The Renaissance Man and Intelligent Design: A proposal for Reconciliation of Science and Religion
Moss David Posner M.D.
January 23, 2006
For almost a century there has been a war between Creationism and Science, as those two ideas clash for control in the public educational system. There is a clear lack of true understanding, each side respectively, of the other. The recent introduction of “Intelligent Design” has served to bring this misunderstanding into sharper focus.
All this controversy is symptomatic of a much more profound issue--one that has been bubbling up for a century. It has at once brought into focus a profound misunderstanding of the relationship between Science and Religion, and has exposed the fatal flaw in the notion of public education. In this article I hope to define each side of the issue and then to propose a resolution.
On December 21st last an article entitled “Survival of the Unfit” by Gordy Slack appeared in Salon.com. It started as follows:
A Pennsylvania judge has ruled that intelligent design is not fit for science classes. But ID remains rooted in US schools, where science teachers are pressured to address God in the classroom.”
In s summary indictment of the concept of “Intelligent Design” the author concluded, pejoratively:
The much ballyhooed scientific defense of I.D. - the idea that some aspects of the natural world are best explained as designed by some unnamed intelligence rather than as the products of purely naturalistic processes - was also a dud.”
The decision was made by Judge John E. Jones, III, in a case growing out of the classroom in Dover, Pennsylvania. The judge comments upon his decision in terms albeit more respectful but equally as intense:
Intelligent design is nothing less than the progeny of creationism."
I suspect the summary indictment of the judge as well as the sarcastic commentary by the author were both born out of a similar anger and indignation on the part of the Fundamentalists, who have for several years now attempted to eliminate Evolution from the classroom; and, failing in that, have used “Creationism” and now “Intelligent Design” in attempts to compete with Evolution as deserving an equal place.
The Medieval philosopher Spinoza said that, in order to debate an issue, each side must be able to define the adversary’s position--to that adversary’s satisfaction. Let’s start with last things first. What is “Intelligent Design,” and how did this idea come about?
Intelligent Design theory holds that there is a design, the result of a purposeful effort, resulting in the Universe as we conceive of it. It does not require a belief in a God or a transcendent being, together with all the trappings of a specific theology. It simply posits that there exists Intelligence behind it all. It implies purpose, or goal-directed behavior, which, in turn, infers a consciousness that drummed this all up. As mentioned, it is thought of as the unholy progeny of Creationism--or at least as a representation of it, possibly to deceive the naive, a way of smuggling in the notion of a Supreme Being which, as we all know, is a no-no, as our courts have interpreted Separation of Church and State.
Creationism is the idea that all that we see is and was the product of a Creator, who, in turn, evoked this creation, and did so in six days, as stated in the bible. All life forms--man, in particular--were given by the Creator “as is.” Creationists find fault with the fossil evidence, carbon dating, and all other evidence that suggests otherwise. Although there are a number of variations on this, they all deny Evolutionary theory and hold that the earth is at best several thousand years old. According to Lord Ussher, (1581-1656) the earth is 4004 years old, and for him this is derived from a detailed analysis of The Holy Bible, which Fundamentalists regard as literally and infallibly true.
Evolution was a theoretical system derived by Charles Darwin. Its pillars are the concepts of Natural Selection, Random Variation, Genetic Inheritance, and Spontaneous Mutation. Natural Selection holds that there is a natural process of selection between the environment and the individual creature. Depending upon the requirements of the particular environment in which the animal finds itself and the natural capacities of the animal, the fate of the animal will be the interaction between the two. If water is scarce in a given environment, then only those animals, which can go for long periods with little water, will survive. Genetic Inheritance gives a perpetuation of the general attributes of a given species; however not all members are identical: There occurs a variation among the members, which is not preordained but with is the result of simple statistical randomness, such as described by the bell-shaped curve of Carl Gauss. This is known as Random Variation.
