Every Friday, "Science and the Sacred" features an essay
from a guest voice in the science and religion dialogue. This week's
guest entry was written by Gordon J. Glover. Glover holds degrees in Mechanical Engineering and Ocean Engineering and is the author ofBeyond the Firmament: Understanding Science and Creation
On the surface, Intelligent Design seems to be a perfectly reasonable approach to studying complexity. In our everyday experience, there is certainly nothing controversial about attributing the purposeful arrangement of components to an intelligent agent. When observing a monument of neatly stacked stones on a remote beach, who among us would not immediately conclude that an intelligent being had purposefully arranged it? And what rational person, upon seeing an ancient megalith like Stonehenge, would erroneously conclude that the structure spontaneously organized itself slowly over time?
So what's the big deal with drawing these same inferences when studying biological complexity? How much greater are the inner workings of a single cell than the static stones of all the ancient monuments? And there are so many perplexing details that still lack sufficient material explanation. Why not just assume that an intelligent being works outside of space and time to purposefully arrange the complex structures we find in nature? And don't forget about the added benefit of apologetics. Not only does intelligent design theory bring closure to our scientific mysteries, but it also promotes theism in the public square without the "baggage" of organized religion. What can possibly be wrong with that?
Rather than debate the merits of this approach, let us speculate on what intelligent design theory might look like if hijacked by a different philosophical agenda and applied to a different field of science. Come to think of it, no speculation is necessary. Allow me to introduce you to the "controversial" but fascinating field of pseudo-archaeology.
Consider once again our use of Stonehenge as an example of intelligent design. But rather than satisfy ourselves with the notion that ancient Europeans constructed this amazing megalith by themselves, let's fixate instead on the difficult questions that mainstream archaeology has failed to answer. Where did these stones come from? How were they carved without modern tools? How did primitive man haul them thousands of miles across rugged terrain and raise them up dozens of feet without cranes or hydraulics lifts? Not only does Stonehenge show evidence of intelligent design (as all man-made structures do), but it seems to demonstrate the use of technology far too advanced for the primitive culture associated with it.
Professional archaeologists are aware of these problems. In fact, all megaliths of the ancient world are plagued by perplexing anomalies - or knowledge "gaps" if you will. It's a fascinating topic. But mainstream archaeology is content to treat these knowledge gaps in our understanding of the past as simply that, and NOT as proof that primitive man had some outside help. Besides, who or what else could possibly have intervened during the building of these ancient structures?
Oh, ye narrow-minded expert! Hath not thou considered the alien? Why bias your investigation of archaeological complexity towards earth-bound engineers?
Enter the alien enthusiasts. Not the dispassionate ones who merely concede the possibility of life outside of our solar system (a viewpoint that many scientists would share), but the hardcore fanatics. You know who I'm talking about. The ones who spend their summer vacations dressed up as aliens in Roswell, New Mexico. The true believer wants the world to acknowledge not just the probability of extra-terrestrial life, but that intelligent beings from outer space have physically visited earth and made contact with mankind. So they search out the mysteries of the ancient world looking for opportunities to preach their UFO gospel. There might not be any credible evidence of UFO visitations to planet Earth, but if there are questions that mainstream archaeology can't sufficiently answer, you can guarantee that alien believers will plug E.T. into these gaps. Does this strategy sound familiar?
Most professional archaeologists understand that no matter how tempting (or fascinating) it might be to speculate about ancient astronauts visiting primitive man, Ancient Astronaut Theory is simply not responsible science. This doesn't mean, however, that it's fundamentally wrong. Heck, I found myself wanting to believe after seeing it featured on the History Channel this summer. But the fact that this is not responsible science does disqualify the theory from being presented in the science classroom alongside standard archaeology - at least until a better argument can be made. In other words, as cool as alien intervention sounds on the surface, there is no "controversy" to teach. And fortunately for our public schools, alien enthusiasts do not yet have a powerful lobby trying to manufacture one. Yes, there are many unanswered questions. But not being able to explain exactly how primitive man built these great megaliths is NOT evidence that aliens intervened in human history. All it means is that our understanding of these ancient civilizations is still immature, and we have a lot more to learn.
I know this rigid skepticism produces no exiting conclusions, but that's just all there is to it. We don't have to grant UFOlogists the "academic freedom" to discuss the "strengths and weaknesses" of mainstream archaeology in the classroom. Nor do we allow pro-alien teachers to preach their UFO gospel to our children under the guise of science.
