'Religion and science are both about knowing and wondering' Editor's note: This article is a response to Mark Hollabaugh's article. As a boy I sang “Jesus Loves Me, This I Know” and “Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star, How I Wonder What You Are”—and meant both. They kept resonating as I became both a physicist and Lutheran pastor. Living in both worlds I find no conflict between them, only mutual reinforcement to my faith and my God-given curiosity.  For children, religion and science are both about knowing and wondering—there is no distinction. As adults we inherit a historical division between religion and science as ways of knowing, and, unfortunately, we pass this division to our children in churches and schools. The intelligent design movement exploits this division to introduce what Mark Hollabaugh calls bad science and bad theology into the science classroom, as at Dover, Pa.Hollabaugh describes ID supporters as opposed to evolution on religious grounds, turning to ID in a rear-guard action against Darwinian evolution, which they (mis)understand as the leading edge of a materialistic, godless worldview. This was certainly the case a generation earlier when so-called “creation science” advocates pressed a literal reading of the biblical creation account in opposition to the scientific picture of an evolving universe. These efforts were struck down in the courts, and in the Dover case Judge John E. Jones (see "'Not science': Judge John E. Jones") concluded from courtroom testimony that the current ID movement is largely repackaged creationism. Hollabaugh summarizes the arguments for why ID is bad science. ID proponents market ideas that haven’t withstood the test of scientific scrutiny directly to the public through popular books, bypassing scientific literature. Free expression of ideas is one thing; direct-marketing such ideas to school boards is disingenuous. The “teach the controversy” slogan of the ID community is particularly suspect: By presenting ID as an alternative to evolutionary theory, proponents hope to suggest that the scientific establishment is divided on the question. This is simply not the case: Few theories have enjoyed the long-term success and widespread agreement of Darwinian evolution. Hollabaugh debunks the intentionally misleading statement that evolution is “just a theory.” But there is another argument often missed in recent discussions. As he points out, Isaac Newton’s laws have been replaced with a more accurate theory of gravity. Why don’t we teach its successor, General Relativity, to high-school students? And for that matter, why not teach the many genuine, fascinating controversies that science does raise? Simple: Most high school students aren’t yet equipped to understand the theoretical complexities and make their own judgment. This will come with graduate education and experience. Asking students to assess the validity of the major theories of science, Einsteinian relativity or Darwinian evolution, is simply inappropriate at the high-school level. Not only is ID bad science, it is also bad education. What I find most interesting about the ID movement is where it differs from the previous brand of creationism. Most leading ID authors not only accept a 13.8 billion-year-old universe that is evolving but also acknowledge biological evolution. They are doing what they feel to be genuine science while insisting that natural processes aren’t enough to explain nature even within the scientific method, as if God’s “Let there be light” must somehow peek through holes in the scientific fabric. There must be some things in nature (such as the intricacies of the eye or blood clotting) that required literally supernatural help. As Hollabaugh notes, this is a rather limited view of God and, so, bad theology. And this is where we Lutherans can offer a healthier witness that proclaims the timeless revealed truths of our faith while taking seriously, and even embracing in a holy dialogue, the modern scientific picture. We can trust the biblical account “In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth ...” (Genesis 1:1) without demanding it supply the natural mechanism. When God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind ...” (Genesis 1:24) we may safely gaze through the lens of evolutionary history to see just how fruitfully it did. “Twinkle, twinkle, little star.” Instead of seeing the rapidly developing scientific picture as a curtain masking God’s handiwork, I believe it’s a canvas on which we can see the Creator’s artistry. Then, gazing to the heavens for the twinkling stars and to the Earth for our own biological heritage, we’ll find no conflict as we sing “Jesus loves me, this I know.” We’ll catch a glimpse of just how much. |
Join the discussion
Type your comments in the form below and click [add comments]
Please keep your comments brief and on-topic. We reserve the right to edit or remove inappropriate entries. E-mail lutheran@thelutheran.org with any problems or questions.
