The debate between science and religion rages on: Are the two compatible, or are they completely irreconcilable? In God and the Astronomers, a book exploring the relationship between the science of astronomy and faith, Robert Jastrow wrote the following:
“The scientist has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak. As he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
It is interesting to note that Jastrow is an agnostic.
The case of Jastrow goes to show that you don’t have to be a Christian fundamentalist to look at the universe scientifically and conclude that something intelligent created it all.
Subscribe to our RSS feed
September 16, 2007 at 11:39 am |
Hi there. You are correct, you don’t have to be a fundamentalist to believe in intelligent design. I accept without dispute that looking at the beauty and complexity in nature can lead to the belief that it was intelligently designed, but only a very selective review of the universe can lead to this conclusion.
In other words, intelligent design can be forgiven if you’re ignorant.
Creationism is a metaphysical supernatural explanation based on religious stories that assumes design exists, and then points to a designer. But obviously this is circular reasoning. There is no evidence of design.
And if complexity = design, who designed the most complex being of all, god? And before you say “god doesn’t require a designer”, that’s special pleading. You cannot define god into existence. If god doesn’t require a designer because, well, he just doesn’t, then the universe doesn’t require one because, well, it just doesn’t.
If we can observe “good design” in the universe when we can also observe bad design. Why is about 85% of this planet uninhabitable for humans?? Isn’t that a glaring error when you think it was made for us? Why are there vestigial organs and junk DNA?
For that matter, why does all the evidence we’ve ever uncovered point to evolution? Is god trying to play a trick on us?
I recently wrote several articles on intelligent design and evolution, you are more than welcome to read them:
http://ellis14.wordpress.com/2007/09/13/common-descent-uncommon-knowledge/
http://ellis14.wordpress.com/2007/08/01/my-evolution-elucidation-wed-1st-aug-07/
http://ellis14.wordpress.com/2007/07/30/intelligent-design-is-not-science-mon-30th-jul-07/
I look forward to hearing what you have to say. Best regards.
September 16, 2007 at 2:47 pm |
Thank you for your comments. I don’t agree with everything you said, but I definately appreciate your points as thoughful and respectful. In the near future I will take some time to address some of them on my other blog, Minds2Mentes. I’ll just hit one now – your definition of Creationism. I know that it’s true that many people who hold to a biblical view of creation do so without a good argument to back it up. However, I for one came to creationism via the route of Intelligent Design. The difference between Creationism and ID at it scientific root is that ID doesn’t name the Intelligent Designer, and Creationism names him God (usually the God of the Bible). I wrote something else briefly on this subject here. I’ll be sure to check out what you’ve written.
September 16, 2007 at 3:45 pm |
Hi Krista,
I appreciate you attempting to draw a distinction between ID and creationism, but there is not really any difference. ID is creationism attempting to be scientific, but ID cannot be scientific. ID is creationism in disguise, as an attempt to get it taught in schools. Whether ID is true or false it cannot be scientific because it is not a natural explanation using empirical research. ID is no more scientific than astrology.
This is why ID advocates spend so much time failing to attack evolution instead of actually doing their own research.
You may differentiate between ID and religion, but there is not one advocate of creationism and intelligent design that doesn’t have a religious agenda. That is quite suspicious don’t you think?
Whereas people who except the fact of evolution are atheists, agnostics, theists etc. Science and evolution is open to anyone, regardless of belief.
September 18, 2007 at 11:10 am |
Krista–
Evanescent makes an important point. Virtually without exception, everyone who supports intelligent design is a conservative Christian. If ID turns out to be true after all (which it won’t) it will be the first scientific theory you have to be a Christian to see the merits of.
ID is not a valid scientific theory at all. In reality, it is nothing more than a slick marketing campaign, the purpose of which is to sneak theism into the public schools.
It is heavily funded by the fringes of the religious right almost exclusively, and its’ proponents are quite clear who this mysterious designer is when they’re speaking to their supporters. Dembski has said
while the man considered to be the father of the ID movement, Phillip Johnson, has even said
September 18, 2007 at 12:37 pm |
You’re forgetting that the guy who made the quote in my post is an agnostic.
That is a good Philip Johnson quote. What is it’s source?
September 19, 2007 at 1:57 am |
Hi, Krista–
I’ve heard of Jastrow, but don’t know what his religious affiliation is. I have to tell you, though–he sure doesn’t talk like any agnostic I ever heard of. And I’m saying that as an agnostic myself.
I got the PJ quote from Wikiquote. They attributed it to an interview with World Magazine, 30 November 1996.
September 19, 2007 at 2:02 am |
Thanks for the quote citation.
Jastrow’s own words concerning himself are: “When an astronomer writes about God, his colleagues assume he is either over the hill or going bonkers. In my case it should be understood from the start that I am an agnostic in religious matters.” This is how he begins the book from which the quotation I used is found. He’s an agnostic, but one who asked some really great questions about the origin of life and God.