Many Evangelicals will quickly respond to this argument with, "Yes, of course aliens are not real, but God is real and he created all things." Indeed He did. So the analogy is not perfect. While the jury is still out for me personally on extra terrestrials, I whole-heartedly agree that God exists, that He created the universe from nothing, and that He sustains its existence moment by moment. What I disagree with, however, is that plugging the Creator into our biological knowledge gaps constitutes responsible science. And if we open the classroom door to intelligent design, what's to stop alien intervention from walking through it?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Charlie, you're really making me think today!
"Is this belief in faith alone? (no evidence to support God's existince/intervention with the world)"
No, I believe that faith must have a rational basis. If the data can be interpreted in such a way that points to a transcendent Creator, faith permits us to make the final jump to belief. This jump is not something done in spite of the evidence, as some might think. Rather, it merely extrapolates beyond the evidence. Faith is the evidence of things unseen (Heb 1), not an excuse to believe something demonstrably false.
As I previously said, proofs for God's existence are not proofs of logical necessity (like those deductive proofs we see in mathematics). Since inductive reasoning can only take us so far (and always leaves room for doubt), faith is a necessary condition for belief.
"There are things we know and things that are unknown about the world. Fortunately, our knowledge continuously grows. Is it your stance that God explains what we do not understand or that, regardless of what we have discovered as fact, God is responsible for it?" -- the latter.
"If your stance is the latter, why do you believe that?" -- You will hear all sorts of pompus answers as to why one believes or doesn't believe. But at the end of the day, it all boils down to a personal choice, based on a combination of rational and non-rational factors.
"Also, how can you distinguish "manual overide" from not yet understood processes that follow the natural laws?"
Manual Overide = Water into wine, the dead rising, the seas parting, etc... But even these could be based on physical processes that are not yet understood. There is no way to know for sure. In terms of natural history, manual overide might leave some sort of physical discontinutiy, or singularity -- an observable break in the ordinary chain of material cause and effect. Such a physical discontinuity might manifest itself as incoherent, anomolous or missing data. But these could just as easily be evidence of some yet unknown physical process. That's why it's best to stick with methodological naturalism when doing science. At least with naturalism yow won't shut down the investigation prematurely.
"Isn't manual overide kind of the same thing as saying that the process is irreducibly complex?"
I think the two are independent of one another. For starters, nobody can even demonstrate that irreducible complexity is incompatible with ordinary (non-intelligent) causality, unless one wants to assume that we know everything there is to know about the forces of nature and how they act on ordinary matter. Even a common hurricane, for instance, could be a complex machine designed to take heat energy from the tropics, convert it to mechanical energy (wind) and latent heat (water vapor) and transfer it to the coast. If this is its intended purpose, then it also meets the criteria of specificied complexity. The eyewall has no purpose apart form the low pressure eye, the internal convection cells would not function apart from the eyewall, etc... Not even man can design and built a machine that transfers and distributes a comparable quantity of energy over thousands of miles in a 1-2 week period. And yet the entire thing is self-organizing. No manual overide necessary -- based on our very limited understanding of atmopheric phenomena. So it is quite a presumptuous thing to assume that just be we finite creatures can't understand how something works (abiogenesis for example), that it necessarily requires manual overide.
So again, it's better to stick with methodological naturalism when doing science. Trying to descern whether a given structure is the product of intelligent or unintelligent causes is only a distraction, and the answer to the question adds nothing to our material understanding of the object in question.
Gordon
Gordon,
For your manual overide examples, I find it difficult to interpret a lot of what the Bible says literally and I personally think such writings are symbolic. With Adam and Eve or the Ark with all the animals in the world aboard, most see these as symbolic. Do you see some stories as symbolic and some as truth? How do you decide which one's are truth? Regardless, do you know of any more modern manual overide examples or examples that have been recorded from other sources besides the Bible? Also, what interpretation of data leads to the possibility of a transcendent Creator? You also stated there were rational and non-rational reasons for your belief in God establishing the universe and it's physicial laws. What are some of the reasons? Thanks for responding. It's interesting getting the perspective of someone melding science and religion together. One thing I think we definitely both agree on is "Trying to descern whether a given structure is the product of intelligent or unintelligent causes is only a distraction, and the answer to the question adds nothing to our material understanding of the object in question." Couldn't have said it more perfectly.
Charlie,
"Do you see some stories as symbolic and some as truth? How do you decide which one's are truth?"
First, allow me to apologize on behalf of those Christians who, in their zeal to defend the Bible, have created these false dilemmas by failing to read the Bible in its native context. Literary categories such as "symbolic" and "truth" are things we post-enlightenment moderns like to impose on ancient texts. But these neatly defined genres simply didn't exist in the Ancient Near East as we know them today.
