Scopes Monkey Trial Returns

In the summer of 1925, a seething volcano finally erupted in the prosecution of general science teacher John Scopes for teaching evolution in Dayton, Tennessee. The teaching of evolution had recently been banned in 15 states, and opponents of evolution brought Mr. Scopes to task. Ever since Darwin published his theories in his book Origin of the Species, there has been fierce debate over its validity (although Darwin did not see a conflict between religion and his theory). At the crux of the issue is whether or not the version of creation propounded by some people of the Christian faith and purportedly propounded by the Bible (or at least some kind of intelligent designer directing the processes of life creation) is literally correct, or whether evolution is a more complete and accurate version of how human beings came into existence. Opinions on evolution have even been voiced in music. Merle Travis recorded That’s All in 1947, where he states, “If you believe that monkey tale, like some folks do, I’d rather be that monkey than you.” The latest chapter in this struggle is the attempt to integrate the intelligent design (ID) theory into school curriculums.

It is best in this case, to allow the supporters of intelligent design to speak for themselves in defining ID. For this purpose, a quote from the Intelligent Design Network, is provided below:

“The theory of intelligent design(ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.”
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

It certainly does not sound too bad, but does ID answer any questions? Certainly, if something is not explainable it’s easy enough to attribute its existence to an undefined and etherial ‘creator’. However, if the theory cannot define and quantify this intelligent designer in scientific terms, it cannot rightly be considered science. To be certain, it is unlikely that the possibility of some sort of demiurge or directing consciousness for the universe can ever be completely disproved by science to everyone’s satisfaction, it is equally unlikely that science benefits by invoking such an unknowable quantity to explain how life came into being.

Even more, the presentation of intelligent design as a scientific theory could well be more damaging to its religious proponents than it is helpful. Religion and science need not be juxtaposed, but the intelligent design theory claims a reliance on objective evidence that could never prove a being that is, by definition, indefinable. As much design as could be shown can easily be attributed to happy accidents among hundreds of thousands of failed evolutionary dead ends. The argument from that aspect is not good for a perfect designer when there has been as much failure as success in the designs. Case in point-the dinosaurs, an entire family of large creatures wiped from the face of the Earth. What sort of competent creator would create creatures destined to fail? At least one with a trial-and-error outlook on the creation of life. It could be supposed this would be entirely an unsatisfactory for those who propose man was created by an infallible and omniscient being. This argues better for a Deistic entity that creates the universe then leaves it to run itself (perhaps even hoping for the best).

Another difficulty encountered in the intelligent design as a support for a religious ideal is the fact that religion has been historically wrong when it comes to defining the world objectively. The Earth is not flat, and the sun does not rotate around it. There are no gods on the peak of Mount Olympus, nor is there evidence that there ever was a significant settlement of gods there. The world is held up by neither Atlas nor a tall stack of gargantuan turtles. Granted, science itself has been known to seek out avenues that ended in ludicrous and erronious results, but science has a way of abandoning mistaken paths with less rigidity than religion does. Many of the stories in religion are intended purely as parables, and have a different kind of value than can be found in objective science. When the attempt is made to apply objectivity to these lessons, it dampens and weakens them even to the point of making them entirely useless.

Science, too, has been ineffectual in disproving the possibility of a creator when interested in delving into that path of inquiry despite eliminating some of the dogmas verifiable by objective evidence. As Einstein wrote, “For science can only ascertain what is, and outside of its domain value judgements of all kinds are necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts.” While it is likely that there are sincere proponents and scientists in favor of the ID theory, it remains difficult to see what exactly ID could teach us about what is. It’s entirely possible to believe that an intelligence used an evolutionary process to create mankind, but that might seem depricating to some who want to feel a special and direct connection with a diety. The friction between science and religion is age-old, although not always as obvious is why they must necessarily clash. Perhaps a much-revered man may have some input into this debate when he says, “The truth shall set you free.” Perhaps Jesus meant by this the truth arrived at objectively as well as subjectively when he said this.