October 1, 2006 Intelligent Design

O God you are behind us and before us. Lay your hands upon me as I utter these words. And may we all feel your presence in our souls. Amen

“Intelligent Design” -- until the last few years this was an expression one would have expected to hear spoken at the Neue Gallerie in Manhattan when looking at the utilitarian, yet exquisite, machines and furniture designed by the architects of the Bauhaus school or at the Smithsonian’s Museum of Science and Industry in Washington when looking at a particularly efficient and life changing invention -- such as the typewriter or the telephone. But recently the phrase has come to represent shorthand for a theory that purports to explain scientifically the complexity and diversity of the creative world without the need for the processes of evolution. Daniel Hartl, Higgins Professor of Biology at Harvard, describes Intelligent Design as “[the assertion] that the complexity of features such as the vertebrate eye … must have arisen instantaneously as a result of purposeful and intelligent design.” [1] The proponents of this theory are suggesting that complex organisms are too complex to have evolved and must be the creation of an unnamed intelligent, indeed a profoundly intelligent, designer. The designer is often not named because proponents want to argue that this is a scientific explanation that should be taught along side evolution. Such teaching was, of course, the issue in the Dover, Pennsylvania school board litigation several years ago. In simplistic terms intelligent design is what might be called “the little old watchmaker” theory of creation and for most of its proponents that watchmaker is God.

It is a more sophisticated continuation of the creationist argument of the early 20^th century made famous for many of us by the Scopes (or Monkey) trial that pitted William Jennings Bryant against Clarence Darrow. Intelligent Design, unlike earlier creationist arguments, does not seek to read the bible and the creation stories literally. Instead, it relies heavily on a particular understanding of God as the craftsperson of every complex aspect of creation. And like creationism it simply rejects the validity of evolution.

The real issue -- lurking behind the Intelligent Design versus evolution debate -- is the fundamental question of how, if at all, science, especially cosmology, geology and evolutionary biology, and religion relate. Does evolution suggest or even compel a view that religion is a myth and one that has been rendered outmoded? Or are religion and science compatible and, if so, how? Is Intelligent Design -- a scientific explanation in name only -- really a cogent way of harmonizing science and religion on the issue of creation? Are there others?

Make no mistake; these are heartfelt issues unfortunately illuminated more often by passion –than by the light of reason. Indeed, Galileo was excommunicated for his view that the earth was not at the center of the solar system because it was seen as undercutting the centrality of humankind and earth in God’s creation.

Evolutionary biology, which with increasing power and clarity has explained more and more of life in terms of evolutionary processes, especially natural selection, is now seen by some as the most immediate challenge to religion and its view of a creator God. If one thinks about the relationship of religion and science with respect to evolutionary biology there are three current choices: first, intelligent design which says evolution is wrong -- that complex organisms demonstrate (and they say this as a scientific axiom) the direct hand of an intelligent designer; second, humanist biology which says religion is myth -- that the existence of various life forms and their behavior can be explained by evolution fully without the need for religious mythology; and third, a middle position that suggests that religious belief about creation and hard science, such as evolutionary biology, can exist together.

As I said last week, I think, Intelligent Design is bad science and bad religion. Perhaps more accurately it is not science at all and not very thoughtful theology. I am not a scientist and so you should take my thoughts about the correctness of evolutionary theory with not much more than a grain of salt. But I confess I am impressed with the studies I read that document -- with compelling evidence -- scientific theories about the evolution of man and other forms of life over the course of history. Moreover, developments in molecular biology seem to confirm an evolutionary process. Cows do not just have molecules -- DNA proteins -- unique to them, nor do other species including humans. Rather on a molecular level we seem to share much with other living species and they with us.

