History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Science and faith

May 31st, 2008 · 2 Comments

Science, faith should be kept separate

Published Friday, May 30, 2008
I am not a scientist, but, akin to most other folks, I rely on scientific discoveries every day: traveling about, using the Internet and even such mundane things as washing my face and brushing my teeth.

Many years ago, clever people learned how to propel vehicles by means of the internal combustion engine. All of a sudden, horse-drawn vehicles and buggy whips became things of the past. Now, most of us get around in and on various vehicles dependent upon that scientific invention. Likewise, when we wash our face, we don’t use lye soap. Tooth-brushing with sassafras twigs and baking soda was replaced with toothbrushes and toothpaste. The Internet replaced, well, nothing.

“Intelligent design” doesn’t attempt to explain any of these things as rational developments but rather says there must be a Designer responsible for gasoline engines, mild soaps, modern toothpastes and search engines. One of the central themes in intelligent design is that any advancement we make in our daily lives or in our cerebral cortex is planned – designed.

The other central theme in intelligent design is that there are many things we just do not understand and those non-understood issues can be explained by trusting in the Big Designer.

There are, of course, several things wrong with trying to explain advances as the plan of some vague Designer and other things wrong with trying to explain unknowns as things in the hands of this same Designer.

Evolutionary theory is all about science, and one of the primary tenets of science is that new discoveries must be replicable. Cold fusion is an example. When a couple of scientists claimed to have found a way to create fusion of radioactive material without resorting to several million degrees of heat, that claim was found by other scientists to be bogus because no one could replicate that method. Cold fusion was not accepted by the scientific community. That doesn’t mean it can’t be done except by an Intelligent Designer; it just means the methods detailed by the two scientists was not the way to do it.

Tags: Evolution

2 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Stephen P. Smith // Jun 1, 2008 at 11:24 am

    Dawkins, Dennett, Steven Weinberg, Victor Stenger, and others, are all on record mixing their science with religion.

  • 2 nemo // Jun 1, 2008 at 7:55 pm

    All of this concern about science fails to grapple with the at best semi-scientific character of Darwinian theory.

Leave a Comment