I am a scientist and I am not 100% certain of the complete validity of the theory of evolution.
There. I said it. But before you Independent Designers go breaking out the
stickers let me be clear that
everything we teach in science class is a theory. Frankly, there is no perfect evidence for anything considered a scientific "fact". Do we really know that atoms exist? No, but it best explains the body of observations we have so far made. And this crazy thing called
gravity? No supernatural figure told us this force exists. It's just our best working model.
Like many other institutions of human understanding, it is based on investigation, hypothesis, and verification. This process that is human and thus imperfect. It is like the study of history and economics. Do we really know how the ancient Egyptians lived? Or are we simply making educated guesses? Perhaps the real reason Egyptians wrote on papyrus is because ghosts told them to. And supply and demand? This theory is absolutely riddled with real-world contradictions! Because there are doubts will we teach that the "invisible hand" might in fact really be the invisible hand of
satan or will we teach the most logical and generally accepted theories? Should we force all high schools to "teach the controversy?"
I guess what I'm saying is that evolution can and should be taught in public schools not because it is undeniable fact, but because it isn't. Because by ID'ers standards, nothing is an undeniable truth except the Grace of God. And if the only certainties are their religious beliefs then, aside from the fact that it is
bad science when a theoretical premise is based not on evidence so much as a lack of evidence, it does not even qualify as science if it is not possible to materially observe or test.
I believe that scientists are, in their hearts, open to other theories about how the forms of living things have come to be (when they aren't being polarized by attacks by Creationists). This willingness to consider all ideas based in intellectual merit is the purest nature of science, and this is a beautiful thing. The proponents of Intelligent Design on the other hand
know with all their hearts that an Intelligent Designer is responsible for the form of all things. Due to the supernatural basis of the theory, they can and will continue to believe so no matter what the evidence is. While this spiritual certainty is a beautiful thing in a different way, it's also why Independant Design is not science.
So perhaps what ID'ers (can I start calling them Christians yet? or are we still maintaining this pretext?) are really offended by is the fact that any of these things are called "facts" at all, which is understandable. After all, no one likes having their worldview declared impossible. And if what they really wanted was for science teachers to tell their class that everything in science (gravity, atoms, and all) is a theory - that science is a human-generated body of knowledge and a process that wants to change and improve itself over time, and will never ever be over - then I can wholeheartedly agree. And economics and history teachers should do the same. But singling out evolution represents an obvious religious prejudice and is plainly unconstitutional.
It feels like the ID vs. evolution contest is founded mainly in ego and emotion. Really, even the idea of "God vs. Science" is so misguided (I
hope this is only perpetuated by the most literal interpreters of the Bible). Scientists, Artists, the Religious... we are all trying to do the same thing. Namely, find a new language with which to understand the world. The thing is, each of these languages is good at helping us understand certain things and bad at others. Science lets us know important things like how to grow more food, why earthquakes occur, and how to cure disease. However, it can't address other really important things like Morality or Human Purpose and no one can force it to.
Fellow Scientists,
Though ID supporters' attempts to make an end-run around around the scientific community and get their ideas instituted by political means may have made us testy, we can't let it get to us. Most of us are curious about the holes in evolutionary theory and if we let them polarize us into declaring evolution is a CERTAIN TRUTH then they have succeeded in making us into the stubborn dogmatists we claim
they are. So let's do our best to remember that science is by its nature incapable of either proving or disproving the existence of God or anything in the bible and that to claim otherwise is an abuse of science. Also remember that it is okay to acknowledge that things have happened that are outside of our physical understanding. Please respectfully convey this to ID'ers and be clear that forcing science to address God would make a mockery of the true meaning both institutions. In the end, we must have faith that even conservative Christians can be open-minded and that by being patient and nonjudgmental and honest about the purposes and limitations of the scientific method, we can make them feel welcomed into the brotherhood (and sisterhood) of Science.
Better thinkers than I:
Jacob Weisberg's Slate article on the incompatibility of science and religion and
Carl Zimmer's rebuttal.AmbivaBlog seems to have a great collection of well-reasoned writings on many topics from all sides of the religious/nonreligious spectrum. Scroll down the right-side menu for Intelligent Design Debate.
[That was a load that's been churning around my mind for a while now. Thanks for having the patience to read my conversation with myself, bad grammar and all. Special thanks to my friends for discussing this with me. Yes sirree. Please feel free to comment and/or tell me I'm full of crap.]
