Home » Dorms » Student Lounge

A Form of ID: The Two Sides of Intelligent Design

Science v. Faith?

For many Americans today, the gap between science and faith is enormous and getting bigger all the time. Most of us have been eyewitnesses to the long-standing struggle between the objective (sometimes sterile) reality of science and the subjective (sometimes mysterious) reality of faith. We cannot deny the existence or the importance of either side and yet, one seems to keep us separated from the other.

If we choose the path of faith, we may become wary of rationalism to the point of shrugging our shoulders and saying "God only knows" when a line of thought gets too probing. On the other hand, the path of science means that we must leave our faith at the door and don our ceremonial garb of lab coat and calculator. Moreover, the fact that the current scientific understanding of the universe is absent from the pulpit is a cause for concern, while the lack of true faith among scientists is shocking.

It's like two sides of a coin: It's impossible to be on both sides at the same time ... if you try to cheat and sit on the edge, you end up on neither side.

Intelligent Design: Bridging the Gap

Then a group of scholars and thinkers propose a scientific theory that appears to connect science back to faith. Dubbed Intelligent Design (ID), it not only makes the nightly news, but almost anyone with a blog is posting an opinion about it. Best of all, it contains rational explanation and observable evidence, yet avoids dogmatic thinking, as any good scientific theory should.

Here is the ID theory in a nutshell: Physical processes in the universe cannot account for all the order and complexity observed; therefore, a nonphysical or supernatural process must have been involved when the universe came into existence. Considering the man-made objects, ordered and complex things are almost always the product of a process designed by an intelligent person or persons. So, the nonphysical process that made the universe was the act of a nonphysical intelligence. Simply stated: God (or someone who looks a lot like Him) made the universe.

Sounds like the real deal, right? If science has proven the necessity of a supernatural designer then we've bridged the gap. Mission accomplished. We don't have to sit on one side of the coin or the other. Better yet, we can be the coin. We can finally have an integration point.

And while we're at home enjoying a newfound peace in our mind and soul, we turn on the TV and hear about a federal case in Pennsylvania concerning whether ID should be taught alongside Darwinian evolution in public schools.

An Obstacle in Pennsylvania

For those of you playing along at home, it turns out that 86 percent of Evangelicals want some form of creationism taught in public schools, according to the Barna group.¹ Support for teaching alternative origin theories in school isn't just an Evangelical crusade either. The results of a recent survey show that the majority of Americans, regardless of beliefs or political party, favor teaching an alternative scientific view alongside Darwinian evolution.² (This poll also found that less than a quarter of Americans surveyed think that school boards should decide how the scientific theories on the origins of life should be taught … but that's another story.)

Then, a news anchor reads the statement from the ruling judge, who had this to say about ID:

"We have concluded that it is not [science], and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."³

For many scientists and skeptics, the words of Judge John Jones were a joyous sound. See, over the last few years, a number of states have had similar cases with results that seemed to fuel the ID movement toward tolerance, if not common acceptance. Efforts toward prohibiting ID from the classroom seemed to be eroding quickly. ID theorists became excited that they were finally going to see real change in the classrooms of America.

And then ID hit a pothole in Pennsylvania.

What exactly was going on in the mind of Judge Jones on Dec. 20, 2005? Should we comb over his previous hearings, his status as a federal judge, his career path, his personal life, and on and on looking for this fundamental error in judgment? Certainly, these aspects help us understand why a judge chooses to make an unpopular ruling. The media has labeled this Bush-appointed federal judge as a Republican and a Lutheran. But a label doesn't necessarily make him a poster child for anything. Looking at his 139-page ruling, his argument doesn't hold up under close scrutiny either.⁴

Think Like a Judge

For the sake of this article, let's put all that aside. Let's assume the skeptical point of view and put ourselves in Judge Jones's shoes. Did he in fact see something that we're not? Is ID really authoritarian theology and not the scientific theory it claims to be?

To consider this, let's return to our coin analogy. When we consider the faith side of ID theory, we come to a remarkable finding: It is almost identical to the faith of the Founding Fathers who affirmed the existence of some kind of Creator of everything. Their almost universal belief in a God (with most believing in the Christian God) is reflected in the Declaration of Independence and even on our money — coins included. From that point of view, there really is no reason why the idea of God cannot be taught in school unless someone wanted to change our currency and our foundation of government, which some have proposed to do. This component of ID is part of the larger argument about the faith of the Founding Fathers which has been dealt with in-depth elsewhere.⁵

But, Judge Jones isn't directly attacking the faith side of the ID coin.

When it comes to the science side of ID, the overwhelming majority of scientists agree with its main tenet, but only after including one little five-letter word at its beginning: known. There are no known physical processes in the universe to account for the order and complexity observed. In laboratories across the world, scientists from multiple fields are actively looking for those physical processes that could produce the observable order and complexity of the universe. Simply stated: The physical processes remain undiscovered.

ID, on the other hand, rests on the proposal that the physical processes aren't just undiscovered, they actually do not even exist! The opposition argues, "We haven't looked everywhere. We haven't attempted every experiment." But, there's a conundrum here. If you presuppose that something exists and assume that you just haven't found it yet, you will continue to believe in something you can't see but still pursue it because you know that it must exist. You may lack direct observable evidence for your theory, but you are committed to it because you have been persuaded by related evidence. Hence, it must be true.

Sounds a lot like faith, doesn't it?

Faith: The Hidden Ingredient in Science

This is precisely why the line of reasoning that ID raises is dangerous to Darwinists. It exposes that faith is present in those who believe in Darwinism. There does not exist a single experiment by which we can observe life or the components of life arise out of non-life. Yet, a Darwinist must believe that that event actually occurred sometime in the past. And how do they believe? By faith. It is a faith that believes that physical processes made living things emerge out of non-living things even though the evidence for such a process or event doesn't exist.

So, both ID and Darwinian evolution have a component of faith. One chooses to have faith in a supernatural process; the other chooses to have faith in a natural process. But, the scientific community has made a commitment to consider only physical processes when describing the universe. From this point of view, it is not the presence of faith that makes ID unscientific, but that it has faith in a nonphysical process ... and so a federal judge rules that it is not science and, therefore, not permitted in the classroom.

C O F F E E  S H O P

---

What do you think? Do Darwinists have faith?

Join the discussion!

As much as we hope for a day when science and faith can be integrated into one worldview that allows everything to make sense, we must face a hard fact: For thousands of years, science and faith were integrated. Find out how in part two of this series.