This conflict came to a head in 1925 in the famous Scopes, or “monkey” trial. The notion was derived from the Creationists’ description of Darwinian theory as stating that Man descended from apes or from some simian species. The great orator and Populist, William Jennings Bryan represented the state of Tennessee. The defense attorney was the great Clarence Darrow. It is generally known that Scopes prevailed; however, what is not well known is that actually Scopes lost on the trial level. On appeal, the court had the sense to reverse on a technicality.
There are several other interesting considerations:
The Founding Fathers used the term “Creator” repeatedly in their writings. This is often seized upon by Creationists to demonstrate that these men were, in fact, Christians and that ours is a Christian nation. This is simply not the case. Tom Paine and others were, by their own description, Deists--in that they accepted the concept of a transcendent will as operative, but did not necessarily accept specific religious tenants as such. In this regard they probably were closer to those that argued for Intelligent Design.
To muddy the waters further, consider this: James Watson who, together with Francis Crick defined the molecular structure of DNA, and therefore the structure of genes, believed that DNA most likely came from an extra-terrestrial source, either by accident or by design. As I recall, it was later Watson who felt that the complexity of DNA was such that insufficient time had elapsed from the time that the earth may have been created to the time that DNA forms appeared to be explained on the basis of Evolution. As you might guess from this, Watson was an Atheist.
Going back further, we know that Gregor Mendel discovered genetic inheritance and derived genetic theory, which is also based upon a principle of randomness. Mendel was a Benedictine monk, who, working in his garden at a monastery, crossed various species and postulated the existence of genes long before they could be seen. Yet at no time did Mendel see a conflict between his theology and his science. Now, the Church ordered Galileo, against his better judgment, to renounce publicly the heliocentric theory of the solar system, because it didn’t regard earth”and therefore man”as the center of the universe. Had the Church ever realized the implications of Gregor Mendel”s work, its members would surely have dropped their feud with Galileo and would have rushed to immolate Mendel.
Most medical texts infer purpose in their writings. In Grey’s “Anatomy,” we studied all the muscles of the body in terms of their origin, insertion, enervation and function. This latter term, which all medical students take for granted, implies purpose. No one questions it--but they should. Example: The Pronator Teres muscle takes its origin from the median epicondyle and inserts on the volar aspect of the distal head of the radius ”for the purpose of” pronating the forearm, etc.
Whose purpose? Certainly not the arm’s avowed purpose! Whose then?
In the mind of the Renaissance man, the purpose of science is and was--to explain, in terms of physical law, the nature of the behavior of things. The purpose of religion was to consider the seeming purpose in that behavior. The more I study the human body and the ingenious interrelationships, the more I am compelled to reaffirm my faith in a God--as logical and inescapable. Incidentally, St. Thomas defined this as the “Argument by Design.” Gregor Mendel surely had more and deeper faith and understanding than the whole of the Church of his day. There are two books on this subject that I cannot recommend too highly, both by Bernard Ramm: “A Christian View of Science and Scripture,” and “A Christian Appeal to Reason.” Dr. Ramm was a scholar in residence in Modesto, CA. He is well versed in science as well. Another marvelous text is by C.S. Lewis (of “Chronicles of Narnia” fame) entitled “The Problem of Pain.”
It is only when we are unwilling to consider new or different explanations necessitated by new facts that we get into trouble. Whether or not Evolution is the last word in an explanation of Origin of Species is not the point. If it does not stand the test of time, then some other scientific theory will prevail. This in no way is a threat to religion in general; but it is an admitted threat to Creationism in particular. Alternatively, if religious people continue to see a contradiction between their beliefs and the best available scientific theory, then it is clear that it is the basis of their very faith in the Creator as the originator and instigator of all of this that is weak, not the scientific theory. Science demands nothing outside of itself; and a perceived threat, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
Yet today we are forced by the state to make a choice, to take a stand with respect to our children’s education. You’re either with (science/religion, take your pick) or you’re against--at least in the classrooms of the public schools. So the most important reconciliation for a Renaissance mind is illegal in the public schools. The most critical discussions between student and teacher cannot legally be held in the public school classroom. The law states that such discussions can be held anywhere--outside of the classroom. Yet children spend all of their waking days in class, and so the very people who do the training cannot legally be consulted in a discussion.
