5 minute read
Intelligent Design: Science or Religion?
By Rev.William Cwirla
A Pennsylvania judge recently ruled that the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to the theory of evolution in the public high school science classroom constituted the teaching of religion, and was, therefore, unconstitutional. Across the country the debate rages in school boards, courtrooms, and classrooms. Is intelligent design science, or is it religion?
Advertisement
WHAT IS “INTELLIGENT DESIGN?”
Intelligent Design (ID) is a school of thought held by some scientists, theologians, and philosophers who believe that the universe shows objective evidence for design. Consider this example. Imagine walking along a stretch of ocean beach and seeing an array of rocks that form the letters “HELLO.” Is it more reasonable to assume that this formation is the result of the random tumbling of rocks bounced around by waves over a long stretch of time or the intentional act of a designer who arranged the rocks for a specific purpose? We immediately assume design, of course. Rocks bouncing in the waves don’t form letters much less words . That’s the idea behind Intelligent Design.
ID advocates see evidence for intelligent design in nature. Biologist Dr. Michael J. Behe ( Darwin’s Black Box) calls biological systems “irreducibly complex.” He cites the whiplike tail of single cell flagellets as an example.
The flagellum in the cell consists of a stator, rotor, bushing, hook, and tail. If one piece is missing or defective, the flagellum will not work, and the cell cannot move and dies. Therefore, concludes Dr. Behe, the flagellum could not have evolved from simpler forms over a long period of time. It must have been designed as a working unit from the beginning.
Mathematician Dr. William A. Dembski (Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology) finds what he terms “specified complexity” in the genetic code. The genetic code consists of four basic molecules designated by the first letters of their chemical names: A,C, G, and T. These four molecules, arranged in long double helix strands, form genes and chromosomes, a detailed blueprint for every protein in the body.
The genetic code is specific and complex information—a dense language with a four-letter alphabet. The chances of A,C,G, and T molecules stringing themselves together to form a coherent code for an aardvark or even an amoeba, much less a human being , are impossibly small. Like the software of a computer, the very existence of a code implies a coder.
ID proponents point out that Earth is a rare cosmic gem in the universe. I t’s the perfect place for life—the right galactic neighborhood , perfect parent star, orbit, distance from the sun, surface gravity, magnetic field, oxygen atmosphere, water to land ratio, surface temperature, a large solitary moon to govern the tides. Further more, the entire universe is delicately balanced on a finely tuned set of universal physical constants. One tiny glitch in any of these universal constants, and the whole galactic party would be over. ID advocates contend that these things cannot possibly be the result of a great cosmic coincidence; they point to intelligent design.
SCIENCE OR RELIGION?
The majority of scientists and science educators remain unconvinced. They argue that design, like beauty, tends to be in the eye of the beholder. We have an eye for pattern. We sometimes see “faces” or other objects in the clouds. Rock cliffs sometimes resemble faces. Snowflakes form beautifully intricate geometric patterns, yet these “designs” are a natural property of crystalline water. Design is not a measurable property in the same way as temperature or color.
Critics cite bacterial injection systems similar to the flagellum in the cell yet simpler, challenging whether biological complexity is actually irreducible. They also point out that chemical systems are not entirely random, especially when it comes to large, complex macromolecules like DNA and proteins. Specified complexity may be a property of these molecules.
Science educators fear that introducing intelligent design into the science classroom will lead to sloppy science. They charge ID proponents with plugging God into the gaps of scientific knowledge as a catchall explanation. Science deals in verifiable, testable concepts. Since God is not testable, God should not be introduced into the scientific discussion. When scientists observe an event, they assume a natural cause, not a divine miracle.
Ordinarily, this assumption works quite well. Science studies things as they are. Scientists in the physical sciences, such as physics and chemistry, follow a strict scientific method. They conduct controlled experiments to test their hypotheses and theories.The natural sciences, like biology, deal with much more complex systems; experiments are not always possible.
The study of origins—where things come from and how they are developed—cannot use experiments to repeat past events. Instead, researchers make observations and form reasonable explanations that fit the facts. It’s like detective work. Detectives collect clues from a crime scene and put together a case that will convince a jury “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Evolution looks at the evidence from the natural world and sees a process of change by natural selection; ID sees evidence for intelligent design.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?
God ordinarily works through means. Though He made everything out of nothing in the beginning, He used the material of the Earth to bring forth vegetation and animal life (Genesis 1:11–12, 24) and the waters to bring forth the creatures of the sea (1:20). He made man out of the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7). Science can analyze the clay, but it cannot detect the Potter. Though Christ “fills all in all” (Ephesians 1:23 ESV) and is the creative, ordering Word through whom all things were made and in whom all things hold together (Colossians 1:17), no telescope or microscope can detect His presence.
Certain things can be known about God from the observation of nature. The apostle Paul wrote that even those who do not have the written Word can know something of God from nature: “For His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made” (Romans 1:20 ESV). Ultimately, however, understanding that God created everything out of nothing by His Word is a fruit of faith. “By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible” (Hebrews 11:3 ESV).
SCIENCE OR RELIGION?
Is intelligent design “religion”? No. It has nothing to say about who God is or how God is to be worshipped. Is it science? Not in the same sense as physics or chemistry. Past events cannot be repeated under controlled experimental conditions. Yet ID is both religious and scientific. It uses scientific data to defend theism against atheism and provides a reasonable explanation for the observed complexity of life and the ordering of the universe.
ID is nothing new. It is the “Natural Theology” of William Paley (1743–1805), the “Watchmaker God” of Isaac Newton (1643–1727), and the “Uncaused Cause” of Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274). The fourth-century church father Athanasius (298–373),writing against the Epicurean materialist philosophers of his day, noted:
Does ID belong in the classroom? The famous apologist G. K. Chesterton once remarked, “It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for...God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should tur n itself into everything.” Any reasonable explanation that fits the facts should be open for debate.
Evolution and intelligent design certainly need to be discussed within the philosophical foundations of science. Evolution’s assumption of natural cause is as scientifically unable to be tested as the concept of intelligent design. Unfortunately, philosophy and theology are not necessarily part of the modern curriculum. Any interpretation of scientific data, especially when it pertains to the origin of life and the universe, will always have philosophical and theological as well as scientific aspects.
The Christian faith doesn’t stand or fall on a concept of intelligent design. It stands or falls on the crucifixion and resurrection of the creative Word made flesh, Jesus Christ, in whom the sinner is justified before God by grace through faith for Jesus’ sake—the same Word who made the heavens and the earth and died and rose to redeem the cosmos He created. What a privilege it is to know and confess the Designer and Redeemer’s name, Jesus, and to be known by Him!
Rev. William M. Cwirla is Pastor of Holy Trinity L uther an Church in Hacienda Heights, CA and vice president of Higher T hings .
For further reading on the debate between ID and evolution see: • Intelligent Design? A special report reprinted from Natural History magazine • (http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html)
