Although we do not have definitive answers to many of life’s fundamental issues, there are three basic groups of people who try to help us understand our current state of knowledge:  Those who seek to describe reality by empirical means are called “scientists;” those who attempt to answer the basic questions about existence based on morality are called “theologians;” and those who critique life, our research methods, and our findings are called “philosophers.”  Many others play important roles, but in order to limit our discussion, let’s call everyone else “lay people. “

Each of the three basic disciplines is distinctly different from the others, yet there is an interesting—and sometimes a harsh—interplay among them.  Science describes “what is.” Its methods are open for all to see; its experiments and results are subject to verification; its conclusions are tentative; and it welcomes criticism.  Moreover, most of what we call “knowledge” today is the result of scientific postulates and tests.  Even the products that we use to make our lives healthier, wealthier, or wiser began as scientific musings.   In contrast, theology is based on beliefs, faith, and authority.  It deals in absolutes, thus there is little room for dissension or alternative points of view.  Philosophy makes no claims about the world at all.  Through logic, ethics, and aesthetics it provides the tools for clarifying what constitutes the “rational,” the “good,” and the “beautiful” life. 

Ideally, the scientist, theologian, and philosopher are free to believe as they choose and to offer constructive criticism of the others’ works, yet none is free to impose his or her views on the others.  At least, that is our collective sense of what constitutes the “just” life.  History, however, is replete with examples that are far from that ideal; and wars, death, and suffering have often resulted when someone has claimed to have found “the truth” and tried to force that opinion on others.

The Search for Truth.  The quest “to know” is a fundamental human urge, but the pathway to knowledge is strewn with failures and uncertainties. From the flat earth theory to black holes, and at every juncture in between, our expanding knowledge base is riddled with riddles.  Whether we are trying to understand the universe’s “first cause” or evolution’s “missing links,” we only know that we do not know.  Even in the study of mathematics, we meet up with puzzles and paradoxes that, sooner or later, elicit new puzzles and new paradoxes.  Certainty, it seems, is always “a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.”  But in order to survive and to make sense of our limited knowledge, we are forced to tentative conclusions about many things, all the while recognizing that our conclusions are subject to revision, and most will be modified or replaced with others sometime in the future.

Knowledge therefore corresponds to truth only in a relative sense.  Knowledge reflects our current understanding of what we observe.  What we observe, moreover, may appear to be discrete and complete in itself, yet it is often only a glimpse of a far more complex chain of ongoing events.  The succession of observations and theories and revisions to those theories are reflected in all disciplines, most notably within astronomy, astrophysics, and biology.  Our knowledge of the universe, how it came into being, and our place in it are as evolving and as changing as the universe itself.  Knowledge is but a statement of our current state of being.  Even the search for unifying theories falls considerably short of complete knowledge and absolute truth.

So what is truth?  In correspondence theory, truth is conformity with fact, agreement with reality. In coherence theory, truth is established by the degree to which a proposition is in agreement with an established set of accepted beliefs.  In pragmatic theory a statement is true if it allows you to interact freely with the cosmos.  It also makes room for relative degrees of truth, thus it negates the assumption that all statements are either true or false. These definitions are not inclusive of theology because in the domain of morality the term “absolute” is grounded in the fundamental belief in the existence of God.  Philosophers have also noted substantial internal weaknesses in these theories, and why each provides little insight to a higher level of enlightenment beyond awe or bewilderment.

What, then, are we to make of the current movement by a group of academic fundamentalists who would fill our knowledge “gaps” about life and its origins with the certain pronouncement that it all stems from Intelligent Design?  They cannot be dismissed lightly.  Unlike their predecessors, such luminaries as Microsoft’s Bill Gates and savings and loan multi-millionaire, Howard Ahmanson, have adequately bankrolled this new group.  And they also they have the vocal support of President Bush.  Although they deny it, there is little doubt that their movement is another attempt to infuse religion into our classrooms.  This time, however, they are proceeding on the pretext that Intelligent Design is really an alternate scientific choice. 