My own experiences also point toward the reality of evolution. A few summers ago I had the good fortune to visit the Galapagos Islands. As you know these are the islands -- located more than a thousand miles out in the Pacific Ocean -- which served as the spark for Darwin to begin to formulate his views on evolution. While those ideas and theories were to be spelled out decades later in his famous book, The Origins of Species, they had their genesis in Darwin’s observations on the Galapagos. Most of us were introduced in school to his views on adaptation and natural selection. In essence Darwin suggested that life forms evolved in response to the conditions around them, with those best able to adapt surviving and those not either moving to more hospitable surroundings or becoming extinct. The Galapagos Islands continue to be a laboratory for biologists to explore evolution and developmental biology because of their unique isolation from South American and from each other. To appreciate their unique animal biology I recommend a Pulitzer Prize winning book, some of you may have already read, called The Beak of the Finch.[2] It documents the modern research by biologists Peter and Rosemary Grant into the evolutionary changes in the beak size of certain birds --the finches -- on the various Galapagos’ islands over several decades. It strongly argues, based on mountains of data, that evolutionary change -- adaptation to one’s surroundings -- is neither rare nor slow, but an eminently logical, precise and fast-occurring adjustment and harmonization by living things to changes in weather and availability of food sources, among other changing circumstances.

The stories and the reports are all borne out when you are there in person. From island to island the sizes of the beaks are distinctive and reflect a pattern of adaptation to the unique conditions on each island. Likewise, the famous tortoises from which the island group derives its name also graphically reflect adaptation. Giant tortoises -- the size of garbage can tops and larger -- inhabit most islands; all are descended from a common ancestor, so their DNA suggests. Yet each island’s tortoises have different and distinctive shaped shells. Again this reflects adaptation to the unique conditions faced by the tortoises on each island. You cannot read The Beak of the Finch or see the actual animals for yourself and really question evolutionary change. So it is that I personally accept evolution and do not believe Intelligent Design is really science; certainly it has not been proven through repeatable experiment. Indeed, it is hard to conclude how it might be -- for I think Edward Wilson, Pellegrino Research Professor at Harvard is right, when he suggests Intelligent Design is really a hypothesized answer when all of the other answers make one uncomfortable.[3]

A major basis for Intelligent Design is not, I believe, the observation that there are exquisitely complex organisms, which doubtless there are, but a fear that evolution leaves no place for God. Proponents of this theory really fear scientific humanism may be right. Such fear, however, gives too little credit to and does not fully understand modern theology. Religious belief does not have to teeter on the edge -- worried that the next scientific discovery will cut the legs out from under faith. We should welcome such scientific discoveries as the product of a created world that flows from a divine source.

So what of our bible text and its creation stories? “In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.” (Genesis 1:1-2) And we know the rest of this Genesis account that in 7 days everything, including all animals and plants, were created and were good. But then we also have Genesis 2: 5 which reports, “In the day Lord/God made the earth and the heavens … .” Let there be no mistake, we have two different creation stories here -- written 500 years apart by two different authors, one called “E” because he uses the word Eloihim for God and one called “J” because he uses the word Yahweh for God. And each in different ways contains vestiges of much earlier Babylonian creation myths.

These stories in Genesis are not literally true; not only are they not the same or consistent but the creation chronologies and processes described simply cannot stand any reasoned examination. But the fact that these stories are not literally true does not mean that they do not convey truth. We have all found wisdom and truth in great stories that were fiction. Think for example of Shakespeare’s plays or of your favorite novel. The challenge is to find God’s truth in these creation stories. Creationists understood the truth literally – divinely established meant creation in seven days in a specific order and way. The challenge is once you eschew a literal reading of Genesis -- what is the wisdom and truth being conveyed? And in seeking that wisdom and truth we must utilize what we know about our world not ignore it as those who favor Intelligent Design do.

So what does the bible suggest about creation mindful of the reality of evolution? What Genesis is telling us is that existence is not the product of chaos and randomness. Science, I believe, fundamentally seeks to answer the “how”, not the “why” questions that confront us in our world. How does the sound of a whistle change when the train moves away? How did one of my daughters end up with red hair when none of her parents and grandparents had red hair? Now some of you will say but those are really “why” questions and you are right in sense – for I believe “how” questions can be stated as “why” questions. So why is it that my daughter has red hair? Yet not every why question is a how question? For me -- the ultimate why questions are those with which religion, not science, grapples. You can explain the "big bang" to me and so explain how it all started but that does explain why there is existence – why there is being -- why it started at all. The big bang may elegantly explain the how -- the process and in a certain sense the why but not the fundamental why of creation. The answer could be randomness or chaos but even that gives rise to why – why no order. Indeed, to say that existence is the product of chaos and randomness is in a way to say there is no answer to the ultimate question. What our passages from Genesis and the words from Psalm 24, “the earth is the Lord’s and all that is in it,” \ suggest is that the ultimate question has an answer and that answer is God. Paul Tillich’s definition of God “as the ground of all being,” captures this sense of a creator God. And, of course, the fundamental answer to the why question is that God created out of love -- that’s the essence of Genesis. And that love should assure us not to be afraid of the “hows” of science.

