Home » Dorms » Student Lounge

A Form of ID: Voices of the Past and Motives for the Future

The Stuff All the Important Stuff is Made Of

In the previous article in this series on Intelligent Design (ID), I showed how the various ways in which the definitions of science and faith are juxtaposed are key to understanding the points of view of those speaking about their integration. Definitions are often the stuff that paradigms are made of and paradigms are often the stuff arguments are made of. Clearly, science and faith can be defined in such a way — as they have been in modern times — to place them in not just contradictory but even paradoxical positions.

God and Nature in the Same Breath

The paradox of science and faith, however, does not hold up to historical analysis. Definitions that support a paradoxical paradigm are modern usages only widely employed over the past century or so. Before that, science and faith appeared to be more integrated. Although pre-19^th century scientists didn't necessarily define their terms when they spoke, their common understanding of science and faith can be surmised from their usage of these terms.

It is important to evaluate how both natural and supernatural causes are historically used in conjunction to explain observable phenomena. For the purposes of surveying how science and faith were integrated to varying degrees in the great minds of the past, the following quotes are provided:^1, 2

The laws of nature are but the mathematical thoughts of God. — Euclid

We signify that he [God] is justice, that he is truth, that he is love, that he is order, that he is the very progress of which we were speaking; and that wherever these qualities exist, whether in the human soul or in the order of nature, there God exists. — Plato

God and nature do nothing in vain. — Aristotle

God could have made birds with bones of massive gold, with veins full of molten silver, with flesh heavier than lead and with tiny wings … He could have made fish heavier than lead, and thus twelve times heavier than water, but He has wished to make the former of bone, flesh, and feathers that are light enough, and the latter as heavier than water, to teach us that He rejoices in simplicity and facility. — Galileo

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. — Newton

For the book of nature which we have to read is written by the finger of God. — Faraday

…if God had not so arranged things that, under normal conditions of life and health, the laws governing the changes in tissues and fluids of animals' bodies did not impede the proliferation of these microscopic creatures, we should always be vulnerable to their inroads.
— Pasteur

Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind. — Einstein

These quotes are not to suggest that past philosophers and scientists integrated science and faith in the same way that ID proposes today, but it shows that they willingly thought in terms of both natural and supernatural causes. They did not outwardly reject one for the other. Granted, each has his own view on science and faith but at least both are viable within each of their worldviews.

The great minds of the past laid the foundation of modern thought by maintaining a humble perspective, one that accepted the fact that there is little that can be absolutely known. In this arena of probabilistic knowledge, faith in the supernatural arises not only in response to the order and beauty of what is known but also to fill the gap of what isn't.

Dealing Honestly (Again) With Reality

If the Church of the past has been guilty of denying all natural evidence in favor of supernatural belief, then the naturalism that pervades modern culture is guilty of the opposite. A holistic, modern worldview should be one that wrestles with integrating fields of knowledge into a single framework of truth.

To grasp reality, the human mind partitions knowledge into conceivable chunks, but a broad picture of reality resists that convenience. Compartmentalized knowledge as a basis for a worldview, as some prominent scientists have proposed (see the section on Gould from part 3 of this series), may work in academia but it is just not an honest approach to reality.

Our Western scientific tradition exists because we stand on the shoulders of intellectual giants whose honesty toward reality made progress toward a deeper understanding of truth. Seeking to integrate all fields of knowledge including science and faith should be one of our cultural commitments for the 21st century. At its heart, the ID movement is a step in that direction because of its openness to dealing honestly again with reality.

Back to Court

This article series began with Judge Jones and the federal court case in Dover, Pennsylvania. Let's return to his statement 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

It is quite clear from this ruling that Judge Jones defines science as the explanation of particular phenomena on the basis of natural causes only. This definition of science may have widespread appeal but it just isn't intellectually satisfying for those who want to deal with reality honestly.

Critics of ID argued that the threat in this court case was the reintroduction of dogmatic beliefs into the school system. The judge's ruling seems to lean in that direction, as well. But this ruling is guilty of being equally dogmatic on the other side of the coin, that is, reinforcing the dogmatic belief in the separation of science and faith.

Cleverly masked, dogma — whether religious or scientific — is the real enemy of any free-minded people. ID presents an openness to the universe and God, science and faith, natural and supernatural explanations for reality.

Where is the New Hope?

The historian of science may be tempted to exclaim that when paradigms change, the world itself changes with them.⁴

This quote by Thomas Kuhn recognizes the revolutionary nature of paradigms. As a paradigm, ID has the potential to shift the way society thinks about science and faith within an integrated system of knowledge. But this does not come easily or cheaply. Making a commitment to the ID movement involves much more than passive support of a court case. Does that mean picketing or writing congressmen or spamming people to death with the latest ways that ID can cure diseases?

If you want to support ID and see an integration of science and faith in our culture, here are three things you can do to earn your virtual "I supported ID because I'm a winner!" button:

1. Financially support scientific research that is from an ID perspective
   
   

   This may seem like an odd suggestion but the truth is that most scientific research comes from government-based (National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, etc.) or corporate funding sources. Outside of the quality of science it may contain, the majority of research grant proposals get funding because they fit within the dominant, naturalistic paradigm. This actually makes some degree of sense. Would you really want a portion of your taxes going into scientific studies of the paranormal? Maybe, maybe not. Even though ID theory utilizes the vast majority of scientific evidence as its basis for conducting science, the stigma of faith in the midst of a scientific grant proposal renders it unfundable. The Church, faith-based organizations, and individuals who desire to see an integrated ID paradigm must find ways of getting research money to those scientists who want to investigate ID for its science and not merely debate others about its validity as a paradigm.

2. Take personal responsibility for your own science education
   
   

   Follow the home school movement's lead and educate yourself about science. There are more resources available than ever. With a subject like science, it is easy to feel overwhelmed with the complexity of the subject matter but tenacity pays off. Acquiring even a vague awareness of science is thousands of times better than merely accepting with unquestioning loyalty you're your science professors or scientists in the media may tell you. That's the kind of faith to avoid. An active involvement in understanding science can build the kind of critical thinking skills that enables intelligent and open conversation about science and faith integration. The ID movement needs supporters to understand both sides of the coin and science is the shiny, neglected side. Science education needs to also be a lifelong pursuit, not only limited to that introductory biology class you may have to take to get your degree. Because our society is driven by science and technology, keeping informed about science is the intellectual investment necessary to avoid a bankrupt worldview.

3. Start thinking in ID
   
   
   C O F F E E  S H O P
   

   ---

   Do you think Intelligent Design is a valid theory? Why or
   why not?
   
   Join the discussion!

   It is easy to get discouraged about the Dover court case and believe that the next generation of students will be deprived of a belief in God because ID is not allowed in schools. But the reality is that the next generation scrutinizes the current generation's worldview to see if it's worth anything. Reject those definitions of science and faith that are dogmatic or demand unquestioning allegiance. Even though science and faith have been integrated in the past, the scientific explosion of the 20th century divorced them. To bring them back together, we all have the obligation to think deeply about science and faith. If a generation is raised to think within this paradigm effectively, then the modern naturalistic paradigm will be relegated to the history books.