ID By Any Other Name…

October 22nd, 2005 by Null Session · 526 words 5 Comments
Science & Health

I have no problem with religions that believe in a higher being. I teach astronomy, and when you can tell a compelling scientific story from the first moment of creation to the present, it is an amazing and beautiful thing. Science can do a fair job in telling that story. We now have the intelligence and technology to discover and tell that story. It is not, however, the same exact stories told by our early ancestors some thousands of years ago. They would not have had the common experiences or knowledge to comprehend the story that we can now tell. This is a story that requires thousands of intervening years of civilization, industrialization and an understanding of, among other things, particle physics. It has taken many brutal years of fighting against religious and cultural dogmas to be able to present a scientifically consistent story of creation, and the unfolding history of the Universe.

A recent Evolutionblog posting, on an article in Esquire led to interesting comments, per usual. Fred sums up the difference between science and Intelligent Design in this comment:

ID is not based on evidence, it’s based on opinions from limited knowledge. Science is very similar, but the key difference is that in science you try to expand your knowledge, whereas in ID you give up and walk away.

Michael Behe sees, for example, blood clotting and thinks it couldn’t have arisen naturally. He does no tests, he does no research. He just thinks, “Geez, that’s really complex! Ain’t no way that could have just happened on its own” and decrees that it was a higher being that designed it. Is that science to you? He’s even said that it’s not worth investigating further. Is that science? Whether it’s religion or not, it’s surely not science.

Science does nothing to inhibit religions that are open to interpret their moral stories, using modern concepts. It does, however, come to loggerheads when dealing with intransigent fundamentalism and outdated dogma. There are groups of people who go by the names, “Young Earthers” or “Creationists” who are opposed to the theory of evolution, plain and simple. They have built up a world-view that cannot be reconciled with evolution. They have been seeking some way to validate their opinions and stories handed down over many generations. They feel that it is valid to question ANY theory, because theories are not facts [this is not always correct], and they start from the answer they want, and try to “invent” a scientific way of supporting their beliefs. They call this Intelligent Design.

It is sad that the wonderful world we see around us, and measure with science and model with scientific theories, is not good enough for Creationists. They seek, it seems to me, to be looking for some way for science to confirm the existence of God. This, however, seems to run counter to their own belief system of basing belief in God in faith. It is also sad that the unfolding beautiful world and Universe that we now can explain better every day with science, cannot be embraced by those seeking intelligent design by a creator. There is nothing in nature that says, “God does not exist” only that it is flawed to try to prove things are true because that is how you interpret a story (i.e. the Earth is 6000 years old) and not believe evidence that says your interpretation is wrong. Yes, evidence. Beautiful evidence. Evidence which might support your general beliefs, if you were not so stubborn.

Another thing that gets me about those who take ancient moral stories too literally, is that they tend to attribute human motivations and emotions to a deity that created the Universe. That is like a painting trying to understand the mind of a painter. It makes no sense. Yet, religions continue to anthropomorphize God in their own desired image. That strikes me as human hubris. If there is one thing we humans (and scientists) know, it is how much we don’t know!

For interesting observations, and discussion in Intelligent Design, I suggest you visit Evolutionblog.

Similar Posts:

Blogmarks BlogLines co.mments del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google Reader Magnolia MyShare MyStuff Ask.com Newsgator Newsvine reddit SlashDot StumbleUpon Technorati

Tags:

5 responses so far ↓

  • 1   Palestar // Oct 22, 2005 at 7:27 pm

    The bottom line is – nothing that scientific reasoning says that there is no God – it may be in a less ‘Romantic’ way than in The so-called Intelligent Design but nothing at all that dismisses ‘God’. As far as I have seen.

    We invision the Great Spirit [God] in many ways – as intended.

    Some things one believes – some things one feels – some things one knows – and once one knows – one cannot un-know ;)

    Faith can move mountains or so its been said – a metaphor – I do believe. ;)

  • 2   Palestar // Oct 22, 2005 at 7:35 pm

    I am sad for those who cannot just enjoy the Universe and its beauty.

    How can one wake up in the morning and see the sky – the children – feel the wind and the grass under ones feet – look at the mountains – the oceans – the
    rocks – the trees, et al and not believe. Having faith is as is the world is incredibly beautiful. Do we really need to ask WHY and HOW? Just go with the flow and enjoy. BE grateful – be very grateful…

    Accept that what is – IS! ;)

  • 3   JJ // Oct 22, 2005 at 8:16 pm

    I am not sure if you are agreeing or not, with what I said. I think so. Science helps us explain what can be explained. It has limits. If evidence indicates the Universe is 13.7 billion years old, why should that make anyone believe LESS in their “great spirit”? Right?

    It makes no sense to me that someone would struggle to hold onto dogma that seems to have no purpose. That is what literalists do. They don’t accept things as they are. (For example, they find it easier to believe the fossil record is wrong (concocted) and the Earth is 6000 years old and humans rode dinosaurs onto Noah’s Ark, when that flies in the face of overwhelming evidence that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.)

    At the same time, scientists may point out there is no “proof” that God exists. That does not disprove the existence of a God, it just means that science has reached a limit. Like knowing what happened before the Big Bang. Or, how inanimate molecules become imbued with Life. Someday, we may have scientific answers, but for now anyone can believe what they want and there is no conflict with science. Some will choose to believe and some will not. That is their choice. I disapprove of “scientists” and skeptics who make claims that a lack of evidence is “proof” that something is false. Without data, science can reach no verdict. At the same time, claims that have no scientific basis must not be considered scientific.

  • 4   Palestar // Oct 22, 2005 at 10:13 pm

    You ‘ve got it kid… ;)

  • 5   JJ // Oct 23, 2005 at 8:39 am

    Conservative Christians and Creationists have latched onto March of the Penguins as an example of everything from monogamy to right to life to creationism. Mr Jacquet, who has never made a film for the cinema before, is concerned that his documentary has been hijacked. “It does annoy me to a certain degree,� he said. “For me there is no doubt about evolution. I am a scientist. The intelligent design theory is a step back to the thinking of 300 years ago. My film is not supposed to be interpreted in this way. Some scientists I know find the film interesting because it can be a good argument against intelligent design. People should not jump on these bandwagons.� Read the article.

Leave a Comment