Evolution vs. Intelligent Discussion

The Vatican's Chief Astronomer recently refuted intelligent design as a scientific theory. He said that the teaching the two ideas together is like comparing apples to oranges. This is not the first statement from a Catholic official that may make the ID/creationism supporter's jaw drop. One would have to begin with Pope Pius XII's 1950 encyclical Humani Generis:

. . . the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.

More recently, John Paul II gave some credence to an evolutionary theory.

However, the Church's position in this debate is not the subject of this entry. Instead, we need to look directly at the current discourse.

We have been duped in the ongoing evolution/intelligent design debate. We have been presented with two options and neither is quite satisfying. Either Darwinistic evolution is the final answer on creation--both the physical origins of the species as well as any metaphysical causes of these origins--or intelligent design is a scientific theory that should be taught next to evolution in the science classroom. The problem with our two options is that neither will get us to the fullness of the truth. The debate itself is flawed because it has been pigeonholed to one specific issue--whether intelligent design is legitimate science--and this question misses the real issue. Instead of asking whether intelligent design is viable science, we should be asking whether Darwinism is really a proof against the existence of God.

In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis weighs in on this debate by looking at two alternatives to the origins of the universe, a materialist view and a religious view. His insights, as always, are quite on point. Lewis may agree with that intelligent design does not have a place in the science curriculum, but he would just as quickly question our dependence on Darwinism to prove any truths about the existence of God:

You cannot find out which view is the right one by science in the ordinary sense. Science works by experiments. It watches how things behave. . . . But why anything comes to be there at all, and whether there is anything behind the things science observes--something of a different kind--this is not a scientific question. If there is "Something Behind," then either it will have to remain altogether unknown to men or else make itself known in some other way. The statement that there is any such thing, and the statement that there is no such thing, are neither of them statements that science can make.

There is a push in the world today to discount anything not based on scientific evidence as irrelevant. If the world as a whole has accepted the premise that science is the only basis to prove any knowledge about the world, the anti-God faction should be ecstatic. Yet, they are unable to leave certain questions a mystery. They have to use science to defeat opposing viewpoints on issues science should not reach. Put simply, to say that science cannot prove God's existence is to say that it cannot disprove God's existence.

This science-worshipping worldview has put men in a precarious position. If one wishes to discuss any idea, he must base this idea on some objective data--we must fit all truth into the scientific method. Under this framework, some will surely try to hard to force a square peg of truth into the round hole of science. This may be what the intelligent design theorists are doing. However, if that is the case, it is just as true that the Darwinists should not be allowed to bend their atheist peg and sneak it into the round hole.

The Darwinists tell us that since evolution can be backed up by data and intelligent design can not, evolution is legitimate and intelligent design is worthless. The Darwinists tell us that based on their data, they can demonstrate that there has been an evolutionary process from a single organism to the breadth of creatures that exist today, including the creatures known as humans. They continue, telling us that this process is based on genetic mutations and survival of the fittest new versions of creatures, and because this process is based on physical phenomenon which appear to be completely random, that there is no God.

The problem (and this is what the secular humanists, atheists, and other -ists of the same ilk do not want you to think about) is the disconnect between the Darwinists' data and proof against God. Any scientific data which demonstrates an evolutionary process can not prove there is no intelligent force behind it. Just because it looks random to us, does not disprove the possibility that evolution is an ordered process that we don't understand, or at the very least, there is some Prime Mover who started the whole evolutionary mechanism. Yet, so many scientists accept Darwinism not only as a fact of how the physical world has progressed, but also as a proof that there is no intelligent being in charge of the universe. This has taken science beyond the realm of observable fact into a metaphysical plane. Darwinistic scientists have broken their own rules.

If “Darwinism-as-proof-that-there-is-no-God” is accepted as science, then intelligent design arguments must be considered real science as well, and at least allowed the opportunity for peer review and critical debate. There must be an even playing field--either both sides in or both sides out. Looking to the opinions of several Popes and Vatican officials, the choice seems to be both sides out.