I’ve often had an inner conflict with intelligent design in the past. My background is in theoretical physics and I had a lot of evolution and cosmology imposed upon me. I think intelligent design is a really great idea for Christians to explain their perspective; however, it is extremely bad for science.
What is science?
Science is a construct in which we empirically study the world through observation and we purposely leave out those things that are “gut belief” or inner feelings—it’s truly based on the construct of the scientific method. The belief in Christ cannot be studied from a mathematical perspective; it is beyond our comprehension, much like love.
What if we studied Christianity from a scientific perspective? How does intelligent design harm science?
If you were to study faith in Our God from a scientific perspective, everything would ultimately end with, “it’s something we cannot understand because the maker designed it that way.” This is what happened with the alchemists who believed in the 5 elements which delayed the discovery of much chemistry earlier on. To obtain a better understanding science wants to develop an empirical understanding through observation as well as trial and error; contrary to that, intelligent design asks us to accept our lack of understanding as that which God made and he did it that way regardless of whatever remnants of history we’ve discovered.
The results of being a Christian may allow one to bear more fruit, but the outcome of doing more good than bad after being a Christian is neither truly a mark of a Christian nor can it be graphed with consistency. We are fallible and sinful and, although we never expect a Christian to be out of line, we are not righteous on our own and often we find ourselves allowed to yield to the world.
Why is pure science a better means to find God?
Intelligent design is a bad construct to bring up young scientists in the world today. I’ll go into detail, but I’d like to start with a concept (conceived by another) that asserts the concept of building a brick wall.
Brick wall for science as it is:
If you were to build a brick wall based on a person’s understanding of science, over time, that person will be find holes that they are unable to explain. Naturally, and this was certainly the case for me, the belief in a higher power is overwhelmingly obvious and although it doesn’t sway the science, it sways the scientist. Many true scientists find God this way—I am not alone—but we, scientists, cannot speak it as science because that is not the purpose of science.
Brick wall with intellectual design:
If intellectual design is forced on our children, the brick wall is too easily filled. When a circumstance arises that the person does not understand, he/she will automatically have the answer that God did it. We do this already with children when we tell them early on that 5 minus 6 cannot be done, then we fill them in that there is more there in the negative numbers and their search for more mathematical understanding continues. Rarely will you see a child thirst for an understanding of why there is no explanation for 5 minus 6, and when they learn later that it is possible, it is a drastic change and it takes a while (I don’t understand why mathematics education is pursued this way, but it is). You see, the fallacy is that we learn to fill in the gaps to easily and just accept them, but as we learn more, the bricks fall away from the wall and we have to reconstruct the wall with less God in it.
The avenue for true laws of the universe is a narrow road, and most will never even encounter the road in their research. I may not agree that macro-evolution is the best construct, but it is a very interesting argument with some very good empirical evidence. I may see super-string theory as an Isaac Asimov or Star Wars foible, but it’s theory is well-grounded. It may be that these scientists were traveling the true road of universal laws, but time and real science have only proven them invalid.
Anyway, friends, I just want everyone to understand the implications of what intelligent design has on our future.
No comments:
Post a Comment