The easiest way for me to explain this is to use a modern epic tale, like the story of Paul Bunyan, the giant lumberjack who moved westward across the U.S. taming the wilderness. Along the way, he battles giant creatures, cuts entire forests down and builds cities with his bare hands -- his footsteps make craters large enough to fill as lakes and when the arid desert of the American Southwest started to wear on him such that he could only drag his axes across the desert floor, the Grand Canyon was created. I thnik he even lived sevaral hundred years (sound familiar?).
This is a uniquely American mythology that communicates to children the challenges and difficulties of westward expansion. And the story uses larger-than-life characters to communicate these larger-than-life themes. Sure, one could still ask of this story, "is it symbolic or is it true?" -- but the answer would be nonsensical. For starters, the narrative makes no attempt to be factually accurrate on the technical details. But the larger themes clearly have to do with the grit and determination of the American Frontiersmen who carved a civilization out of the wilderness through trials and tribulations. The story is indeed TRUE on that level. It's not as if westard expansion never happened, even though you would never find this version of the story in an Encyclopedia!
So the question a Christian must ask of any biblical narrative is not: "is it true or is it myth" but rather, "on what level is the text communicating TRUTH to us?" We start with the assumption that the Bible is Truth, and then we study it to descern how it communicates this truth to us because truth can be communicated via details that are factually incorrect. Genesis communicates truth on an entirely different level than the Gospel of Luke, for example. We know from the large collection of comparative literature out of the Ancient Near East that this method of written communication was widely accepted. So the onus in on us post-enlightenment moderns to make the necessary adjustment in or epistemology when approaching these ancient texts. It is pointless for us to project our 21st century western scientific worldview onto the scriptures.
"...do you know of any more modern manual overide examples or examples that have been recorded from other sources besides the Bible?"
Personally, I'm not the most "sensitive" Christian when it comes to miracles. I'm naturally very skeptical, so I am prone to offer a natural explanation for things where other believers might be convinced that a miracle took place. I also think that there are many things God can accomplish without any large-scale manipulation of the cosmos. After all, the cosmos is indeterminate at the lowest levels, and it is also complex enough such that contingent events in the quantum domain might be amplified into perceptible events that appear "uncaused" to us via the butterfly effect.
I'm no John Polkinghorne, but when it comes to all of this stuff, we have to remember how little we still know about how the cosmos works. There is so much wierdness at every level of material organization, that everything we attribute to "spirit" could actually be emergent properties of ordinary matter. Which would ironaically mean that even the most rigorous Christian evolutionist would still be guilty of employing "spirit" of the gaps arguments whenever he/she appeals to the transcendet to explain an answer to prayer, etc.
"Also, what interpretation of data leads to the possibility of a transcendent Creator?"
I like the fine tuning argument, especially when taken together with convergent evolution. But I would never offer this as proof of God. Others like the argument from natural law, but that one doesn't really appeal to me so much.
"You also stated there were rational and non-rational reasons for your belief in God establishing the universe and it's physicial laws. What are some of the reasons?"
Another way to put it is "objective" and "subjective" reasons. In a nutshell, a subjective (non-rational) reason could simply be that I like being part of the Christian community. It is a network of individuals who (for the most part) sacrafice for one another, who give without expecting anything in return, who are motivated to care for and help others who might otherwise fall through the cracks. It's fairly egalitarian in that it matters not what your social status is. In fact, it is geared toward those who might otherwise be on the margins of secular society, and is cautious of those whom the world readily embraces. I can tell you that my marriage would not be what it is today if it was rooted in "us" and not "him". So these are all subjective reasons. Of course, all of this only holds true when Chrisians are following in the spirit of Christ. And it's so easy to fly off tangents and personal crusades (eg: the Christian right in America). Others might have a horrible experience with Christians and vow never to darken the door of a Chruch again. That's what I mean by subjective.
"Thanks for responding." -- Sure.
GJG
ping
Hi Gordon,
I've been on vacation so sorry it;s been so long. Because we can't really determine "on what level is the text communicating TRUTH to us" how do you feel about how certain politician interpret truth with respect to life at conception or gay marriage. From my understanding, there is some interpretation (and not necessarily the correct interpretation) as to what the Bible says about these. I feel this is important because these interpretations govern us all. I still don't really understand how you also can differentiate natural law that is improbable to natural governed by God. As far as fine-tuning goes, who;s to say if it was tuned differently, life would not arise? Yes it would probably be VERY different. But the knobs had to be adjusted somewhere. I guess the fine tuning example only has support if life arising is almost impossibly improbable.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.