The other night, my friend and I were eating buffalo wings and drinking beer at Murphy's when he mentioned a trend that was intriguing to me. Apparently, in the field of astrophysics, there is a resurgence of religious interest. Astrophysicists are discovering that the fabric of the universe contains an astonishing level of fine-tuning. The current structure of the universe actually requires an extraordinarily delicate balance among numerous physical constants and conditions. This finding, together with the Big Bang theory that suggests a definite origin for the universe, leads many astrophysicists to consider "design" and "intelligence" as reasonable language with which to describe the universe and potential additions to their paradigm.
Our conversation caused me to think about a similar finding in biology and chemistry. A growing number of scientists have called certain aspects of macroevolution into question. Macroevolution tells us that simple living organisms first originate from non-living substances and gradually develop into more complex living organisms. Cell and molecular biologists now tell us that an extraordinary level of information exists even in the simplest life forms. This leads many of them to question whether it is still reasonable to believe that random chance has produced such remarkable amounts of informational complexity and intricacy at the cellular level. Likewise, they consider "design" and "intelligence" as reasonable language with which to describe life and potential additions to their paradigm.
Some people are very uncomfortable with these findings. This is not hard to understand. Macroevolutionary theories on the origin and development of life have deeply influenced both academic knowledge and street wisdom. Numerous academic theories and systems of thought have been formulated on the edifice of evolutionary theory. If macroevolution turns out to be an inaccurate view of reality, vast segments of our current knowledge may have to be revised.
There is also the thorny issue of religion. By providing naturalistic explanations for the origin of life, macroevolution has made God superfluous. This does not mean that macroevolution supports atheism; it simply means that the invocation of a supernatural explanation is not necessary to account for life. But the new language of "design" and "intelligence" leads us to consider whether there is a grand Designer or Intelligence. This makes many people very uncomfortable because this new language sounds eerily similar to the language of the Judeo-Christian tradition. They are afraid that religion is trying to re-enter the realms of education and public discourse by dressing itself in the garb of science.
Is this a reasonable fear? For the sake of the integrity of our education system and public discourse, I think it is. Many religious groups are actively promoting Intelligent Design theory as an alternative to macroevolution simply because they find its implications congenial to their religious beliefs. On the other hand, it seems that the various attempts to draw attention to the intentions of these religious groups only obscure the more salient issue: are these findings actually valid? Are these findings the fruits of vigorous and honest scientific work? I doubt that these astrophysicists and scientists are practicing pseudo-science in order to find intellectual respectability for their religious beliefs. Perhaps, they are proposing the new language of "design" and "intelligence" only because they find it commensurate with their observations.
We all are familiar with the story of Galileo. When Galileo suggested that our solar system is heliocentric, he encountered hostile opposition from the religious authorities and intellectuals of his day because his findings were contrary to the prevailing religious and philosophical conclusions. Now we embrace heliocentricity as the true state of our solar system. The prevailing religious and philosophical sentiments of our day, which are more closely aligned with atheism and macroevolution, may predispose us to be skeptical about the new language of "design" and "intelligence", but they do not constitute a sufficient reason to ignore the claims of these astrophysicists and scientists. Surely, we do not want to run the risk of being dogmatic and close-minded.
Science is not at stake here. The new language of "design" and "intelligence" neither changes the methodological principles of science nor contradicts such key principles as natural selection in microevolution. Adding "design" and "intelligence" to our paradigm does not make us theists (or deists). It simply implies that we no longer find random chance an intellectually satisfying paradigm through which we understand life and the universe. It means that our scientific endeavors are yielding observations that demand new conclusions about life and the universe.
