The Eastern Republic

Issue date: 11/8/09 Section: Opinion

Today, it is the Church of Science that prosecutes those that dare challenge the status quo by forming out-of-the-box hypotheses.

There are varying figures regarding belief in God or a higher power among scientists, although a recent survey by the Pew Research Center showed that only 1 in 3 scientists

in the United States believe in God. So even though there are scientists in the United States that believe in God, many would rather just assume His nonexistence and leave it at that or, worse, claim that they're certain of his nonexistence, a bold claim that can only be matched by the champions of the world's major religions.

Proponents of Intelligent Design aren't content to assume anything (well, this Intelligent Design proponent isn't, anyway). They have a preconceived notion, yes-that some Higher Power created, designed, the universe-and they want to prove it.

Of course, proving the existence of God is a monumentally Herculean task, and I doubt that proving His existence or nonexistence is even possible. But it is worthy of science, of religion, of humankind, for them to provide arguments and evidence for their hypothesis.

And even though I've mentioned God several times in this article, Intelligent Design isn't necessarily theistic. It merely speculates that life on earth was designed; it doesn't argue that any particular God was the designer. So even though critics love to call Intelligent Design "Creationism in disguise," it's anything but.

It is good for science, religion and humankind for scientists to poke holes in the arguments of Intelligent Design proponents, to challenge every assertion they make and to come up with alternative hypotheses. That forces them to find new arguments, new assumptions, new approaches to their work.

But that's not what happens. Instead of accepting Intelligent Design as a hypothesis to a question that hasn't adequately been answered yet, it is merely trivialized by the scientific community and treated with disdain.

While science has provided many answers about the nature of the universe and our place in it, we must never forget that in the grand scheme of things, human beings and our understanding of the universe are grossly incomplete. It's ambitious to take the notion of a creator out of the realm of religion and philosophy and into the realm of science.

But scientists have always been ambitious. Instead of ridiculing those that study Intelligent Design as Creationists in lab coats, scientists should engage them in critical debate. Such discourse just might lead to the scientific breakthrough that answers the ultimate scientific query: why are we here?

< prev Page 2 of 2

Article Tools