Sarah and I watched the Ben Stein documentary, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" last week. It was a really interesting look at intelligent design and those promoting it within the world of academia.
Stein chooses his fight carefully. Instead of taking on evolution directly, he points out that evolution does not explain how life began and argues that the idea of a designer is at least the equal of other theories on how life emerged from non-living things. No one knows how life came from non-life, but the scientific community has decreed that only non-intelligent design theories are worthy of discussion. Stein details the persecution of those in the scientific community that raise these points and argues that intelligent design deserves to be part of the debate.
The most fascinating part of the documentary is when Stein interviews Richard Dawkins, the prominent atheist and author of The God Delusion. According to Dawkins, there is little to no chance of God or a creator, but he believes that a plausible explanation for the beginning of life on earth was a visit from aliens billions of years ago.
I believe the scientific community is trying to diminish the role of God in society so that He can be replaced by a new god - the state.
8 comments:
I don't think the scientific community tries to diminish the role of god in society. They do try and diminish the role of god (and any other deity) in science. When religion interferes with the role of tested science in society, scientists get testy (rightly so). Religion has no place in science or science education. Intelligent design is religion intermingling with science, which doesn't belong in a science class. Social studies class, sure, along with all the other religions' ideas about the beginning of existence.
Science works on provable things. God is not provable. You can't test it. You can't culture it in a lab.
A good scientist is one that doesn't rule out anything that can't be proven. Dawkins thinks he knows, making him almost a zealot, just almost as bad as a christian zealot, who, in my experience, *know* they know. Dawkins fights fire with fire, and it (clearly) pisses people off.
In my humble opinion, just because you can't prove God does/doesn't exist doesn't rule out the possibility. But until you have a scientific way to study whether or not God exists, a theory which is based on the existence of God/gods doesn't belong in science class.
No doubt there are a lot of people in agreement with you, Adrienne.
A couple thoughts: Intelligent Design is not Creationism. It is no less scientific than any other hypothesis about the origin of life or the source of matter and energy in the universe. There is plenty of scientific evidence of a designer - the fine tuning argument, for one. Which is more plausible: that matter and energy suddenly appeared in the universe for no reason and then life came from a mud puddle or that a designer directed the unfolding of the universe and the emergence of life? How are other theories more scientific?
While many people think the evidence points toward intelligent design, the powers that be will only allow atheistic hypothesis to be evaluated. Scientists who believe that the evidence points toward a designer are being persecuted - they are denied tenure, their contracts aren't renewed, and they don't get grant money.
Many scientists, including some interviewed by Stein, state explicitly that their hope is for God to be a smaller and smaller part of our lives to allow for the elite to lead us to more enlightened ways.
Isn't it reasonable to allow for scientific debate - weighing the scientific evidence - on any reasonable theories for how we got here? And isn't there incredible danger in replacing God with the state?
Of course it's possible that some intelligent being/force created what we see from scratch, or orchestrated the evolution process. But how do you scientifically study that? That's the point: you can't, as far as we know.
Just because a system is beautiful and fits together perfectly does not automatically mean something/someone designed it. To say that it does is taking a leap of faith currently outside the bounds of science. There is no scientific evidence to support intelligent design, which means it does not belong in a science class.
It's unfortunate that people are being persecuted for their beliefs, certainly. But if people want to study intelligent design, they will have to look to private schools such as Calvin. Surely Christian schools would want to fund scientific studies that support their own beliefs?
I'm not sure how this "replaces God with the state". I'm apt to trust science (if that's what you mean by "state") over a religion attempting to infuse its beliefs into science.
I'm not suggesting that we do away with the scientific method, only that there is, in fact, scientific evidence of a designer. Scientists often look at the available evidence and try to make educated guesses at things they can't prove. Intelligent design is a completely plausible explanation, based on the scientific evidence. It is at least as likely as any of the other ideas coming from the scientific community and should be part of the debate. There are definite weaknesses to Darwinism and these weaknesses are not being discussed. We might have to agree to disagree on that one but hopefully we understand each other a little better.
Let me try to explain my comments about the state. The scientific community is in large part trying to explain away God. If there is no God, then our rights do not come from God - they come from the state. The role of the state changes from the protector of our God-given rights to the grantor of rights. This lays the perfect framework for fascism and totalitarianism.
When the state is god, civil society ceases to be independent people organizing themselves in ways in which they can pursue their own interests without interference from the state (families, churches, businesses, charities). Instead, everything must work for the good of the state. Individual freedoms are trampled upon in the name of the common good, which is defined by a priesthood of experts as they attempt to form the perfect society.
I don't think it follows that science leads to totalitarianism (which is essentially your argument), but I don't have time to get into it right now. Science isn't attempting to explain away god - maybe our views of god are just based on pre-science concepts of how the universe works - which says more about religion than science. Anyone else wanna step in and carry this?
It does sound like quite the leap when you put it that way, but that's not exactly what I'm arguing. I'm saying atheism, not science, can lead to totalitarianism. However, science is being used to advance atheism.
Further reflection on some of your comments: on knowing there is or is not a God. I agree that we can't "know" the answer. I don't know - I believe. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis - I don't know Sarah loves me either, but I definitely believe she does and I have good reasons why. It doesn't make me a better person (or husband!) to say that I can't know if my wife loves me so I'd better not take a side.
I don't mean to give the impression that science can be used to prove God's existence. My major argument is that those who argue that the scientific evidence points toward a designer should not be persecuted by academic institutions, especially those funded by our tax dollars.
Atheism does not necessarily lead to totalitarianism either. You can have morality without God. The idea that morality comes from God is part of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic belief system. One does not have to agree with that belief system. And if morality does not come from God, it does not follow that the only other place it comes from is the state. There are more options on the table.
Science is not leading us to atheism. Science is answering questions with the information in front of us and so far none of those answers have led us to God. Science does not have a hidden agenda to blot out God from the picture.
I don't think you can compare the love from a person to the love from god. A person has a physical body and a voice with which to tell you that he/she loves you. You know because they tell you and show you in a real way each day - you don't have to just believe because you can know. God has neither body nor voice and thus you cannot truly know, you can only believe.
But are we really going to convince each other on all these topics? Most likely not because we clearly have very different worldviews. But it was a fun exercise anyway.
It's always an enjoyable exercise!
Atheism doesn't have to lead to totalitarianism - but it certainly did in Nazi Germany, China, and the USSR - pretty much the great totalitarian forces of the last century. Funny how atheists/agnostics love to point out the wars caused by religion but don't consider the 73 million people killed by China, the 58 m killed by the USSR, and the millions killed by the Nazis as relevant to the discussion.
If morality doesn't come from God or the state, then it comes from you. This is not really "morality" - isn't it simply your own personal code of ethics? My right and wrong is different from your right and wrong, so there is no absolute truth, no real morality, because "what's true for me might not be true for you." There is no right and wrong outside of God, only how you choose to live your life, which is not to say that an atheist/agnostic can't live a life that follows many of God's laws.
One of the ways God reveals Himself to us is through creation. Science studies creation and some people believe that information points toward a god and some do not. You can't say that all the evidence science presents points to atheism, I interpret much of science to support a Creator.
I can't help but be a little flustered by agnosticism. We've established that we can't "know" if there's a god. But don't you believe one way or the other?
Post a Comment