Science and Religion.  Our individual abilities to live with uncertainty vary widely.  Those least able to cope with ambiguity are quick to jump to the answer that brings certainty into their lives. For example:  God created everything in six days.  On the seventh day, He rested.  We don’t need to search any further for the truth.  God is the truth.  And He laid it all out for us in the Bible.  Moreover, the leaders of churches, whether appointed, anointed, or self-proclaimed, are the final arbiters of truth.  Any questions? 

In 1600, at his Inquisitional trial, Giordono Bruno had questions.  He was burned at the stake for refusing to recant his naturalistic view of the universe.  A few years later Galileo had questions.  When he put forward his heliocentric view of the solar system, church leaders demanded that he recant his views.  Even when he invited them to look into his telescope at the moons in orbit around Jupiter, they refused to do so because they “knew” such moons did not exist.  He was threatened with torture, imprisonment, and death at the stake unless he recanted his observations and postulates.  He recanted in lieu of being killed, but he was nevertheless imprisoned for life.  Indeed, it was not until 1992 when the church finally admitted error, and Pope John Paul acknowledged that Galileo was correct in his observations.  Even more recently, when British scientists were given permission to clone human embryos for medical research, their efforts were condemned by Pope John Paul as “an arrogant attempt to improve on God’s creation.” 

Strange as it may sound, there is no fundamental clash between science and religion on logical grounds.  For example, in the early 20^th century a group of philosophers called Logical Positivists developed a compelling test for the factual significance of all statements in their famous analytical technique called the “Verifiability Criterion of Meaning.” By this technique any statement that passed the test was deemed to belong to the domain of science; if it did not, it belonged elsewhere—to religion, mysticism, or to the occult.  Here is an expansion of the Verifiability test:

According to A.J. Ayers, in his book on Language, Truth, and Logic, a statement is factually significant if and only if we know how to verify the proposition it purports to express; that is, if we know what observations would lead us under certain conditions to accept the proposition as being either true or false.  As an example, the statement “The universe is shrinking uniformly” sounds scientific in origin.  But there is no way that this statement can be verified by any test or observation—not even conceptually—hence it is not a factually significant statement and therefore it does belong in the domain of science.  Conversely, the statement “God appears every Tuesday at noon on the Capitol steps in Washington, DC” is a verifiable statement and a factually significant one, even though it has a religious content.  This statement would fall within the domain of science simply because it is verifiable.  It does not follow, of course, that all factually significant statements are true or even deserving of verification.  On the contrary, the burden for proving any statement rightfully falls on the asserter.  [1]

Let’s now turn our attention to the basic premise of Intelligent Design and to the statement:  “The universe and everything in it was created by Intelligent Design.” 

Is Intelligent Design Verifiable?   Science deals with the physical and the behavioral worlds.  It describes “what is” via observation and measurements.  In the physical world, for example, something is said to exist if it has weight and occupies space.  In the behavioral world, mental constructs such as attitudes, tendencies, or intelligence are also verifiable via measurements and thus fall within the domain of science.  What exists outside of our experiences may be true or false, but they are not a matter for science to decide or even to consider.  Within our experience, scientists need to be able to observe, now or at some future time, empirical evidence about the entity at issue such as measurements of length, mass, time, temperature, luminescence, amount of substance, or some behavioral consequence. 

Scientists can make no observations or measurements about Intelligent Design; philosophers cannot conceptualize how we might be able to do so under any circumstances, therefore this statement does not belong in the domain of science. It could still be true , but science has no method or means for making that determination.  It follows that offering such an explanation within the context of science would contradict the fundamental precepts of science.

The second part of the verifiability principle concerns who has the burden of proof about Intelligent Design.  In science, logic, and in law the burden always rests with the asserter.  The reasons are clear in the following explanation of a factually significant statement:  “The planet Pluto is occupied by little green men.”  This statement is verifiable because we could—even today—verify its accuracy by launching a probe to that planet with appropriate instruments for determining whether the statement is true .  We would not do so, of course, because we might also exhaust our national budget over a trivial assertion that is absurd on its face.  No rational scientist, logician, or lawmaker would support spending one cent in refuting it.  In short, assertions can be made by anyone.  And although is it sometimes possible to “prove a negative,” i.e., prove that an assertion is false, it is not the responsibility of science to do so.  In all disciplines, and at all levels of society, we correctly demand that the asserter prove his or her assertion, otherwise we have no interest in it. 

