A Difficult Question: Evolution versus Intelligent Design

20051220

Fox News | CNN | BBC

         Today, US District Court Judge John Jones issued an opinion against the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative theory to evolution in a Pennsylvania school district that had recently ordered such an alternative to be taught. Many people, including many conservatively minded Christians, will consider this ruling to be a setback in their ongoing battle to undermine the stranglehold that modern evolutionary theory has on the teaching of science in the public schools. While, empirically, they are correct, their reasons for lamenting such a setback are misguided.

         There are really two competing interests at work in the current battle over intelligent design versus evolution, and the current ruling reflects the presence of both interests. First, there is the interest of teaching science in its pure form by avoiding and undoing the influence of supposition of fact in scientific theory. Second, there is the interest of reducing or eliminating the influence of secular humanism in the teaching of science.

         The desire to eliminate supposition science is both noble and necessary, which is why its attachment to the intelligent design movement is both lamentable and ultimately doomed to failure. Intelligent design, as a theory, bears the same burden of proof as any other scientific theory, and as such, it fails to reach the bar of a valid universal theory as much as evolutionary theory does. The truth is that all science should be taught from the perspective of what we actually know- and can prove empirically and independently-, what we think, and what we are trying to find out. Currently, neither evolution nor intelligent design theory are engaged in that effort. The true casualty of this battle is truth, of which there is plenty, that is not being taught.

         Further, most scientists, either for or against either theory, engage more in politics than in actual scientific endeavor. That fact is the nature of supposition science: it supposes an end fact is already true and designs facts to support that case. Some might argue that such a statement varies little from traditional scientific method, yet in fact, it really does vary quite greatly in substance and form. For either theory, then, to be accepted as universally valid, both a legitimate hypothesis must be developed and accurate, empirical, and independent research must be performed. Until that reality comes into being, there will be no end to the resulting debate.

         The second influence is, perhaps more lamentable and more misguided, because it shows that most opponents of secular humanism, usually Christians, miss the point of the battle they fight. The truth of this battle is that it is impossible to legislate morality to anyone about anything unless the people first generally believe that such morality is correct and applicable. Such belief cannot be forced on anyone; it must be delivered to them. Until that critical factor is accomplished, no other efforts will succeed.

         For conservatively minded Christians, this setback should be viewed as a wakeup call as to the nature of the battle they fight. Christians cannot expect to win battles in the courts of men or nations, because such entities are rightly the purview of the world. Only when people come to know Christ will they accept that the worlds views and ways are not their own. Until evangelism completes its work, there will be no success in such a fight.

         In the end, this ruling is correct, although not for the reasons that the judge may cite. This ruling will force the opponents of supposition science to review their approach to ending that perversion of knowledge, and it will force Christians to consider why their battle with the world by the world’s means has failed.

DLH