This makes no sense whatever: In any other situation it is otherwise. In scientific subjects, laboratories are held for the purpose of applying what is being learned. An instructor accompanies student pilots on their check ride. In the military there are drill instructors. The title is self-explanatory. So who “rides along” with our children in their first efforts to synthesize the concepts of science and religion” Certainly not the parents. They are not science instructors, and more to the point, they were raised in the very same public educational system as their children are being raised. Yet intuitively, both sides of the issue grasp the vital importance of synthesis.
It is this importance, this urgency, which is more fundamental than the particular conclusions that are reached along the way; and it is this particular issue that is critical in a technological age so that future generations can apply best knowledge and best thought to answering the very critical moral questions of the application of--and the limits to--science and technology. Whereas in the Middle Ages it was the Church that had the last word, as I described at the start of this piece, it is the Government that has taken its place. And in a matter almost identical, it is government that has by legal fiat and authority stifled any sincere and critically important efforts at resolution by incubating young minds in classrooms most of their formative years. And if the notion of purpose--God, Intelligent Design, or whatever--is to be applied to the technical subject matter at hand, then it is, by law, illegal.
Unfortunately, you can see from the examples at the start of this piece, that each side is terrified of the other side infringing on its area of major concern. That is because the State forces all to choose between the two--science or religion. We can have the one in a public school--but not both. Were we to do away with legally mandated schooling, and if interested parties were to discuss these matters with their children, then you would see an outpouring of Renaissance men--and women.
The evidence appears to be narrowing the gap between the sides of this issue. So perhaps the answer is to home school our kids. To do this, however, parents will have to educate themselves to the fundamentals of science as well as religion. What basic tenants of science would be most helpful for a spiritually oriented parent to know?
That, dear reader is the subject of a coming article
All this controversy is symptomatic of a much more profound issue--one that has been bubbling up for a century. It has at once brought into focus a profound misunderstanding of the relationship between Science and Religion, and has exposed the fatal flaw in the notion of public education. In this article I hope to define each side of the issue and then to propose a resolution.
On December 21st last an article entitled “Survival of the Unfit” by Gordy Slack appeared in Salon.com. It started as follows:
A Pennsylvania judge has ruled that intelligent design is not fit for science classes. But ID remains rooted in US schools, where science teachers are pressured to address God in the classroom.”
In s summary indictment of the concept of “Intelligent Design” the author concluded, pejoratively:
The much ballyhooed scientific defense of I.D. - the idea that some aspects of the natural world are best explained as designed by some unnamed intelligence rather than as the products of purely naturalistic processes - was also a dud.”
The decision was made by Judge John E. Jones, III, in a case growing out of the classroom in Dover, Pennsylvania. The judge comments upon his decision in terms albeit more respectful but equally as intense:
Intelligent design is nothing less than the progeny of creationism."
I suspect the summary indictment of the judge as well as the sarcastic commentary by the author were both born out of a similar anger and indignation on the part of the Fundamentalists, who have for several years now attempted to eliminate Evolution from the classroom; and, failing in that, have used “Creationism” and now “Intelligent Design” in attempts to compete with Evolution as deserving an equal place.
The Medieval philosopher Spinoza said that, in order to debate an issue, each side must be able to define the adversary’s position--to that adversary’s satisfaction. Let’s start with last things first. What is “Intelligent Design,” and how did this idea come about?