So if we accept that there is a creator God what does that mean? As I have said before, Intelligent Design has no basis in science and is not particularly suggested by Genesis as an explanation for the created world. Our view of God’s role in creation cannot ignore -- as Intelligent Design does -- what science tells us. Intelligent Design posits a God who is simply like the ultimate watchmaker. It uses the most anthropomorphic and yet scientifically questionable of explanations for creation.

So how might we think of evolution and God’s role in creation? Robert Edgar at his lecture last week rejected Intelligent Design but suggested an Intelligent Designer -- a God who is the loving initiator of existence -- an existence that has embedded in it the principle of natural selection just as it does a value for pi and perhaps string theory. In other words, a God who throughout history has supported and upheld all natural processes and yet perhaps out of love has intervened into history at least through Jesus. Certainly an all-powerful God need not create every living thing. To be all-powerful does not mean that all power is used all the time. To believe in God does not require that God control or create all forms of life. Why would God in a sense opt for evolution rather that designing and crafting all the pieces as Intelligent Design would wish? A loving God – that is the God who loves creation – could believe that creativity and diversity are fundamental to creation. That to be created in God’s image means that we too have creativity as God does and the ability to exercise freedom of choice – that is to do or not do things. Why because the goods we choose are in some fundamental sense better than goods we are forced or compelled to do. Intelligent Design interestingly leaves too little space for creativity and freedom it seems to me. Thus, I do believe that God is behind and throughout creation – but a creation that includes evolution within it.

Several years ago I had a second and very different island experience, which again raised the question: “Is the earth the Lord’s and all that is in it”? I spent seven days on Iona, a tiny island off the West Coast of Scotland. You may recognize it as the island that St. Columba sailed to in the sixth century and established a religious community that preserved Christianity during the so-called dark ages. For me it was a remarkably enriching experience.

There is a palpable sense of creation and of God’s hand in it when you are on Iona. Being there one’s heart dances, one’s mind soars and one’s soul sings and this coming from one who is not particularly spiritual. As I wrote in a journal I kept: “the underlying sense of Iona is of nature and solitude. It is a place defined by visual distances -- horizons that stretch for miles across sea and moor. One is constantly reminded of his or her finite place in a larger world. The physical elements are also more present. The weather intrudes more. The sea is everywhere and peeks through every window. It is at once austere, foreboding and beautiful.” One can neither escape the why question, nor the divine answer. The lessons of evolution and cosmology are not lessened but are rightly put in perspective. A well-known Scottish poet, Kenneth Steven, has collected poems he has written in a book called Iona; one of them captures this awareness. It is called “Prayer”:

To paraphrase Steven: If you don’t believe in divine creation -- walk down to the Hudson River, to a local park --Whippoorwill or Gedney, or down the block, listen to the birds, kids playing, or friends talking, feel the cool autumn breeze blowing, the chill of winter night or the warmth of summer sun and "oh" so many other treasures occurring under our noses. Come back and tell me then if you can that the psalmist is wrong when he says of the Lord “how manifold are your works.” The problem for those who champion Intelligent Design is that they want to jettison one of those manifold works -- evolution. They can’t and more importantly don’t need to—for there is a place for God even in an evolving creation. Amen

[1] Daniel L. Hartl, review of The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin’s Dilemma, Harvard Magazine, vol. 108 No.2 (Nov.-Dec. 2005) 22, 24

[2] Jonathan Weiner, The Beak of the Finch (New York: Random House,1994

[3] Edward O. Wilson,, “Intelligent Evolution,” Harvard Magazine, vol. 108 No. 2, Nov-Dec. 2005, 29-33

[4] Kenneth C. Steven, Iona (Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 2000) p.27