Do one thing at a time and do it well!
The problem with the Intelligent Design debate
Piotr Chomicki
Issue date: 11/25/08 Section: Commentary
There are times when invoking the name or subject of the Lord is somewhat inopportune, for example, when you try to explain to your creditors where you will get the funds to make your monthly payments instead of offering proof of a source of income. And there are certain times when one can very well have intellectual discussions without necessarily making a reference to God. Unfortunately, it seems as though in all general public talks I have attended that have to do with contemporary research in physics, especially cosmological physics, there is always discussion about whether or not science verifies or nullifies the existence of God.
The issue is a non-starter; the whole premise of empirical science is to seek natural explanations and causes. The question of whether God exists or not is an important human question, but it is not one that natural science is able to make qua natural science. The methods of science can scarcely be used in theological philosophy. I seriously doubt that even the most ardently-believing biologist expects to see the work of sanctifying grace under the microscope on a stained slide, or that the most zealously Christian astronomer looks for sightings of the Angel of Death preparing for another massacre. And besides, if we did have scientific proof for God's existence, what would be the merit of faith?
I bring this up is because I attended a roundtable public discussion about intelligent design and about personal faith in God. I missed the Friday, Nov.7 debate about intelligent design in Fort Worth, which featured two scientists, physicist Lawrence Krauss and neurochemist Denis Alexander, a philosopher of science, Bradley Monton, and an evolutionary skeptic, David Berlinski, but I managed to attend the follow-up discussion the next morning. The setup was exciting-smart people who know a lot about science were going to have a free-for-all-but unfortunately, that appeared to have been discussed the night before and what I was to see was a series of uninteresting personal theological speculations and revelations. I'm not indifferent to the personal struggles of other people with faith, yet I find it very unsatisfying to pry into the religious beliefs of outstanding academics and scientists when there are so many exciting things to hear from them about the work they do. There is nothing wrong with wanting to hear about what great scientists have to say about faith, but to ask someone to speak publicly beyond their expertise is imprudent. Just as it would be pointless to ask Pope Benedict about the merits of superstring theory, to consider Albert Einstein's insights on the relationship between faith and reason would be simply foolish.
The issue is a non-starter; the whole premise of empirical science is to seek natural explanations and causes. The question of whether God exists or not is an important human question, but it is not one that natural science is able to make qua natural science. The methods of science can scarcely be used in theological philosophy. I seriously doubt that even the most ardently-believing biologist expects to see the work of sanctifying grace under the microscope on a stained slide, or that the most zealously Christian astronomer looks for sightings of the Angel of Death preparing for another massacre. And besides, if we did have scientific proof for God's existence, what would be the merit of faith?
I bring this up is because I attended a roundtable public discussion about intelligent design and about personal faith in God. I missed the Friday, Nov.7 debate about intelligent design in Fort Worth, which featured two scientists, physicist Lawrence Krauss and neurochemist Denis Alexander, a philosopher of science, Bradley Monton, and an evolutionary skeptic, David Berlinski, but I managed to attend the follow-up discussion the next morning. The setup was exciting-smart people who know a lot about science were going to have a free-for-all-but unfortunately, that appeared to have been discussed the night before and what I was to see was a series of uninteresting personal theological speculations and revelations. I'm not indifferent to the personal struggles of other people with faith, yet I find it very unsatisfying to pry into the religious beliefs of outstanding academics and scientists when there are so many exciting things to hear from them about the work they do. There is nothing wrong with wanting to hear about what great scientists have to say about faith, but to ask someone to speak publicly beyond their expertise is imprudent. Just as it would be pointless to ask Pope Benedict about the merits of superstring theory, to consider Albert Einstein's insights on the relationship between faith and reason would be simply foolish.
Be the first to comment on this story