|
| I saw the Ben Stein movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed! It was interesting, but one-sided. Just like every documentary, but it's still good to keep in mind. I have a thought about Intelligent Design I want to put out there.
Now remember, I'm a Young Earth Creationist and believe in a 7-day Creation and I don't believe in Macroevolution. I think there's ample evidence for a Global Flood and I take the Bible literally. So keep that in mind when reading my thoughts on Intelligent Design.
One of the central questions about Intelligent Design (usually abbreviated "ID") is whether it should be considered "scientific" theory or not and whether it should have place in the science classrooms of public schools and universities. I think people ask that question for a number of reasons and there are a couple of those I want to deal with briefly.
Before even trying to deal with this question, however, we should define what science is and what it means. The ideas in people's minds about the words "scientific" and "certain" are almost interchangeable. Ever since the Enlightenment, when Mankind first discovered science, we in the West have been conditioned to think scientifically. It's so ingrained in our thought processes and vocabulary that we hardly even notice it.
A good example of this can be seen in the debates over God. Someone says, "I believe that God is a factual reality." A scientist will call out such a person. "Wait a minute!" they say. "You're using 'fact' the wrong way! According to science, a 'fact' is a testable theory which is demonstrated to be consistent through multiple, replicable experiments and so unanimously agreed upon by scientists that we accept it as a truth. Then, and only then, do we call it a 'fact.' God isn't proven by any experiments at all and scientists agree that he can't be tested. Therefore, God is not factual." The shame-faced person dutifully concedes and admits that God is not factual after all.
But what's really happened here? Without realizing it, the person calling God "factual" has accepted the other person's definition of "fact" because it's based in scientific terminology. He never stopped to think that maybe there are multiple ways to use the word "fact" and that perhaps his usage of the word was right in a different sense.
This goes to show in what high regards we hold up Science. We esteem it so highly that we subject our own vocabulary to its usage of these words and we do so without second thought. We've been trained to equate "scientific" with "objective." And why not? Isn't this what Science aspires to be: an objective look at reality so that we can know things for sure?
The answer is, "Yes, it tries to be." But tries is the key word. Should we give science so much precedence over everything else? Well, that depends on your philosophy; and this is the key to understanding the situation which Science and Intelligent Design are in.
Most people don't realize this, but the methods of science are based off of a philosophy called "Empiricism." Empiricism, among other things, begins with at least this one assumption: the only things that objectively exist are those things which can be verified with the 5 senses. Thus, within Empiricism, there is no God, no ghosts, no spiritual warfare and nothing supernatural or paranormal that's beyond the physical world. All that exists is the physical, material universe which we sense with the 5 senses we have.
What Science does is turn Empiricism into a method. Science, beginning with the assumptions mentioned above, finds the relationships between the different physical, material things in the universe in an attempt to understand them. It tests these physical things and comes up with theories for how the physical universe by itself can account for the various things we see happening. But it does this by keeping true to form: as long as you assume, as a scientist, that there are no supernatural occurrences at all, you keep pressing on to find out what makes certain things happen.
This method has produced all sorts of things we take for granted. Medicine, computers, iPods, telephones, weapons, spacecrafts, and tons of things we take for granted every day are all there thanks to scientists keeping true to form and approaching phenomena and saying, "Let's assume that what made this happen is physical and non-supernatural. Then let's see if we can find out how it works and make it happen when we want it to." Voi la. You have discoveries all over the place. Our world functions because scientists work using those assumptions for their trade.
But does this mean that God doesn't exist or hasn't done miracles? Absolutely not. And this is where the miscommunication between the Scientists and the rest of us is coming in. Science is a method, not a worldview. If you want to keep proper scientific form, then play the game. A scientist uses that philosophy of Empiricism mentioned above as an operative assumption. An operative assumption is an assumption you take on for the sake of achieving a particular goal.
For example, in a murder trial, the goal is to find the truth: is the defendant guilty or innocent? To do this, people take on various operative assumptions to find out the truth. The prosecutor makes the operative assumption that the defendant is guilty. The defense attorney makes the operative assumption that the defendant is innocent. The Jury makes the operative assumption that there is no evidence for this case except what is presented in the courtroom. The hope is that by everyone making operative assumptions in the ways they need to, they will achieve the goal of finding the truth.
In Science, scientists have a goal: understand and manipulate the physical universe. How do they do this? By taking on the operative assumption of Empiricism; or in other words, assuming that everything they see can be accounted for by purely physical processes. They keep testing things until they get the physical, empirical answer.
This process is limited, of course. If there is a God and if He did create this universe out of nothing, and if He's not physical, then science will never find God. But that doesn't matter. Science is not there (or shouldn't be there) to give us all of the information about reality. It is there to give us whatever true information it can and helping us to use the universe to our advantage and it does this by staying true to form and using its operative assumptions.
With this in mind, we should see why scientists want God out of the science classroom and out of science in general: God isn't part of science. Yes, it may be true that God created science and nothing can exist without God. Many scientists believe this. But science isn't asking questions about God; that's just not how Science works.
