstanding the concept of a scientific "theory".
Like most people, you would probably think of a "theory" as a guess that still deserves to be proven or tested. If so, then you would be absolutely correct! What most people do not realize is that, even after after a theory is proven or tested to be a good explanation of how something in nature works, even after we've been able to use the theory to make technological advances and make predictions of other things -- even after all that, scientists continue to call it a "theory". Now there are exceptions to this; you're probably familiar with scientific "laws": law of gravitation, laws of thermodynamics, Newton's laws of motion, etc. etc., but don't let the word fool you: these "laws" are still theories. It's just that these theories have proven reliable and accurate for so long that they are sometimes elevated above all others -- but they are all theories.
So, why continue calling it a theory if it has worked so well? Because we want to keep it still open for testing and proving (or disproving). It is this openness that has allowed science to progress to the level of understanding that we have today. As a result, many theories have fallen by the wayside after failing the unblinking scrutiny of physical measurements in scientific experimentation. One example is the theory of "spontaneous generation" in which we used to think that infections were spontaneously generated within our bodies; this theory had to be abandoned once we discovered germs and other micro-organisms that carry disease. If it had not been open for debate, we might not have developed antibiotics or vaccines; instead we would continue bleeding people to release bad "humours".
Continuing to keep a theory open for testing made it possible for Einstein and many other scientists to question even Newton's immortal "laws". As a result, we were able to discover that Newton's laws are actually just a small part of a bigger picture. Meanwhile, Einstein's new theories have been confirmed by numerous experiments and are therefore now widely accepted as well.
Now, the principle of biological evolution is another example of one such scientific "theory". Even though it has been confirmed, proven, and supported by experiments; has successfully predicted new discoveries; and has made possible many advancements in medicine, medical health care, and agriculture which have developed our quality of life as a species -- even after all that, it is still referred to as a "theory". It's just that no experiment has been able to support a better, alternative theory.
Now, let us contrast this concept of scientific "theory" with a legal theory -- for example, the theory regarding the guilt or innocence of a defendant. Unlike a scientific theory, this is a kind of theory that must be proven absolutely correct -- correct beyond a "reasonable doubt". This is understandable: When it comes to people's lives, you cannot afford a theory that is open for testing. The whole idea of reasonable doubt is that if there are any gaps in a theory, then the theory cannot be believed. A scientific theory, on the other hand, even after multiple proofs and confirmation by experiment, welcomes the possibility of gaps.
The point is: lawyers may have a difficult time accepting or understanding the nature of scientific theories. If they see any holes or gaps in a scientific theory, their instinct would be to dismiss all the proofs and achievements of this theory and focus on getting some minimal "reasonable doubt" enough to discredit the theory altogether. If they find at least one person with an advanced degree that has criticisms against a theory, they would even consider the theory to be "controversial".
Why am I even talking about lawyers? Well, this is the light bulb moment: The people pushing the ID movement are lawyers. The founder, Phillip Johnson, is a lawyer. The Thomas More Law Center which funds the publication of ID textbooks is a group of lawyers. None of these people are even scientists.
This explains a lot. Consider:
(1) Lawyers are also accustomed to a bi-modal form of thinking: guilty or not guilty, ruling against or in favor of, and so on. If a theory posits that the defendant is guilty, and this theory is dismissed, then there is only one other theory that can be considered: innocent. By contrast, in science, the failure of a scientific theory in an experimental test does not automatically "prove" another alternative theory: that alternative theory must also be tested and proven first! Instead, the sole argument that proponents of "intelligent design" present is this: since evolution has gaps that are unexplained, then ID must be a suitable alternative theory. But when you ask them for experimental tests or proof of this alternative theory, they have nothing. That is why ID can not be taken seriously by the scientific community. (In fact, ID will never have anything because the theory can not even be tested!) Apparently, to these lawyers, evolution is the one "on trial", and so ID does not have the "burden of proof"!
(2) Another note: while scientists think inductively -- conclusion arrived after presented with much evidence -- lawyers tend to think deductively: they start with a conclusion and gather much evidence to support it). Well, creationists always start with a literal interpretation of the Biblical creation story and, according to their "Wedge" manifesto, are currently trying to find "scientists" who can gather the physical evidence. This is another reason why most scientists can not take ID seriously.
Bottom line: ID is not science; it is a bunch of lawyers making a negative argument.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I'm confused. If you're a Christian and believe in everything the Bible says, how do you not believe in the story of Creation and it's Creator, and therefore, "intelligent design"?
Good question! You got the impression that I do not believe in the story of Genesis. In fact I DO believe that there is an intelligent design to everything that is seen and unseen.
