The "Theory" of Gravity

Note: This entry appeared in the Columbia Spectator on 9.14.05

"The 'Theory' of Gravity:
Intelligent Design Reconsidered"

There is a great deal to be said about Intelligent Design (ID), and it would be foolhardy to attempt to encapsulate the entire debate in one brief article.

Proponents of Intelligent Design, from academics to President Bush, have argued that “all points of view should be available to students studying human origins.” This argument sounds noble; heck, it sounds downright liberal. How could there be anything wrong with exposing schoolchildren to multiple points of view, and giving them a truly rich and all-encompassing education? How could a “good” science teacher only teach the Darwinian view of evolution? Well, because a science teacher teaches science, and while Intelligent Design is certainly a “theory,” as is evolution, the main difference is that Darwinian evolution is a scientific theory, while Intelligent Design is a religious or philosophical theory, and has no place in a biology classroom.

If we are going to continue to drag down evolution, because it is technically a “theory,” let’s look at some other “theories” out there. No one has challenged a physics curriculum that expounds, upon vulnerable and impressionable young minds, the “theory” of gravity. Just like with evolution, there is no direct proof of gravity. Gravitational equations can be used to explain the motions of the universe; however the causes of gravity are unknown. Alas, though, there is another physical theory that exists, called “occasionalism.” Occasionalism states that when a rock hits a window, God is given the occasion to break the window.

Just like gravity, occasionalism is a theory: there is no way to definitely prove or disprove it. For the sake of comparison though, we won’t be so blunt as to say that it is God breaking the window, but rather a Force, or a Power, that is breaking the window. And no, this is not a force, like the forces in Newtonian physics...this is a Force. This is a Force, with that telltale capital F. We won’t say that it is God, just like the “Intelligence” in Intelligent Design is just a capitalized term.

While most opponents of Intelligent Design are against it because of the dangers it poses to science, my opposition stems not only from a desire to protect the sanctity of science, but from a desire to sanctify religion as well. How does Intelligent Design endanger religion? The foundation of religion is faith, or the belief in the inherently unprovable. By entering the domain of science, religion opens itself to the onslaught of scientific rigor, which could easily “defeat” or “disprove” a Holy Book if it does not hold up to be 100% logically consistent. Religion, for me at least, is about believing what cannot be proven. Science, on the other hand, is about believing only that which can be proven. Intelligent Design presents a lose-lose situation for both the scientific and the religious community.

While I am certainly opposed to the teaching of Intelligent Design in the science classroom, I also certainly understand why it is so appealing: Intelligent Design looks nice, and it is comforting to think that there is some sort of Organizer, who has an ultimate plan in mind for the Universe and for every person. But “niceness” and “comfort” are no way to judge a scientific theory. Just as a baseball player is not admired for his hairstyle (save Johnny Damon), and a model is not admired for the speed of her fastball, a scientific argument should not be judged based upon how “nice” it looks. By applying the identical criteria to both science and religion, we will only serve to water down both areas, and do irreparable damage to the two distinct forces, science and religion, that have kept civilizations flourishing for thousands of years.

Addendum: Last night on the Daily Show, they talked about Intelligent Design, and John Stewart said," Of course, the organizer doesn't have to be God, it's just some sort of entity that has the power to create the entire Universe." Well said John, well said.