Subtitle: What the ID/Creationism movement should preach if they truly want to inspire faith in a Designer/Creator
My husband, a computer scientist, and I took our first class together this summer: Practical Bioinformatics at Iowa State. He’s helped me with the software and computation aspects while I helped him with biology and genetics. One conversation leads to another, and we often find ourselves discussing how these amazingly complex biological mechanisms came to be.
He shared the example of the compiler, required to translate a computer program from the language it was written in to “assembly”, the language the computer understands. At some point, there had to be a first compiler, produced by a “creator”. He asks: “what was the origin of the first compiler in biology?”
My husband and I are both what we call “Catholic-agnostic”, although he is more truly agnostic than I. This conversation on the origins of life started flurries of conversations about the existence of god and god’s role in our lives/universe – much more so than any other topic we have discussed or any activity we have done in the seven years that we have been together.
The process of copying DNA and transcribing DNA to RNA then 
post-transcriptionally modifying the RNA and translating that RNA to protein then modifying the proteins to perform roles to do all of the above functions and so much more… it’s a beautiful, amazing chicken-and-egg dilemma. Which came first? How did it all get started in the proverbial primordial ooze?
The most amazing thing about these questions is: No one has the answers! Sure, we have some really good theories (I’m a fan of the RNA world), but I don’t know if we can ever really know. Synthetic or artificial biology is bringing us closer to understanding, but it’s not quite the same as recreating what happened 4 billion years ago.
I’ve heard many “proofs” for the existence of god, but strangely, the idea of abiogenesis (life from non-life) is rarely mentioned. There is no way to prove or disprove the possibility that some some force guided the formation of these complex biological molecules (be it god, angels, aliens, comets, etc). All we have is faith.
Not knowing and not being able to know aren’t proof of anything in a scientific sense, but the human need to explain is the origin of religion. Civilizations across the globe invented sun gods to explain the source of light in the sky. Does knowing the physical reality of the sun invalidate those beliefs? I think we need to accept they physical reality, but we all have the choice to partake in a more ethereal beleif to accompany it. Similarly, when/if scientists find the key to abiogenesis, the idea that the hand of god took part won’t be invalidated. Neither is god invalidated by evolution or the earth being billions of years old.
Trying to prove the existence of god with things like flagella is, frankly, sacrelige – especially since examples of “irreducible complexity” only take additional research to disprove. We can’t prove (or disprove) the existence of god, but we can inspire or discourage belief.
Miracles are all around us – simply watch a seed germinate. Knowing how cells in the stem elongate doesn’t make it any less miraculous. In fact, knowledge of the process makes it even more awe inspiring. The wonder and joy inspired by learning about the world around us feels a lot more like the presence of god than learning dogma to most people. The stories in the bible are nice, but can they really compare to knowing how mountains came to be?
Catholics have long known that evolution and the creation story are simply two different ways to explain the same thing, one via science and one via religion. Some religious scientists (particularly Catholics, for some reason) know that every discovery they make adds to the glory of god. What is the alternative to this approach? The faithful could “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” and leave science alone, but ignoring science isn’t much of a solution.
They could continue to condemn science as materialism that detracts from god, but this forces most people to choose between two very different (and mostly unrelated) things. It seems that this strategy has two possible effects: those who choose science simply leave their church, and those who choose religion dismiss and villify science. I have no problem with those who leave the church to become productive citizens, but those who remain are keeping themselves and the entire country behind (sorry for being Americentric) when it comes to science and technology. It serves no one, least of all god, for people to ignore problems in the world that need science and technology. All of these doubters, coached by groups like the Discovery Institute, are refusing to help their fellow man and to be good stewards of god’s creation by not partaking in all of the tools that god has given us.
In sum, literal creationists and their ilk are in effect making a mockery of god with their efforts. To best encourage faith, they should instead preach about the beauty of god’s world, in all it’s complexity.
Image: “The Fourth World was Black and White” by Julie Newdoll, depicting a juxtoposition of part of the Creation story of the Dine’ tribe with the RNA world theory.
This raises a key point that I have been making to people who try to use anti-materialist arguments against my atheism. It’s not going to convince me, and I can’t see how it would convince anyone who has taken at least a little time to look at how science works. I simply don’t understand why they think that they need to force this sort of choice, especially in the 21st century, with clams that contradict facts known since the 19th century.
