The New York Times is doing a series on the debate between intelligent design and evolution. So far it's been an interesting series, though clearly the writers take side with the scientists who believe in evolution. Yesterday's article was about the funding of the Discovery Institute, and the Maclellan Foundation got a mention. Today's article is more about the debate itself, and while it delves into different scientific explanations for things with which I am not familiar, since I am far from a science expert, it is clear that at the root of this debate is the supposed conflict between science and religion.
I don't want to go into what I think is right and wrong about both sides of the debate. What I do want to say is that our society makes too much of a dichotomy between science and religion, which is obviously a byproduct of the compartmentalizing of religion in our culture, and also the glorification of science as a completely objective discipline. If evolution is true, why couldn't it be that an intelligent designer is behind it anyway? If organisms have adapted gradually to different environments and multiplied into different species many times over the course of history, does that automatically discount the theory that a spiritual being was guiding these organisms?
I would like to think that my belief in God would not undermine my scientific inquiry, but instead encourage it. If I say that I believe God designed this world, that does not mean I would necessarily stop wanting to explore how it works. That is an incorrect assumption that mainstream scientists have made, and perhaps the folks at the Discovery Institute have not communicated this point clearly enough.
Mainstream and evolutionary scientists have their own worldview, as do intelligent design theorists and creationists. The fact that you cannot "test" the idea of an intelligent designer is totally irrelevant. I agree with evolutionary scientists that the role of science is not to try to explain the whys and wherefores of life. But that does not mean scientists, and others, should never inquire into those areas. Scientists are people, too.
Here is a great quote from Christian Astronomer Hugh Ross on this issue:
"I think you have to make a distinction between the record of nature and science, and [between] the words of the Bible and theology. Theology and science can definitely clash and contradict because human interpretation is involved. But God created the universe. He's the One who inspired the words of the Bible, a God that can't lie. The record of nature could never contradict the words of the Bible. But where we do see contradiction between science and theology, we need to look for human misinterpretation. I welcome these disagreements because it's a wonderful way to ferret out the interpretations that may exist on either or both sides."