Imagine if you were playing a game of ultimate frisbee with a group of people and someone tried to bring in a soccer ball. You would object to this because you're not here to play soccer: you're here to play frisbee. And then imagine that this person tried to make the assertion, "Shouldn't people have the right to play soccer in addition to frisbee?" This would be absurd. Yet, this is how Intelligent Design comes off to scientists. They may well reply, "Yes, God is real. But just because that's true doesn't mean we change our operative assumptions: what good would that do? We're not saying God isn't real. We're trying to figure out how the universe works and use it to our advantage. To do that, we play this game called 'science' and work with these assumptions. That's how this thing works."
So does Intelligent Design belong in the science classroom? That depends. If you mean in the sense that God can be glorified in everything, sure. But you wouldn't use passages on priestly sacrifices to teach a class how to cook lamb and you wouldn't use battle passages from Kings to teach a football team how to throw a football. Likewise, you wouldn't use Intelligent Design in a science classroom to teach people science. Scientifically, assuming that everything is caused by natural forces as an operative assumption, then you would likely conclude something like Naturalistic Evolution.
But does that mean Evolutionists are right in asserting that science deserves precedence in our culture? that God shouldn't have a voice in the public square and we should all just accept Evolution as true? Absolutely not. That into the next question: should Science hold such a high state of reverence in the public square and in our everyday thinking about the world?
Science has good results in manipulating the universe, but that doesn't mean that it's correct in all of its interpretations of the evidence. Remember, if we want to be scientific, then we have to use all of the assumptions inherent in Science (Empiricism). But there's a difference between keeping good scientific form and having opinions that are true. What a lot of scientists (especially Atheists) try to do is blur the line between these two ideas. They play off of your predispositions towards Science and try to get you to think within their little box. They try to get you to accept their assumptions uncritically by calling them "scientific." And that's true, to an extent, if they mean "Science works by using these assumptions." But it is not true if they mean that they deduce these assumptions scientifically.
For example, if you say you believe in God, you may well find a person who responds to you saying, "That's not a scientific opinion." Notice, however, what they're trying to do: they make the accusation with the implication (even if they don't say it) that you have adopted all of the assumptions inherent in Science. They have not given you any argument for why you should adopt these assumptions. They try to slip them into the argument without your noticing. You are perfectly justified in responding to them, "What's your point?" Why should you adopt Empiricism, the foundational philosophy of Science, and assume that there is nothing beyond what you sense with your 5 senses? That's the real question: on what grounds is this person asserting that you ought to buy into their philosophy?
When they get down to it, they have none. Their assumptions that the supernatural doesn't exist are no better than your assumptions that it does.
So what is the answer? Should God be part of the Science classroom or not? It's a very complex question. But I think if we remember that Science is only a method of inquiry that works off of Naturalistic operative assumptions; and we remember that being unscientific does not equate to being untrue; and we use our best judgment to extrapolate and glean truths from Science instead of blindly buying into it like our culture conditions us to do; then some of the tension surrounding this question dissipates.
~Derek
| | |
| I never post here anymore for 2 reasons: first, because I have no internet. Second, because the internet at work suddenly blocked all blogspots with their firewall!! When I first saw this, I was like :O!!!!!!
Ok, so what's been going on? A lot. First, Jean and I were going to get married this Saturday (*tear*). Oh, don't worry, the wedding's only ANOTHER FREAKING YEAR AWAY!  Yeah, that stinks. But it's for the best. I'm getting to go back to school. So I'm thankful we're waiting cause we're really going to have all of the preliminaries (for us) that we want out of the way.
Other stuff...there's just too much to talk about. Mostly private thoughts, but I don't want to take all day. I've mentioned before that I'm writing letters to my kids on a Word Document. I've been doing it since I was 18. I write them as letters; as if I'm writing to a penpal. I think it will be interesting for them to be 18 and be able to "get a letter" from me at 18. I think it will make some things sink in deeper, give them a sense that I'm somehow in the situation with them as a peer and not as "Dad."
I'm up to...a lot of pages! lol So far it's like 100 pages in 10 font, single-spaced. So a loooot of stuff. I make an entry every couple months. I talk about everything in those letters. My kids are not going to want to talk to me after they read these things lol I might give the whole thing to my sons and an edited version to my daughters.
But I've had another idea. I want to read the letters I wrote from 5 years and further back and respond! Even though it's written to my kids, I'm going to "write back" to myself as if the letter was sent to me. So for example, I'll read a letter from when I was 18 and then write back to myself giving my perspective now. I'll probably stick it in with the letter for my kids as an entry for them to read. It should be pretty cool. I am really glad that I've kept this up, even if not as much as I would have liked to. I have always wondered what my parents were like at my age. What was going through their minds? Shaping their thoughts? What problems did they have? What would it be like to interact with them at that age? A diary's one way to help this. That gives kids an insight into their parents. But diaries have short entries with very little content. I want to give my kids full access (if they want it) to my mind now. For them, I think it will be a lot cooler, stranger, scarier, more fun, and DEFINITELY more interesting connection to me in the past.
~Derek
| | |
|
