A different kind of twister in Kansas...

In December 2005 the Kansas Board of Education revised its science standards for the state’s public schools. The changes were actually quite subtle, inducing teachers who offer instruction regarding the origin of species to stress to students that the ideas are "controversial", "challenged by evidence", and to present various criticisms of the ideas to students for their own consideration. Last week, with 2006 state board elections looming, a group lead by the Intelligent Design Network toured Kansas to counter what they deemed "misinformation" about the Board’s decision, defending it as one that makes the teaching of biological evolution "more objective".

As anyone who frequents this site knows, I stand fully behind the idea that Grandpappy had a hand in creating our wondrous universe. This is, however, a matter of faith, not science, and it can never be otherwise.

I have to confess that I can’t even understand the impulse of those who believe in a creator God to "prove" it or have it otherwise acknowledged by the scientific community. I do happen to think that studying science is a great way to commune with the Divine, but science is ever a means and not an end. Science is and cannot be anything but an indicator, a pointer, to something grand and holy. As such, science can be used to suggest the universe is empty and hopeless every bit as much as it might be used to suggest the universe is overflowing with purpose. If it could be proven one way or the other then there’d be no such thing as faith. God would become a thing that can be isolated or measured like the other objects of science can. Who would really admire such a God as that?

In order to preserve faith (and because it’s just good engineering) it makes sense to me that God would create a universe that is self-explanatory, not requiring an appeal to the Divine in order to be understood in any of it’s particulars. So, therefore, it also makes sense for science to ignore the Creator as it goes about its business and, in principle, deem the Divine realm as wholly outside the purview of scientific investigation. Thus, "Intelligent Design" cannot logically be called "science" and current evolutionary theory has earned its exclusive place in today’s science classrooms.

Some suggest that the ideas of the origin of species are religious themselves since they aren’t proven and, therefore, must be based on faith. This, of course, is a fallacious understanding of what "proof" and "faith" are. There are so-called "objective" things that can be proven beyond reasonable doubt and subjective things that can only be accepted by faith. However, there are also things that cannot be proven outright but that are supported by evidence that can be proved. These are the things that occupy our intersubjective reality. Many things fall into this realm, but in particular those natural phenomena that are impossible to observe directly. For example, the entire field of subatomic physics relies upon observing the evidence of particles and not so much the particles themselves.

None of us can go back and see what our universe looked like when it began or what our planet looked like when life first showed up here. That doesn’t put the question beyond scientific inquiry, however. We can search for evidence that will give us clues as to what our planet was like "in the beginning". The picture that emerges will not be perfect. It will require constant challenge and revision. But these facts only add credence to the efficacy of the scientific process.

Faith, however, is an issue of conviction, not evidence. This isn’t to say it’s never challenged or revised, but that’s a matter of personal examination, not public scrutiny. In a free society this is how it should be.

Would those who wish to "prove God" have things differently?

I shudder to think.