Bruce Ebanks made a valid point in his Jan. 21 letter to the editor “Theories must be based in science.” However, I believe there is a third social issue about the ACLU vs. Dover School District lawsuit that has been neglected.
Both Mr. Ebanks’s article and the original article by Pam McTeer are evidence of this social phenomenon. It seems to me that tension has always existed between the Church and the scientific community.
The argument over the actual age of the earth has been debated back and forth for hundreds of years and now evolution and the Big Bang Theory seem to be the controversial theories of the moment, or at least among the public. I think people today in our country, state and at this university are struggling over what and who to believe. I myself am a Christian and I am tired of the conflicts that seem to exist between what scientists tell us and what we hear from religious leaders.
It has become my opinion that this conflict in our society has occurred because people are trying to take two incomplete and fundamentally opposite entities (science and faith) and draw a hard-line conclusion between them. Ask any scientist and they will tell you that science is far from being a complete understanding of existence. Also, ask a minister if God revealed all knowledge in the Bible and most will tell you he didn’t. The Bible contains all that is spiritually important to know (to those who believe).
I realize not everyone is a Christian, but even if you are not, you can see the point I am making. Science is a learning process for gathering the facts about the nuts and bolts of the way things work.
Science is continually changing because of new discoveries and old theories are continually cast aside. Anything that is suggested by results but cannot be proven is labeled a theory. Science focuses on the “How?” of existence. Faith does not require facts for validity. Faith is about believing without seeing. Faith and spirituality focus on the “Why?” of existence.
I believe that neither faith nor science can satisfactorily answer the other’s question. Why then, does there seem to be a conflict between them? It must be fear that causes this taking of sides and bickering. Some people are afraid of having their faith somehow proven wrong, invalid or imaginary. Others are afraid that people who are in power will keep scientific theories from being taught in our schools because they see them as threats to the faith. In my opinion, fear is what drives people to create things like the intelligent design theory. This is dangerous to all religions because it causes people to put hope in the wrong place.
I do not feel the need to bolster my faith with fabricated science. No matter how clever the wording of this “theory” may be, it still looks and sounds like the result of a hidden agenda and that also hurts the image of the Church. I am completely content to accept scientific theories for what they are: ideas that cannot be proven as facts.
Why didn’t God just go ahead and spell it all out for us in the first place? Well, there are plenty of reasons. For example, I don’t think ancient Israelites had any interest in quantum mechanics; they were more concerned with survival. You should also keep in mind that the people to whom God revealed the Scriptures had no idea that the earth was round, so the whole plate tectonics idea would probably be lost on them.
But, in general, I think God probably just had more important material to cover.
Jay Everett is a senior landscape architecture major.