What is science and where does God fit in the picture?
This week in my ecology and evolution recitation we discussed the contemporary tension between the theory of evolution and intelligent design (ID). So as preparation for class, we read excerpts of Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box” and the Supreme Court ruling on Kitsmiller v Dover Area School District. For those of you who are not familiar with the topic of intelligent design, this is the idea that living systems are too complex to be explained by the theories of evolution because it is impossible that such that such complex systems could form from simple components. The only explanation is that a divine hand created all organisms. A Dover, PA school district required that ID be taught as an alternative to evolution. This was challenge by some parents as a violation to their first amendment rights. The book “Darwin’s Black Box,” as suggested by the name, is a pro ID and was the primary support for the Dover school district’s position.
When reading these pieces, I couldn’t help but think about our class discussions as an over riding theme is the conflict between god and science. In the end the court ruled that ID is not a science because the theory can not be tested as can evolution. The court determined that “science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena” and that it is “ruled by methodological naturalism.” “Science does not consider the issues of meaning and purpose in the world. While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science.” I don’t find this definition at all satisfying as another vague term, nature, is used for clarification. In addition, science is defined by what realms it does not encompass. So far in class, we have associated god with nature. But in the courts interpretation, science seeks to explain nature. So is science really seeking to understand god? So if science is the opposite of nature and nature is the opposite of science, in which realm does god play a role? I’ve come to the conclusion that god and science don’t have to be mutually exclusive. The belief is that god created man and the universe. So if god created man, who is to say that god did not create evolution/science as well as the curious human to explore it? While ID can not be defined as science because it is not testable, that doesn’t mean that it can not explain the inner workings of creationalism. So I ask, do nature and science have to be mutually exclusive definitions or can they really be the same thing is disguised? Does there really have to be a “Black Box”?
When reading these pieces, I couldn’t help but think about our class discussions as an over riding theme is the conflict between god and science. In the end the court ruled that ID is not a science because the theory can not be tested as can evolution. The court determined that “science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena” and that it is “ruled by methodological naturalism.” “Science does not consider the issues of meaning and purpose in the world. While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science.” I don’t find this definition at all satisfying as another vague term, nature, is used for clarification. In addition, science is defined by what realms it does not encompass. So far in class, we have associated god with nature. But in the courts interpretation, science seeks to explain nature. So is science really seeking to understand god? So if science is the opposite of nature and nature is the opposite of science, in which realm does god play a role? I’ve come to the conclusion that god and science don’t have to be mutually exclusive. The belief is that god created man and the universe. So if god created man, who is to say that god did not create evolution/science as well as the curious human to explore it? While ID can not be defined as science because it is not testable, that doesn’t mean that it can not explain the inner workings of creationalism. So I ask, do nature and science have to be mutually exclusive definitions or can they really be the same thing is disguised? Does there really have to be a “Black Box”?
posted by Ami at 12:27 AM
2 Comments:
I don't really think that god and science can ever go hand in hand, mostly because their core principles (spirituality vs. cold logic) are too different. I do believe, however, that god as a concept helped spur the advent of science -- after all, it was those individuals skeptical of the existence of a higher being who turned to other means (which we now deem scientific) of explaining natural phenomena such as lightening and volcano eruptions. So in other words, science and god are not necessarily mutually exclusive and can (and do) co-exist (though not consistently peacefully).
I always thought that the study of science couldn't exist without thinking about religion/nature. I feel like nowadays, people are so concerned with offending everyone's beliefs in school that they're afraid of talking about God. In my opinion, I think it's natural for us to think of some higher being when we look at nature and study the intricacies of the world. So to answer your question, No, nature and science don't have to be mutually exclusive because there is a lot of overlapping between the two, but we often make them mutually exclusive as a means to avoid any offensive confrontation.
Post a Comment
<< Home