Intelligent design, the idea that random mutation and natural selection are not enough to account for the universe as we know it, is perhaps the most pressing intellectual and moral issue of our day. Some have attacked intelligent design, and religious belief in general, as inappropriate content for public school curricula and public discourse, and assume that they are intellectually irresponsible beliefs.
I wish to make a few simple points in defense of intelligent design and religious belief.
First, those who criticize intelligent design, and who would like it excluded from public schools and from serious intellectual circles, often do so assuming that biological inquiry and evolutionary theory inherently leave no room for a Creator. Put another way, many assume that if the theory of evolution is true, then the origins of our universe must be random, not intelligently ordered.
But this is a logical fallacy; scientific investigation, as thorough and complete as it may be, has not disproved God's existence. Science may be able to ascertain how molecules have gathered together from the earliest moments of our universe until now. But scientists must (and do) concede that they do not know precisely what took place at time t=0. Whether it was a random Big Bang or a deliberate act of intelligence science simply does not know and cannot know.
Said differently, one may speculate that God does not exist -- but how can one deny the existence of the supernatural with infallible certainty? How can one be sure even to the point of excluding the opinions of others? Dogmatic and oppressive certainty about what is by nature uncertain has proven the genesis of all manner of injustice and oppression in history. Intellectuals today, especially in this age of tolerance, must refuse to participate in this dangerous ideological crusade. One must exercise the utmost caution before relegating alternative worldviews to the intellectual cemetery.
Why has science not disproved intelligent design? The reason is that science must be based on observable fact, but the origin of our universe is unobservable. The scientific method cannot explain an event that is not repeatable, observable or testable.
To be sure, clues about the universe's mysterious beginnings exist, but science simply has not concluded that an intelligent designer could not have produced the universe we now inhabit. To say otherwise, and to exclude or belittle opposing views, reflects a failure to acknowledge the truth.
In fact, many scientists assert that natural evidence points to the existence of a Creator. Many believe that the cellular prerequisites for life are so numerous and so immensely complex that it requires too great a leap of faith to believe they randomly assembled themselves into life.
In a recent editorial in the New York Times, widely acclaimed biochemist Michael Behe explained that, "there are no research studies indicating that Darwinian processes can make molecular machines of the complexity we find in the cell Design should not be overlooked simply because it's so obvious."
Is there evidence for the Big Bang? Of course there is. And the sooner religious people acknowledge it, even if it makes them uncomfortable, the better. But there is also evidence for the existence of God, and it is irresponsible for intelligent people to ignore or repress it.
Additionally, although neither position can be proven with certainty, one can, and must, carefully evaluate the implications of a worldview to judge its viability. For example, the strictly scientific, materialistic worldview has tremendous difficulty in deriving a coherent source for ethics, although it often tries to.
If a moral and creative God does not exist, then who gets the privilege of writing moral rules? And who will hold these people accountable? Can a coherent, universal basis of human rights exist at all if something higher than ourselves has not put it there? This is a major problem of the scientific worldview.
I am not exaggerating. Perhaps the most famous evolutionary biologist of our day, Stephen Jay Gould, morbidly asserts, "We are here because one odd group of fishes had a peculiar fin anatomy that could transform into legs for terrestrial creature We may yearn for a 'higher' answer -- but none exists." He continues, "We cannot read the meaning of life passively in the facts of nature. We must construct these answers ourselves -- from our own wisdom and ethical sense. There is no other way."
If in fact God does not exist, then Gould is right! If we are nothing more than time plus matter plus chance, then morality, transcendent love and meaning are a farce.
The lack of a reliable moral foundation is a serious hurdle for the scientific worldview, yet few are willing to acknowledge it, much less attempt to address it. How can religious views be met with hostility when the scientific worldview, a relatively new innovation, is so incomplete? If intellectuals today want science to become a viable alternative worldview, or even to replace religious belief, they must acknowledge the problems that worldview holds.
Further, compelling evidence exists not only for the existence of a vague Creator, but also for more specific claims of religious belief.
Sadly, serious and objective study into the evidence of, for example, the historicity of the New Testament, is rare. Most dismiss it or ignore it altogether, pretending or assuming no such evidence exists.
I wonder how many Dartmouth students, or faculty for that matter, are familiar with even the most basic arguments in favor of creationism, the reliability of the Bible or other religious viewpoints, even though they are minority positions in academia. Yet virtually everyone knows the basic claims of the Big Bang and evolution. Religious perspectives are rarely considered intellectually serious.
It is time to put the intolerant brand of science to rest in favor of one that admits it has not proven the nonexistence of God, and which is willing to consider seriously the reasoned, respectable claims of people of faith.