Intelligent Design theory holds that there is a design, the result of a purposeful effort, resulting in the Universe as we conceive of it. It does not require a belief in a God or a transcendent being, together with all the trappings of a specific theology. It simply posits that there exists Intelligence behind it all. It implies purpose, or goal-directed behavior, which, in turn, infers a consciousness that drummed this all up. As mentioned, it is thought of as the unholy progeny of Creationism--or at least as a representation of it, possibly to deceive the naive, a way of smuggling in the notion of a Supreme Being which, as we all know, is a no-no, as our courts have interpreted Separation of Church and State.
Creationism is the idea that all that we see is and was the product of a Creator, who, in turn, evoked this creation, and did so in six days, as stated in the bible. All life forms--man, in particular--were given by the Creator “as is.” Creationists find fault with the fossil evidence, carbon dating, and all other evidence that suggests otherwise. Although there are a number of variations on this, they all deny Evolutionary theory and hold that the earth is at best several thousand years old. According to Lord Ussher, (1581-1656) the earth is 4004 years old, and for him this is derived from a detailed analysis of The Holy Bible, which Fundamentalists regard as literally and infallibly true.
Evolution was a theoretical system derived by Charles Darwin. Its pillars are the concepts of Natural Selection, Random Variation, Genetic Inheritance, and Spontaneous Mutation. Natural Selection holds that there is a natural process of selection between the environment and the individual creature. Depending upon the requirements of the particular environment in which the animal finds itself and the natural capacities of the animal, the fate of the animal will be the interaction between the two. If water is scarce in a given environment, then only those animals, which can go for long periods with little water, will survive. Genetic Inheritance gives a perpetuation of the general attributes of a given species; however not all members are identical: There occurs a variation among the members, which is not preordained but with is the result of simple statistical randomness, such as described by the bell-shaped curve of Carl Gauss. This is known as Random Variation.
This conflict came to a head in 1925 in the famous Scopes, or “monkey” trial. The notion was derived from the Creationists’ description of Darwinian theory as stating that Man descended from apes or from some simian species. The great orator and Populist, William Jennings Bryan represented the state of Tennessee. The defense attorney was the great Clarence Darrow. It is generally known that Scopes prevailed; however, what is not well known is that actually Scopes lost on the trial level. On appeal, the court had the sense to reverse on a technicality.
There are several other interesting considerations:
The Founding Fathers used the term “Creator” repeatedly in their writings. This is often seized upon by Creationists to demonstrate that these men were, in fact, Christians and that ours is a Christian nation. This is simply not the case. Tom Paine and others were, by their own description, Deists--in that they accepted the concept of a transcendent will as operative, but did not necessarily accept specific religious tenants as such. In this regard they probably were closer to those that argued for Intelligent Design.
To muddy the waters further, consider this: James Watson who, together with Francis Crick defined the molecular structure of DNA, and therefore the structure of genes, believed that DNA most likely came from an extra-terrestrial source, either by accident or by design. As I recall, it was later Watson who felt that the complexity of DNA was such that insufficient time had elapsed from the time that the earth may have been created to the time that DNA forms appeared to be explained on the basis of Evolution. As you might guess from this, Watson was an Atheist.
Going back further, we know that Gregor Mendel discovered genetic inheritance and derived genetic theory, which is also based upon a principle of randomness. Mendel was a Benedictine monk, who, working in his garden at a monastery, crossed various species and postulated the existence of genes long before they could be seen. Yet at no time did Mendel see a conflict between his theology and his science. Now, the Church ordered Galileo, against his better judgment, to renounce publicly the heliocentric theory of the solar system, because it didn’t regard earth”and therefore man”as the center of the universe. Had the Church ever realized the implications of Gregor Mendel”s work, its members would surely have dropped their feud with Galileo and would have rushed to immolate Mendel.
Most medical texts infer purpose in their writings. In Grey’s “Anatomy,” we studied all the muscles of the body in terms of their origin, insertion, enervation and function. This latter term, which all medical students take for granted, implies purpose. No one questions it--but they should. Example: The Pronator Teres muscle takes its origin from the median epicondyle and inserts on the volar aspect of the distal head of the radius ”for the purpose of” pronating the forearm, etc.
