By GOH MUI PONG
RECENTLY there has been a surge
in the interest of the issue of "Intelligent Design"
(ID) particularly in the United States but also elsewhere in Europe.
What exactly is this idea of "Intelligent
Design"? Here is a short history of the movement and two
questions the ID movement raises for us.
The birth of the ID movement is
often credited to Philip Johnson, a lawyer at the University of
California, Berkeley. In the 1980s, he realised that because of
the way science was defined, there was no possibility of finding
any evidence for or against Darwinian evolution. This is because
scientists were only allowed to employ natural clauses in scientific
explanations. Such a definition or "methodological naturalism"
automatically precludes any discussion of the possibility of design
in creation or metaphysics itself.
It is this particular philosophical
assumption of origins - naturalism - that Johnson was critical
of. Naturalism might be true, but it might also be false. His
argument was simply that one should follow the evidence wherever
it led and allow for the possibility of design (instead of simply
accepting that life came about through a random or chance process
as taught by the theory of Darwinian evolution).
Since then, a number of scientists,
for example, William Dembski, Michael Behe and Stephen Myer, have
published various books and articles providing scientific support
for ID. (It is important to note that the ID movement does not
merely consist of Christians but a group of scientists and philosophers
who are against Darwinism and are willing to "readmit intelligence
as a bona fide explanation for certain natural phenomena".)
While they created some controversy
in the scientific community, wider public attention was only roused
when a law suit was filed against a school board in the United
States. The school board had pushed for this ID theory to be taught
alongside with the theory of evolution and was thus sued for violating
the church-state separation by introducing a religiously-motivated
curriculum in school.
It is not possible to evaluate
the ID movement adequately here. Instead, I wish to reflect briefly
on two questions raised by the current publicity over the ID movement.
1) Can science explain everything i.e. origins?
One of the key controversies over ID revolves around the issue
of origins. Critics of the ID movement claim that naturalistic
explanation, particularly Darwinian evolution, can explain how
the universe came about.
If we were to be honest and look at the fundamental question,
as a recent BBC World Service broadcast suggested, it is whether
science is the only true source of knowledge (or that it is objective)
while other sources e.g. religion are about feelings and values
(subjective). That is, they would argue that scientific claims
are true and verifiable whereas religious claims cannot be verified
and are therefore simply accepted by "faith".
We must not be taken in by such an argument. The statement "science
explains everything" is in itself not a scientific statement.
It is a philosophical claim. It cannot be verified or falsified.
2) What are the assumptions of science?
In order for the scientific enterprise to function, there are
certain assumptions of science. One of the key assumptions of
science is the "uniformity of nature". That is to say,
scientists assume that there are certain regular patterns in nature
that are discoverable. Scientists assume that these patterns could
be explained by theories or "laws" which do not change
in time and space.
However, this assumption cannot be explained by science. Science
merely assumes that true claims about nature can be discovered
and that the law of gravitation will apply yesterday, today and
tomorrow; on Earth, Venus or another planet in another solar system.
(Scientists, of course, have to specify the conditions in which
these laws apply).
Another assumption (or strictly speaking, two assumptions) is
that there is something "real" out there and we can
know something about it. In the social sciences, there are some
who would argue that we cannot know anything definitely about
anything because everything we know is dependent on our perspective.
For these social scientists (who are often called
"postmodernists"), all knowledge is social in nature
(or that "reality is socially constructed").
While many do not realise it, this is where a somewhat popular
objection to Christianity - "what is true for you is not
true for me" - comes from. It is this rise of postmodernism
that scientists themselves have also become increasingly defensive
about. It is a charge that scientists, without a metaphysical
worldview, find difficult to refute.
After all, many today have forgotten the religious roots of modern
science (which grew out of Western Europe). The early scientists,
for example, Newton, Boyle, Locke (whose legacy has been often
misunderstood) were Christians and saw their scientific work as
an act of worship to God.
The scientific enterprise itself needs to be sustained by a compatible
worldview that allows truth claims to be made. That, in part,
explains why modern science grew out of the Christian roots in
Western Europe rather than elsewhere. Without these roots, science
itself simply becomes relegated by postmodernism into just another
"opinion".
It is for these reasons that I disagree with Christians or others
who claim that "science explains the how" but "religion
explains the why". After all, the same God who acts in the
spiritual realm also created the physical one.
What then does it mean for us to say that the two realms are part
of the same creation? We need to understand more about what science
is and what it assumes. What science does is dependent on what
it is and what it can do (and therefore what it cannot do).
Religion or metaphysical claims will have implications on what
reality is and how we can discover that reality. It is this desire
to integrate both the spiritual and the physical realities that
have led to the initial formation of the ID movement.
Goh Mui Pong, a member of Paya Lebar Chinese Methodist Church,
is pursuing his PhD in Politics at the University of Cambridge.