To carry this point one step further, today when a scientist seeks money from almost any source in support of his or her project (an assertion), the institution providing the funds typically demands to see a complete proposal including all costs, methods, and resources to be expended, the limitations of the study, who is likely to benefit from it, how it relates to past studies, the extent to which there are competing hypotheses, and how the investigator intends to proceed; a timetable for completion, and all the safeguards to be taken to assure that people and places will not be endangered by it.   Only after a thorough analysis will the institution consider spending money in support of a scientific study based on verifiable assertions.  Intelligent Design based solely on non-verifiable assertions can meet none of these requirements.

In spite of failing the verifiability test, let’s assume, for purposes of discussion, that those behind the current movement were able to have their way, and Intelligent Design became part of public school curriculums.   These questions immediately come to mind:  “What would be taught?  What proofs would be offered?  What conclusions would be drawn?”

Potential Problems.  Beyond the preceding questions, a long series of unanswerable questions would begin to surface.  For example, the Earth is now protected from the ravages of solar winds by its magnetic field which deflects the deadly ions hurtling toward us from the Sun.  Without a magnetic field our planet would be devastated by these winds and laid barren much like Mars. One question for Intelligent Design teachers would be:  “Should we therefore infer that the molten mass in the Earth’s core that gives rise to its magnetic field is part of Intelligent Design?”  The question is answerable only in the most authoritarian way, namely “that is the way God wanted it to be.”  With answers of this kind we would have begun a “pseudo-science by inference” based on unverifiable assumptions, and carried out by authoritarian rule.  But let’s carry this argument even further.

Other questions might include the following:  “Why is life on Earth subject to diseases, and famines, and tsunami surges, and earthquakes, and wars, and other forms of violent death?” And “Where, when, why, and how does the Intelligent Designer draw the line between saving Earth’s inhabitants via such means as magnetic fields while simultaneously destroying them via other natural disasters?”  “Should we stop searching for ways to control diseases and other threats to life because they are all part of Intelligent Design?”  And if not, “How would we know when the Intelligent Designer wanted us to intervene, and when not?”   

These are just a few of the kinds of questions that the pseudo-scientist could not answer, and the true scientist would not waste his or her time asking.  In short, the introduction of Intelligent Design into classrooms would set science back to the Dark Ages.  To acquiesce to the Intelligent Design “model,” therefore would not only make scientific research pointless, it would destroy science as we know it.   

But why couldn’t the two “sciences” co-exist under the same roof?  The answer is that their co-existence would make a joke of logic.  Intelligent Design is based on authoritarian pronouncements that are neither open for peer review nor subject to criticism.  Moreover, in the ebb and flow of Western history, the upper hand in deciding what we teach our children in schools has rested with the state of intellectual curiosity.  When it has been free to flourish, science has had the upper hand.  At other times, religious thought and values have replaced texts, models, and theories with beliefs, doctrines, and commandments.

But it is not necessary to refer to the Dark Ages to find examples of when science and religion have clashed.  In modern times, they have also collided.  Such a moment occurred as recently as 1925.

The “Creationism” Movement.  In the 1920s William Jennings Bryan, led a crusade to ban Charles Darwin’s theories about evolution from American classrooms.  He and his followers made efforts to pass laws in 15 states, primarily in the South.  They were successful in Tennessee.  The teaching of evolution was banned by law in all Tennessee schools.  Even so, a young biology teacher named John Scopes challenged the law and began to teach Darwinian evolution.  A showdown ensued between Fundamentalists and the Modernist freethinkers in a small Dayton, Tennessee courtroom.  It became known as the Scopes “Monkey” trial.  It was a showdown with high drama and international interest.

