STORY - "Bad Science Meets Bad Theology: A Comment on Intelligent Design"

Some school communities, particularly in the United States but increasingly in other parts of the world, are experiencing a revival in the old debate between Creationism and Evolution. Creationism is the belief that the universe was created as described in the Book of Genesis. Creationism’s new face is ‘Intelligent Design’. It argues that life is so complex that there must have been a designer at work; it denies the apparent randomness of evolutionary theory. While it does not specify who this designer may be, it clearly sets the stage for the God of the Genesis story. Both theories are offered as alternatives to Darwin’s evolution. Is this science, theology, or a poor blend of both?

Key to the modern understanding of science is that a theory must be supported by evidence and be capable of making testable predictions. Darwin’s evolution by natural selection meets these two criteria, Creationism and Intelligent Design do not. They are religious beliefs. Neither version of the theory is capable of making testable predictions. Creation scientists carefully gather evidence in support of their belief and ignore evidence that points to the contrary. By starting from a pre-conceived conclusion and selectively using evidence to back it up, Creation Science fails to meet the basic conditions of scientific method. In its appeal to the supernatural to explain nature, it blends science and religion in a manner that is unhelpful to both.

Creationism is a religious belief, not a scientific theory. Darwinian Evolution is a scientific theory, not a religious belief. Each must be assessed against the internal criteria of its own disciplines. Creationism fails the test of a scientific theory; how does it fare as a theology?

Biblical scholarship is universal in its agreement that the creation story in the Book of Genesis is just that, a story. Admitting this is not to diminish its importance. It is a story in which its ancient authors embedded theological truth. The Genesis story is a poetic rendering of a faith in God's creative initiative and power. It presents God as the author of life and it emphasises the special relationship the creator has with humankind. The authors were a pre-scientific people without interest in the factual science of the story; they would have had little appreciation of contemporary humanity‘s preoccupation with data and verifiable facts. Their purpose was a theological one.

If we read scripture literally, as creationism encourages us to do, how do we deal with those Biblical texts that permit slavery or which command the death penalty for eating shellfish? Examples of this type abound in the Bible. How should we deal with the internal contradictions within Genesis itself? Creationists often ignore the fact that the book of Genesis is home to two creation accounts, each suggesting a different timeline. If we are to read these accounts as science, how can both be true? Theology allows us to hold both texts as true, as each story captures something unique about the mind and intention of God. Literalist readings of ancient writings simply do not work.

Catholic teaching has long been at home with Darwin’s theory of evolution. Over fifty years ago, Pope Pius XII stated that the Theory of Evolution did not conflict with Catholic teachings. In 1996, Pope John Paul II called the Theory of Evolution "more than a hypothesis" while declaring that science and Catholicism could not clash because "truth cannot contradict truth". John Paul II believed that there should be a harmonious relationship between faith and science. Each has its own very special role to play. He never spoke of some sort of blending of the two. Such a blending would only serve to weaken both theology and science. A more mature Christianity allows science to explain the mechanics of existence, while religion is left to explore its ultimate origin and purpose.

Is this debate important? If the Christian story is to remain a force for good it must authentically read ‘the signs of the times’. This is the starting premise of the Council Fathers at Vatican II. Implied in this is the need to make use of all that modern scholarship has to offer. Authentic faith must be intelligent, comprehensible and coherent to a modern world. In recent weeks we have once again seen the world threatened by Islamic extremism. How can the West critique the medievalism of other faiths when we fail to exorcise our own pre-modern thinking at the same time?

Robert Emery & Michael Elphick

Robert is a physics teacher and Principal of St Pius X High School in Adamstown. Michael is a consultant in education and a freelance writer.

Back to Aurora Homepage