As the volume of the “debate” around Intelligent Design
continues to rise in both public and private spheres across the country, a
secondary, but perhaps more fundamental question has risen; what are the
attributes of science, and what does something need to do in order to qualify
as science? While this is a critical
point to consider before entertaining any serious debate between one purported
theory and another, it seems that most people overlook this subtlety in the
rush to salvage the structural integrity of this load-bearing pillar for their
religious or scientific beliefs, depending upon which side of the isle they sit
on. The question I ask is – is there
a shared isle to sit on either side of at all, or is this “debate” similar to
arguing whether the speed of light is faster than the Lord’s compassion, or
whether it’s hotter inside a volcano than in hell.
In a recent speech at Cornell University,
former president Hunter R. Rawlings offered the following definition of
science. “Science is defined as the
ability to develop new knowledge through hypothesis testing, modification of
original theory based upon repeatable, experimental results, and renewed
testing through refined experiments that yield still more refinements and
insights.” (His full speech, which can be found here, put
forward a compelling call to action to members of the Cornell University faculty and student body to enter the public debate on this subject.) When viewed within the frame of this
definition, it is hard to argue that evolutionary theory and ID can even be
compared. They are, in fact, quite
different animals all together.
Darwin’s theory of
evolution (which is actually an advancement of earlier thought by French naturalist – Jean Baptiste Lamark), has spawned tens of thousands of different experiments in the
nearly 150 years since its original publication. These experiments have led to tremendous
advancements in our understanding of biology as a whole, as well as specific
advancements in medicine, agriculture, and numerous other applied fields. ID, on the other hand, has yet to lead to
even a single experiment testing its validity in the decade since its origin.
Interestingly, another debate of similar nature has begun to
gain momentum recently. I have chosen to note it because it exists entirely
within the scientific community, and the fact that it exists at all shows that
the definition of science referenced above is not some random wild card that
scientists are using to arbitrarily fend off competitive beliefs. I’m speaking, of course, of string theory –
the so-called “theory of everything”. For over 30 years now, some of the smartest minds in the world have
struggled through endless pages of theoretical math to uncover the theory of
everything, a singular mathematical law that would bind relativity and quantum
mechanics, thereby governing the behavior of all matter, in all
circumstances. The problem is that
correct science is often beautiful in its simplicity and elegance, and string
theory is anything but simple and elegant. It requires a minimum of 10 or 11 (and perhaps as many as infinity)
dimensions in order to be comprehended (which is a funny thing to say). More importantly, throughout its 30 year
development, string theory remains completely untested. This is because it seems to be impossible to
“test” without something like a particle accelerator the size of the Milky
Way. And, unfortunately for string
theorists, with current budget deficits, a rising China to compete with, and
under-funded domestic school systems, it seems unlikely that we’ll start
construction on a particle accelerator the size of the Milky Way any time
soon. So, with the mounting evidence of
the “untestability” of string theory, some
of its original proponents are turning against it, essentially calling
it junk science – a phrase recycled from the ID debate. Unlike
relativity and quantum mechanics, which spawned nuclear science and modern
electronics respectively, string theory has brought us nothing.
claimed many things. However, two
popular camps emerged.