Clarence Darrow, one of America’s most prominent criminal defense lawyers, represented Scopes.  The give-and-take between Bryan as star witness and Clarence Darrow, as the wily defense attorney were recorded for all time in the movie, “Inherit the Wind,” starring Spencer Tracy as Clarence Darrow.  This trial showed the absurdity of the Fundamentalist position, but it did not end the debate.

In 1987 this issue once again reached the Courts in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard, in which the Supreme Court in a 7-to-2 vote found a Louisiana law unconstitutional that required creationism to be taught alongside evolution in public schools. Though the law did not mention God or the Bible, the clear intention was to include creationism as a science equal to the theory of evolution. At the time, this ruling seemed like the final defeat for creationism and the Fundamentalist push to teach the idea in the schools. [10] 

That assumption was wrong.

The New Inquisition.  The New Inquisition is embodied in a small group of God-fearing conservatives who make up the Discovery Institute.  Founded in 1991 by former Reagan administration official Bruce Chapman, this Seattle-based Institute has become the central focus of Intelligent Design.  This organization's separate division, the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, devotes all its time to that cause. [2,3]

The Institute also enthusiastically endorses what law professor Philip Johnson calls the "wedge" strategy.  This is a plan to use Intelligent Design as a wedge to undermine evolution with scientific-sounding arguments and thereby advance a conservative religious-political agenda.  To promote the concept, the Institute works with 48 fellows, directors and advisors who are responsible for producing research, publishing texts and hosting conferences. The Institute team includes Philip Johnson as a legal advisor, while Michael Behe, David Berlinski, William Dembski and Jonathan Wells are senior fellows. All of them have advanced degrees from respected universities, giving the group a level of credibility generally denied to Fundamentalist Creationists. 

Legitimate scientists reject the validity of Intelligent Design concepts, however, and are unimpressed with Institute activists' credentials.  "They're trying to make it appear like they're scientists who just disagree with other scientists," said Lawrence Krauss, professor at Case Western Reserve University. "A number of them have scientific credentials, which helps, but in no sense are they proceeding as scientists."

Applying the “Wedge.”  Last year the Dover School Board in rural south-central Pennsylvania mandated the teaching of Intelligent Design in their high schools.  A trial in federal court is currently underway to decide if this issue violates the Constitutional separation of church and state clause in public schools. 

Eight families are suing to have Intelligent Design removed from the biology curriculum.  They contend that the policy essentially promotes the Bible's view of creation, violating the Constitutional separation of church and state.  The defense is arguing that Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact," has inexplicable "gaps," and refers students to a textbook called "Of Pandas and People" for more information.

Other states where the Discovery Institute is beginning to make inroads in their “Wedge Strategy” include Ohio, Kansas, Texas, Georgia, and Minnesota. [4] The Institute claims that nationally, more than 300 scientists have stepped forward and signed onto a growing list of scientists of all disciplines voicing their skepticism over the central tenets of Darwin’s theory of evolution and urging that “careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

Intelligent Design and the Irrelevancy of Man.  There is also a sinister side to the Intelligent Design movement.  Whether it is a stated part of their agenda or not, this movement seeks to belittle humans by relegating us to something akin to wind up dolls.  It suggests that we are powerless in the face of the cosmos, that we cannot achieve great objectives simply because we cannot articulate all of life’s mysteries.  It seeks to put us all back into our Dark Age places as obedient automatons before the Intelligent Designer.  How dare we suggest that we can understand the intricate details of life and of the universe?  Are we not trying to replace God with ourselves? 

There is no place in the search for knowledge for such pronouncements, nor should anyone accommodate them in our schools.   It is an argument that seeks to demonize inquiry, and thought, and research.  It relies on “divine intervention” as the solution to life’s challenges, or on the singular wisdom of spiritual advisers as such wisdom is “revealed” to them by the same Intelligent Designer that they now seek to install in our schools.