Now, when fundamentalists say "believe", they often refer to a literal interpretation of the Bible. At first glance, this makes complete sense, right? If you do not take something literally, then how can you claim to believe it? Well, in my opinion, "believing in" something involves UNDERSTANDING it. And understanding Holy Scripture depends on an enlightened interpretation of Holy Scripture.
Well, one important difference between fundamentalist denominations and most mainstream denominations, especially the Catholic Church, is in how the Bible is interpreted. Don't take my word for it -- you can confirm this by talking to a Catholic priest, a Presbyterian pastor, an Episcopalian minister, etc.
So now the question becomes: how in God's name can any Christian NOT have a fundamentalist, literal interpretation of the Bible? So many great thinkers have written great answers to this question – C. S. Lewis, Fulton Sheen, Tielhard de Chardin, and countless others – and I invite everyone to explore their writings. Here are my own personal impressions. First of all, that word, “interpretation” is tricky. Just how a person interprets a statement, any statement, could differ from person to person. That’s just how people are.
For example, take the Constitution, arguably the greatest political document ever crafted. But in the centuries since it was written, countless plaintiffs and defendants have argued in court about conflicting interpretations of its statements and clauses. But we believed so much in its importance, that we have set up an entire branch of our government to guide Americans in the proper interpretation of the Constitution, and because of this, over the decades and centuries we have become more and more enlightened as a nation.
Now, the Bible is arguably even more important than the Constitution. And, unfortunately, in the millennia that followed the establishment of the Church, schisms and factions emerged, wars have been fought, and so much blood was shed over conflicting interpretations of holy Scripture. But the Church ended up surviving all of that because the leadership has continually guided the faithful in the proper interpretation of Scripture. As a matter of fact, many teachings actually predate writings that would become the New Testament. Through the centuries and millennia, the teachings of the Church have grown into a great body of scholarly work and theological classics that have helped Christianity mature as a people of faith.
It is this same body of teachings that are, unfortunately, rejected by fundamentalists in their belief that the Bible is supposed to stand alone. Sadly, because they choose to ignore the valuable lessons that the Church has learned over two millennia, they are doomed to relive past mistakes while the rest of Christianity moves on.
It is out of that great body of theological work that I have learned that the Genesis story was never meant to be some scientific treatise on how life developed on this earth; it is so much more important than that. In fact, if you treat it too literally, you might miss out on valuable enlightenment that could help you grow as a person of faith.
Well, maybe this is all way over my head, but I'm still confused. What part of the story of Genesis do you believe literally and which do you think is open for interpretation? The Scripture says that when God spoke, things were brought into existence by His very voice. "And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so." And I guess my point is, if we are not to take things in the Bible so literally, how can a Christian justify anything that is wrong and anything that is not? How can we tell gay people that God says, verbatim, that homosexuality is a sin, yet say that other parts of the Bible - i.e. the story of creation - are open for interpretation? Every lesson that the Bible teaches, every "law" that it gives for living the Christian life, every story in it... what is to be taken at face value and what is "just a matter of opinion"? And how do we justify this to people who believe that OTHER parts of the Bible are open to interpretation? At what point do we draw a line and say there IS an absolute truth which DOES stand alone? I understand all of the scientific theories of evolution, but when the Bible says that God spoke things into existence.. not that there was some spontaneous big bang and then we evolved from amoebas.. how can we, as Christians, believe it happened any other way?
That was my point: the Bible is NOT open for interpretation or opinion; none of it is just a matter of opinion. I believe that the teachings of the Church provide us the proper interpretation of the Bible. The fact that fundamentalism does not give credence to these teachings opens up arbitrary and subjective interpretations that lead to factions (as has happened in the non-Catholic church). So "laws" or doctrines, where we draw the line, and so on, comes from proper interpretation as guided by the teachings of the Church.
I do believe that God spoke things into existence. Again, I do not believe Genesis is meant to be a scientific treatise on cosmology or origins of species, but a story of our relationship to God from the very beginning -- i.e., that we were created by a loving creator. HOW this occurred exactly is not the point of the story. Again, these opinions have been shaped by my understanding of the teachings of the Church, not by my own subjective interpretation.
So you're saying that you think God used evolution as a way to create the things He spoke into existence?
Yes, I do believe that evolution is one of the big "how"s of creation. I also believe that the creator gave us a brain for a reason, and exploring all the ins and outs of these "how"s is one great way to use that brain. Therefore I've always believed science is one of God's greatest gifts to humanity, something that comes out of free will -- freedom to inquire, explore, and even question. Otherwise, how could we become effective stewards of nature?
Probably the greatest writers who have not only reconciled the Genesis story with the principles of evolution, but showed how one greatly enhanced the impact and meaning of the other : Tielhard de Chardin. I would search for even just one of his books; you might find it quite enlightening.
Post a Comment