Well… Maybe we’ll never know exactly what happened. But personally? I’m pretty sure that we’re starting to get a pretty good idea of what it probably looked like.
Pretty sure and probably? Indeed. I am certain that we will sooner than later have a theory that unifies (or disproves) the many theories that currently exist. However, we can not prove or disprove that something supernatural happened to set things in motion. I personally think it’s a waste of time to consider the unknowable and inconsequential, but obviously having magic in the universe is important to a lot of people. Is it better for them to embrace science as part of the magic, or to reject science as contradictory to their beliefs? I’d rather see people working to understand everything as it exists in reality, even with a dash of the supernatural, than have them detached from reality.
This is technically accurate but misleading.
No, we cannot prove that something supernatural did not happen. However, we can show that we have absolutely no good reason to think that it did.
Once again, technically accurate yet misleading.
Of course it is a waste of time to try and know the unknowable. But there are three problems with the sentiment.
Firstly, we don’t really know if something is actually unknowable unless we first consider it.
Secondly, it is a simple fact of human progress that the things that are unknowable to one generation can be well within the epistemological grasp of their grandchildren.
Thirdly, although there probably cases where we can never know the truth, that doesn’t mean we can’t apply ourselves to discovering what the truth isn’t. When faced with a difficult question, it is often easier to determine what the answer isn’t than what it is – and in the absence of solid positive knowledge, this negative kind of knowing is the best we can hope for. Negative knowlege of this kind isn’t worthless – it forms a guide in the quest for truth. If you can find the shape of all the gaps around the edge of a jigsaw piece, you stand a much better chance of working out how that jigsaw piece is actually shaped.
Believing that Elvis is still alive is important to a lot of people too. That doesn’t mean we should take that belief seriously.
Even if a billion people believe a foolish thing, it’s still a foolish thing.
And a casual stroll through an insane asylum will show that faith proves nothing.
Neither.
It is best for them to realize that the wonder and the majesty of the cosmos is very real – but that the real magic is that the wonder and majesty of the cosmos is just how the cosmos is. There’s no smoke and mirrors, no gremlins holding apart the gap between the attractive forces of electrons and protons in the heart of atoms, no pixies arranging the dust of the stars into the majestic works of art of the nebulae. The majesty and wonder of the cosmos is as fundamental to the cosmos as electromagnetism. It doesn’t require a supernatural explanation. It simply is.
Admittedly, faith is better than nihilism – but better is the enemy of the best. The majesty of the cosmos is best revealed to us in all its glory not through faith, but through wisdom.
It is much better to abandon the facile bronze-age fairytales concocted by men during the infancy of our species. All the better to fully embrace the majesty and wonder of the universe as it really is – which, interestingly enough, ties into your next point.
Ironically, it is faith that is detached from reality – not wisdom.
Faith requires you to pretend to know things that you have no means of knowing. Sometimes it even requires you to pretend to know things when you have very good reason to know that they’re untrue.
Wisdom requires us to attend to the dictates of reality through observation, evidence, and rational analysis. That which is unknown is simply unknown. Something that is unknown is not evidence for or against the supernatural, because something that is unknown cannot be evidence.
Wisdom is the application of reason to reality. Faith is concerned with either the denial of wisdom, or providing the pretense of wisdom regarding subjects for which wisdom is currently impossible.
I had a debate recently about biofuels, the core of which, strangely, seems applicable here.
A colleague said that we should not consider any biofuels because we shouldn’t be using liquid fuels at all. I, and others, countered: liquid fuel isn’t going anywhere. Even when most transportation has moved to electric or some other alternative, some types of vehicles, such as ocean-going barges and airplanes, will continue to need liquid fuels for quite some time. Should we reject biofuels because they aren’t better than nothing? Some might say yes, but I don’t.
Encouraging a healthy respect for science with the right kind of religious thinking is to the science crisis what biofuels are to the fuel crisis. It isn’t the end goal for most, but is a reasonable step in the right direction.
Che, when I said “I personally think it’s a waste of time to consider the unknowable and inconsequential” I was referring to the supernatural part of abiogenesis (or of anything, really). For those who choose not to believe in the supernatural, there isn’t likely to be anything that can’t be explained by science. For those who choose to believe, anything can be supporting evidence for their belief set. Rather than remain at an impasse, I’d like to encourage believers to embrace the science and continue their beliefs. Telling people that their faith is “detached from reality”, as true as that may be, isn’t going to encourage people to learn about science or to become scientists. Dare I say it, we might attract more flies with honey.
