In the 17th Century early 'scientific' analysis was undertaken of the Biblical account of Noah's Ark to determine exactly how large it must have been. From this figure they calculated a precise number of animal species that could exist on the planet's surface and even made
detailed diagrams of the most efficient way to store the animals, two by two, inside the Ark...
Of course the worlds composing science and religion still cause contrast and confusion, but surely, you shout, such ridiculous comparisons as this cannot be uncovered today? You don't have to go back 400 years to find science and religion formulating new punchlines:
"A recent Radio Four programme had a distinguished retired geneticist, who is also a devout Christian, pondering the virgin birth. Jesus, it turned out, is something of a biological conundrum. As a male, he must have carried a Y-chromosome, which can be transmitted only by the father's sperm, yet apparently he had no corporeal father. Where, then, did his Y-chromosome come from? The geneticist suggested that one of Mary's two X-chromosomes might have carried a piece of the Y. Asked whether this would make Mary abnormal, the geneticist changed the subject. He did so for good reason: this condition, sometimes seen in humans, would make Mary a sterile male and the virgin birth thus triply miraculous." - link
With recent debate on the clash between Intelligent Design and Darwinism such comparisons are more relevant than ever. I personally have no belief in any kind of God. For me concepts of a divine purpose to humanity, to the universe, fly in the face of the more obvious, observable and testable hypotheses which scientific scrutiny and philosophic investigation are constantly reforming. The more conservative
religious views of reality, often based on ideas formulated thousands of years ago, stand resolute in the face of any modern observations which seem to contradict them
(although these days many religious followers do reassess their faith to fit with the times). A position many would claim so opposed to scientific rigure as to make the two absolute polar opposites.
Theory and experiment
vs faith and divine purpose. Is it possible for these two diametric systems to harmonise, or even benefit from one another?
"Attempts to reconcile science and religion are usually doomed to failure......because nearly all religions make claims about the real world - the domain of science - that don't stand up to scientific scrutiny. Faced with these difficulties, advocates resort to circumlocution, sophistry or absurd speculations that offend both scientists and believers." - link
Intelligent Design (ID), with all its allusions to science, is dangerous precisely because it does not admit its allegiance to religious reality, as outlined in this definition of
Theory from Wikipedia:
"In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from observable facts or supported by them. Scientific theories are formulated, developed, and evaluated according to the scientific method. - link"
ID is thus not a true theory because its hypotheses are not testable. By sifting through any theory one aims to uncover predictions which do not corroborate with the evidence, and it is here, in science, that theories are re-drafted, that more evidence is collected and that better predictions are formed. In blowing up the theory of Evolution to great size and speculation Intelligent Design is purely showing how a real theory should be formulated, and in doing so, exposing itself to be nothing of the sort.
ID is using
Noah's Ark argument to assess modern realities.
If Intelligent Design wishes to throw itself under the scientific microscope I urge the Christian community to abdicate themselves from any relationship to this nonsense-science. If they insist that religious inclination can be examined scientifically they better be ready for some blinding alterations to their faith:
".... If one applies the same empirical standards to Christianity as scientists do to Darwinism, religion suffers: we have far more evidence for the existence of dinosaurs than for the divinity of Christ." - link
It is not only science and religion as empirically distinct philosophies that are at odds here, more realistically religious and scientific viewpoints are better understood as coming from different realities entirely. Thus:
"Phenomenological reality
On a much broader and more subjective level, the private experiences, curiosity, inquiry, and selectivity involved in the personal interpretation of an event, shapes reality as seen by one and only one individual and hence is called phenomenological. This form of reality might be common to others as well, but at times could also be so unique to oneself as to be never experienced or agreed upon by any one else. Much of the spiritual experience of an individual occurs on this level of reality...." - link
It is this phenomenological reality, therefore, which encompasses the religious universe, and it is here that ID should reside. Only when ID has testable predictions and a 'logically self-consistent model' can it brand itself a theory or as any part of scientific reality.
For a more rounded view of some of these issues please click any of the category links below to explore my past posts...
Categories: Religion, Intelligent Design, History, Science, Politics, Human, Philosophy, Evolution, Creationism, Reality
Links
Feed
The debate on Intelligent Design vs Evolution has been flooding through the blogsphere like some cleverly conceived primeval super-goo this week. Screw what I have to say on the issue, what about the rest of the world?
Space might be the final frontier, but these days one is more likely to hear about new advances in food technology over men, moons and the NASA spaceships that get them there.
This being my 200th post to 
Suppose for example that two autopilot systems have been designed for domestic air travel. One system is fully autonomous in that it flies 100% of the time, all the way to its destination without any intervention from a human pilot. The other system is only semi autonomous and although it succeeds in tackling most aspects of its journeys through the skies in 80% of cases a human is often needed to correct its mistakes. Which of these systems would you say was the most intelligently designed?
Subscribe via RSS!
Via Email
