|
|
|
Jewish World Review August 12, 2005 / 7 Av, 5765 How to evolve the debate on evolution By Tony Snow
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
Only an optimist could apply the term,
"debate," to the raging controversy over the relative merits of evolutionary
theory and the concept of intelligent design, or ID. Few issues in America
today stir passions as wildly as this one; few have as much power to turn
otherwise sane adults into drool-flecked screamers.
Evolutionists regularly depict their ideological foes as
"idiots," "cretins," "Bible-thumpers" and, to quote a philosophy professor
at DePauw University, "morons." The ID crowd, meanwhile, deploys its own
batch of epithets, including such charmers as "bigots" and "unbelievers."
Yet, the whole dispute dissolves if one applies a dollop of
humility to each side. One just needs to ask two questions: Does science
reveal truth? And, does G-d exist?
Consider the contending theories. Evolution posits that
terrestrial life arose through a series of random genetic mutations, and
that some species, adapting gradually to environmental conditions,
transformed themselves into "higher" species. Hence, the well-known drawings
that depict the march of primate life, from chimps to homo sapiens.
Intelligent Design claims the chances of random evolution are
virtually nil. Hard science shows us a world of dazzling order, complexity
and interdependence. To take one tiny example, a single gene seems to
control vision in all animals. Could this be a matter of dumb luck?
Physicist Steven Weinberg estimates life wouldn't even exist if, at the
instant of creation, the energy unleashed in the Big Bang had varied by one
part in 10 to the 120th power —
1/1,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000, 000,000,000,000, 000,000 ,000,000,000,000 ,000,000,000 , 000,000 ,000,000,000 ,000,000 ,000,000 ,000,000 ,000, 000, 000,000 ,000,000th.
Such odds lead ID advocates to suggest that the universe didn't get orderly
by chance, but at the hand of a Designer.
These matters have been thrust into public view because some
schools have begun incorporating intelligent design into science classes.
Critics protest that ID is not science, but a form of philosophy or even
scientistic theology. They want the idea purged from curricula, calling it
an illegal introduction of religion.
This brings us back to the two threshold questions. Most people
believe science unravels deep, eternal truths — that it is "perfect." But
the history of science teaches that today's cocksure theory is tomorrow's
crackpot superstition.
A century ago, physicists boasted of having solved all the major
problems involved in studying the universe. The following year, their
smugness collapsed when a patent clerk named Einstein published his paper on
general relativity.
Today, evolutionary theorists find themselves at wits' end
because the fossil record provides no evidence of any species ever turning
into another. We know species adjust to environmental conditions — ever
notice how tall kids are these days? — and that natural selection does
occur. But there's nothing to vindicate the notion of an evolutionary leap.
That said, ID does not qualify as science because it gives us
nothing to test or measure. Science requires replicable tests involving
measurable variables. But you can't shake a beaker and find G-d. If G-d
exists, He reveals himself through faith, not science.
These little insights give us the basis for admitting both views
into the educational system. Evolutionary theory, like ID, isn't verifiable
or testable. It's pure hypothesis — like ID — although very popular in the
scientific community. Its limits help illuminate the fact that hypotheses
are only as durable as the evidence that supports them.
ID is useful largely because it punctures the myth of scientific
invincibility, while providing a basis for promoting the cause of "hard"
science. Sure, science involves trial and error. Scientists refine theories
each day. But as they do, they help us grasp more clearly the wonders of the
world and the universe.
Also, let students know that a sizeable number of scientists
believe in a Designer, since science involves a quest to discover and decode
universal design. (A sizeable number of scientists also don't believe in
G-d.) Meanwhile, issue similar warnings against silly abuses of holy writ,
since scripture has little or nothing to say about matters of "hard"
science.
Such cautionary notes ought to increase students' interest in
science, not to mention philosophy. A tiny touch of common sense and
humility fire ambitions and imaginations by reminding students that science
is a form of exploration that never runs out of frontiers and challenges —
and that ever points to questions too big even for folks in lab coats to
answer.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
Comment on JWR contributor, and syndicated talk show host, Tony Snow's column by clicking here. © 2005, Creators Syndicate, Inc |
Arnold Ahlert | |||||||||||