Science does not seek to replace God.  Whether we are challenged by our own sense of wonder, or by Intelligent Design is irrelevant.  We need answers to the thousands of challenges that we confront, and we must work to find them.  That is the reality that we live in. Ayn Rand left a far more enlightened and inspiring summary of this subject for us in her observations at the launch of Apollo 11.  An Intelligent Designer would surely have observed, “Well done, and well said.”

I found myself waving to the rocket involuntarily, I heard people applauding and joined them, grasping our common motive; it was impossible to watch passively, one had to express, by some physical action, a feeling that was not triumph, but more: the feeling that that white object's unobstructed streak of motion was the only thing that mattered in the universe…One knew that this spectacle was not the product of inanimate nature, like some aurora borealis, or of chance, or of luck, that it was unmistakably human—with "human," for once, meaning grandeur—that a purpose and a long, sustained, disciplined effort had gone to achieve this series of moments, and that man was succeeding, succeeding, succeeding! For once, if only for seven minutes, the worst among those who saw it had to feel—not "How small is man by the side of the Grand Canyon!"—but "How great is man and how safe is nature when he conquers it?  [13]

Concluding.  The theory of evolution like all other scientific theories does not purport to answer every question about the development of life on Earth.  It is a “work in progress.”  It could eventually be proved wrong in many areas.  Science is no more wedded to it as an absolute “truth” than it is to any other body of knowledge.  But as Thomas Kuhn in the Structure of Scientific Revolutions pointed out, we are reluctant—and properly so—to replace one paradigm or model of reality with another until the new model has gained sufficient support in the scientific community via tests, experimentation, and verification. [8]

 Intelligent Design has no history of observable tests, experimentation, or verification, nor can anyone even conceptualize how these elements of scientific inquiry might be applied to it.  It therefore belongs to another domain of thought.  A church full of persons with hundreds of academic degrees lends no credence or authority whatsoever to the contrary argument.  As Carl Sagan once reminded us, “in science there are no authorities.”  [11]

Perhaps the best summation to this essay is to be found in the words of one of the world’s most renowned scientists who fell victim to the first practitioners of Intelligent Design:

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with

 sense, reason, and intellect intended us to forego their use.

--Galileo Galilei

REFERENCES 

1.     Ayers, Alfred J.  Language, Truth and Logic.  New York:  Dover Publications, 1952.

2.     Behe, Steve.  Discovery Institute:  Genesis of “Intelligent Design.”  Americans United for

      Separation of Church and State.  May 2002.

3.     Churchill College, Churchill Archives Center, http://www.chu.cam.ac.uk/archives/gallery/russia/CHAR_09_138_46.php

4.     Discovery Institute News, Center for Science and Culture, Seattle, Washington. http://www.geocities.com/lclane2/cap.html

5.     Flank, Lenny.  Creation Science Debunked.  The Discovery Institute’s Hidden Religious

      Agenda.  http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/

6.     Hume, David.  Dialogues and Natural History of Religion.  Oxford University Press, 1993.

7.     Hunter, Cornelius G.  Darwin’s God:  Evolution and the Problem of Evil.  Brazos Press, April, 2001. 

8.     Kuhn, Thomas S.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.  University of Chicago Press, 1962. 

9.     Moore, Duncan.  What About Evolution?  www.EveryStudent.com

10.   OYEZ, U.S. Supreme Court Multimedia, Docket # 85-1513.  Argued Dec. 10, 1986.  Decided June 19, 1987.

11.  Parsons, Keith M.  God and the Burden of Proof.  Prometheus Books, 1990.

12.  Rahn, Richard.  “Who’s Afraid of Scientific Methods?”  The Washington Times, August 21, 2005.

13.  Rand, Ayn.  “Apollo 11 - The July 16, 1969 Launch:  A Symbol of Man’s Greatness.”    The Objectivist, September, 1969.

14.  Sagan, Carl.  The Demon Haunted World:  Science as a Candle in the Dark.  First Ballantine Books, March, 1997.

15.  Wiker, Benjamin.  “The Evolution of the Evolution Debate.”  National Catholic Register, August 20, 2005.