Whose purpose? Certainly not the arm’s avowed purpose! Whose then?
In the mind of the Renaissance man, the purpose of science is and was--to explain, in terms of physical law, the nature of the behavior of things. The purpose of religion was to consider the seeming purpose in that behavior. The more I study the human body and the ingenious interrelationships, the more I am compelled to reaffirm my faith in a God--as logical and inescapable. Incidentally, St. Thomas defined this as the “Argument by Design.” Gregor Mendel surely had more and deeper faith and understanding than the whole of the Church of his day. There are two books on this subject that I cannot recommend too highly, both by Bernard Ramm: “A Christian View of Science and Scripture,” and “A Christian Appeal to Reason.” Dr. Ramm was a scholar in residence in Modesto, CA. He is well versed in science as well. Another marvelous text is by C.S. Lewis (of “Chronicles of Narnia” fame) entitled “The Problem of Pain.”
It is only when we are unwilling to consider new or different explanations necessitated by new facts that we get into trouble. Whether or not Evolution is the last word in an explanation of Origin of Species is not the point. If it does not stand the test of time, then some other scientific theory will prevail. This in no way is a threat to religion in general; but it is an admitted threat to Creationism in particular. Alternatively, if religious people continue to see a contradiction between their beliefs and the best available scientific theory, then it is clear that it is the basis of their very faith in the Creator as the originator and instigator of all of this that is weak, not the scientific theory. Science demands nothing outside of itself; and a perceived threat, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
Yet today we are forced by the state to make a choice, to take a stand with respect to our children’s education. You’re either with (science/religion, take your pick) or you’re against--at least in the classrooms of the public schools. So the most important reconciliation for a Renaissance mind is illegal in the public schools. The most critical discussions between student and teacher cannot legally be held in the public school classroom. The law states that such discussions can be held anywhere--outside of the classroom. Yet children spend all of their waking days in class, and so the very people who do the training cannot legally be consulted in a discussion.
This makes no sense whatever: In any other situation it is otherwise. In scientific subjects, laboratories are held for the purpose of applying what is being learned. An instructor accompanies student pilots on their check ride. In the military there are drill instructors. The title is self-explanatory. So who “rides along” with our children in their first efforts to synthesize the concepts of science and religion” Certainly not the parents. They are not science instructors, and more to the point, they were raised in the very same public educational system as their children are being raised. Yet intuitively, both sides of the issue grasp the vital importance of synthesis.
It is this importance, this urgency, which is more fundamental than the particular conclusions that are reached along the way; and it is this particular issue that is critical in a technological age so that future generations can apply best knowledge and best thought to answering the very critical moral questions of the application of--and the limits to--science and technology. Whereas in the Middle Ages it was the Church that had the last word, as I described at the start of this piece, it is the Government that has taken its place. And in a matter almost identical, it is government that has by legal fiat and authority stifled any sincere and critically important efforts at resolution by incubating young minds in classrooms most of their formative years. And if the notion of purpose--God, Intelligent Design, or whatever--is to be applied to the technical subject matter at hand, then it is, by law, illegal.
Unfortunately, you can see from the examples at the start of this piece, that each side is terrified of the other side infringing on its area of major concern. That is because the State forces all to choose between the two--science or religion. We can have the one in a public school--but not both. Were we to do away with legally mandated schooling, and if interested parties were to discuss these matters with their children, then you would see an outpouring of Renaissance men--and women.
The evidence appears to be narrowing the gap between the sides of this issue. So perhaps the answer is to home school our kids. To do this, however, parents will have to educate themselves to the fundamentals of science as well as religion. What basic tenants of science would be most helpful for a spiritually oriented parent to know?
That, dear reader is the subject of a coming article
Print
Email
