How and Why

Recently in Australia, the Intelligent Design debate has been quietly sneaking into the public policy arena. Wikipedia does a much better job of explaining the details of the argument, but basically Intelligent Design is the assertion that certain features of the universe and of living things are so complex that they appear to result from an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to an unguided process such as natural selection.

Basically its back to William Paley’s old watchmaker argument, or as that reductionist windbag Richard Dawkins aptly put it, the argument of incredulity – if one can’t conceive it, it couldn’t possibly happen.

The new approach, is dressing up creationism in science drag and accusing the scientific community of being too narrow minded and rigid to appreciate that there might be an alternate to evolution, something other than the strict, mechanistic, naturalist world that science today presents us with. You have to admire the mind of conservatives and fundamentalists, they have an amazing ability to grab at the high ground whether its theirs or not.

Suffice to say that the US is all a tizzy over ID, particularly since George W Bush came out in favour of teaching it in school science class. With the power of the Christian Right in the States, its not surprising that they are actually making headway with all of this. But here in Australia, I thought our natural cynicism would be a sufficiently high barrier.

Apparently not.

In August this year (2005) the Federal Education Minister Brendan Nelson told the Press Club that intelligent design could have a place alongside evolution in our schools if parents wished. As you would imagine, the scientific community wigged out and as a result a coalition of more than 70,000 Australian scientists rejected the theory as scientifically untested.

Firstly, I wouldn’t have thought we HAD 70,000 scientists in Australia, so that must be pretty much all of them, and secondly, have you ever tried to get two scientists to agree? On ANYTHING!?

It appears that the creationists are wiggling a foot in the door and this debate is going to go on, for a while at least.

So here is the thing that I don’t get. As much as I am very comfortable with the theory of evolution, I don’t see any particular conflict between it and the existence of a creating deity. As far as I can see, if a creator can go “poof” and there is a universe, they could just as easily go “poof” and an evolutionary system could be established.

Now this does preclude the whole seven days, bible as literal word of god thing so I guess I am not throwing that much of a bone to the strict creationists. But you would have to wonder, given all the evidence stacking up about the age of the earth (4.8 billion-ish years) and the extent of the fossil record, isn’t it time to contemplate the possibility that mankind may have written some of the details down wrong, or copied something incorrectly SOMEWHERE along the way?

In truth, as science unlocks more of our (theoretical) past, it seems to me that more not less of the Christian bibles story of creation is supported – provided you allow some poetic licence. Take the current thinking of the origin of the universe, loosely referred to as the big bang theory.

In truth, as science unlocks more of our (theoretical) past, it seems to me that more not less of the is supported – provided you allow some poetic licence. Take the current thinking of the origin of the universe, loosely referred to as the .

Basically start with everything crunched up into an infinitely small point with nothing around it and then suddenly BOOM, and enormous explosion of energy and its all flying out becoming the universe we know today. Sounds a whole lot like the bibles version to me.

The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Now the Old Testament was written approximately 6,000 years ago during the end of the Stone Age. At the time most people lived in mud huts, a large community was a couple of hundred people, the world view was that the planet was flat, people lived to about 30 years old and the hight of technology was the donkey and a stone axe.

If you were a loving, caring god how would YOU explain relativity, quantum mechanics and cosmology to those people – and their donkey? Start with something simple I’d say. I mean there is all that fossil evidence, the finches on the Galapagos Islands and the like. You created mankind as a pretty bright bunch, so they’ll figure out that you wrote things in many places (like the rocks) and in many ways (like interstellar radio waves).

But it seems that one way or another, the donkey has gotten in the way.

Fundamental religion, which ever one you choose, seems stuck with this aggressive, literal approach to the bible. Apparently we can’t be expected to differentiate good from evil without having our hand held the entire way, without strict and unswerving guidelines that we are not supposed to interpret for ourselves. It seems that no matter how many times a prophet comes along to tell us we need to have a more personal relationship with god, that damn donkey still digs its hooves in.

I will admit that as an agnostic, I am not going to have the most sympathetic view of religious agendas. I figure I can’t actually know what the great answers of life are and I don’t imagine that I am smart enough to figure them all out. I also don’t assume that whatever I do figure out is universally right. I just try and live my life with dignity, and to treat people with respect and as individuals. Not the most complex or all encompassing of philosophies, but it done me alright and it seems to largely keep me out of trouble.

Even I as an agnostic, I can completely agree with the basic tenants of the Christian faith; the sanctity of life, be nice to people, don’t cast the first stone, we are all personally responsible for our lives and each of is should have a personal relationship with god. But that relationship is personal and based on our faith.

Now here is the thing that really surprises me about all of this, it seems to me that I have more faith than the creationists. If there is a creator, I have no problem seeing them creating something as beautiful and complex as evolution. I also don’t have a problem conceiving that while the system appears to be “random”, it may actually be driving towards some goal that is outside my comprehension. Basically I figure that if there is a god, s/he is significantly smarter than I am, and is likely to have plans that span time periods that I can’t even start to get my head around.

This attempt by the proponents of ID to science-ise religion seems like a desperate bid to prove that god exists, to prove the ineffable. To me it implies that faith isn’t enough and coming from the religious, that’s a little disturbing. If the folks in the faith business don’t think it’s enough to simply believe, how do they expect to convince the rest of us?

Science has been working for centuries to explain the “hows” of the universe. This feeds our minds, placates our monkey curiosity and allows us to make our way in the world. But its only part of the picture.

Religion and faith have another job, explaining the “Whys”. Science simply cant do that, and it doesn’t try.

It would seem to me that the religious crusaders are getting mixed up and are no longer playing to their strengths. Instead of trying to fight science on its own ground, they should accept that they don’t have a good handle on the “hows” and really don’t need to have one.

When we are alone and scared, abandoned by the ones we loved, and pursued by a world that feels hostile and unloving, its not the hows that save us from extinction. Its not the hows that help us face our fears, and the dark. Its the whys.