John Stern '05, in his Feb. 22 column "Reasonable Religious Faith," is correct that it is a scientific and logical flaw to state that evolutionary theory precludes the existence of a creator. He is correct in his assessment that science can never disprove the existence of a god. He is correct in his belief that science cannot justify any sort of moral code. He is correct that science will probably never know what happened before "t=0." But the rest of his argument totally misses the point.
The fundamental conflict between evolution and "intelligent design" is not a conflict of evolution versus religion. These two domains are separate and complementary by their very natures. Religion does not seek to assert itself as a mechanism by which people can learn factual information about our universe. No sane person hopes to understand the mechanism of chemical bonding by speaking to a religious leader or comprehend the theory of gravity by reading a religious text. Religion addresses important questions about our (deepest) origins, our purpose on this planet, morality and spirituality. Science cannot and should not try to assert itself in this religious domain. As Stern points out, "Science must be based on observable fact." It's in forgetting this where he gets led astray.
The debate about intelligent design doesn't focus on whether or not God created the universe. It is concerned with the belief that God created the Earth and all life in a week, whether the Earth (and the universe we live in) is only a few thousand years old (as opposed to billions) and whether evolution can occur at all. The problem that the scientific community has with this idea (besides the fact that to accept it requires utter denial of bedrock principles in every subdivision of physics, astronomy, chemistry, geology and biology) is not that some cling to it, but that some want it taught in schools as science.
Creationism, intelligent design theory -- however you want to dress it -- is not a science for that same reason that Stern brings up: science must be based on observable, testable fact. Creationism is not observable or testable; it flies directly in the face of millions of scientific conclusions that are. It is antithetical both to the theoretical and the factual basis of all modern science. In fact, the "theory" relies on a tenet fundamental to religion -- faith.
The danger posed by creationist doctrine looms much larger for religion than it does for science. How far into shadows do we want to push faith in the existence of God? Once, that power and beauty began at the borders of a flat world and an unintelligible night sky. Astronomers moved it to the heavenly bodies; astrophysicists have pushed it to the Big Bang. Darwin reduced it to heritability; modern biology has pushed it back to the atomic level. And all the while, religion was giving ground. "OK," religion would say. "But you can't explain this" And science would come back a few decades later and say, "Oh, by the way, about the shining of stars"
Is it not sad to restrict one's religious faith to a dark corner of the human mind? Would it not be more consistent with the glory and power of such a deity to embrace the power of human intellect as a gift, one which (just perhaps) an all-powerful being would have known would emerge in the universe? Why this view of God as a tinker, having to intervene at every step? Why would God put all this evidence out there to fool us? I refuse to believe in an incompetent, deceitful God.
I don't mean to put the onus entirely on religion. Science can overstep its boundaries. Most tragically in "scientific" attempts to justify racial superiority, science has gone astray before, and as a body it must strive never to forget that its basis on observation and proof divorces it from questions of morality. Science cannot generate its own moral code, for that it must turn to religious (or at least spiritual) questions and teachings.
For a much more detailed, beautifully written discussion of this conflict, check out Ken Miller's "Finding Darwin's God." He (a devout Christian) elaborates on many of the points here, including a discussion of why Michael Behe (a talented biochemist no doubt, but ignorant on evolution) is wrong.
The Pope has stated clearly that evolutionary theory is not in any way antithetical to the fundamental beliefs of Catholicism. In this he hints at a move more major religions are making -- to celebrating the power of the human intellect as a beauty in the universe, a powerful tool that complements, not competes with, religious faith. These two domains have long been at odds unnecessarily. They address different domains of human understanding in different ways. They must be mutually celebratory. We need both to understand and appreciate our world.