Ahh, yes. The old ‘we should cynically and dishonestly condescend to, pander, and indulge the groundless fantasies of the credulous and the ignorant in the interest of social cohesion’ argument. I know it well.
Unfortunately, I’m just not that cynical. Maybe I’m just a romantic, but I like to think that intellectual honesty in the pursuit of truth still counts for something.
If you treat the inferiority of faith-based beliefs as if they are equal to wisdom-based knowledge and understanding, people are going to start to think that the absurdities of faith are a sufficient substitute for the understanding borne of genuine wisdom.
That being said, you do have a point. It is imperative to change the overal approach and stance of an argument to fit the given audience and purpose in order to have the most persuasive effect. For example, if I were actually trying to convince someone to accept a scientific idea, I would – and do – adopt a very different strategy.
However, persuasion to a cause here is not my current purpose. My current purpose is to argue the case for wisdom over faith. My method of persuasion here is to contrast faith and wisdom to show that, when it comes to the quest for truth, faith can’t hold a candle to wisdom. I like to think that I’m doing this quite succesfully.
This doesn’t mean there is no place or room for faith. The quest for truth is only one aspect of human life. I don’t just sit around debating truth all day (although I do engage in it a bit more often than most). I go see dorky, silly movies just for the fun of it (I just saw Get Smart… Anne Hathaway has legs), I go to the pub with my mates to have a few pints and talk utter crap, I bitch and moan about the minor miseries of my life (traffic, the weather) with relish, I take the side of my immediate family and friends and loved ones (even when they’re in the wrong) and I spend a little bit more time than is probably healthy for a 23 year old at my local net cafe playing Dota.
There’s a lot going on in life, and I can see how and where faith in a religion can play a part. By all means, if it improves your quality of life and causes no harm, you can believe whatever you like – sure, maybe Elvis is still alive. I can’t prove he isn’t, so if dressing up in funny clothes and going to conventions of like-minded individuals gives you pleasure, go for it. If leaving milk out for the pixies is a treasured ritual that gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling of contentment and routine, be my guest. I still think you’re trading in a diamond (wisdom) for coal (faith), but that’s my business.
But if you’re going to concern yourself with the quest for truth, it’s imperative that you leave faith at the door and turn instead to wisdom. For example:
This is exactly what I mean. There is no supernatural part in abiogenesis. None. Nada. Nill. Nothing. Niente. Zip. Zilch. Bupkis. Zero.
If we like to go to a gathering of religious people for the sense of community, because you find the ritual soothing, or because it is part of your heritage and identity – fine. Do that. If you enjoy meditation and your find a local zendo that has a good group you get on with and you find group meditation to be easier than meditation in isolation and you take pleasure in the chanting ceremony afterwards, then by all means go along on a weekly basis.
But don’t then turn around and tell me that stem cell research is unethical because of an absurd truth statement made by some dusty old cleric in some book. Don’t tell poor and dying Africans that although aids is bad, condoms are worse (that little gem comes from the papacy of
Darth RatzingerPope Benedict XVI). And don’t go telling me that Intelligent Deisign should be taught alongside evolution in public science classes because your introspective faith is a more accurate measure of the truth of human origins than the wisdom of the wise.(Note that these are just examples of the kind of thinking I’m talking about. I acknowledge that you haven’t mentioned these points directly, and I know that these beliefs and statements are not representative of all Christians and Catholics – I’m sure there are many that would agree with my stance on some if not all of these issues.)
“How did we get to be here” is a big and important question. If we’re even remotely interested in the truth, faith is the inferior of wisdom. And it will remain the inferior of wisdom.
Pandering to fait h regarding truth despite the obvious contradictions with wisdom doesn’t make faith better – it gives faith a bloated sense of authority it doesn’t deserve and can’t handle.
Anastasia, what makes you think that “believers” do not also believe in science? And, what makes you think that they don’t “preach about the beauty of god’s world, in all it’s complexity?”
I think that you might need to broaden your world a bit.
Science – a very, very broad term – is not anti-God. Materialism, on the other hand, is a philosophy which is, by definition, atheist. It’s just a matter of definitions – things are what they are. Now, the fact that people disagree on what various aspects of science can show is another issue. And, of course, there are those who believe that prescribed belief supersedes scientific “fact” as well as those who believe that sciences always trumps religion. I personally disagree with both.
Creationists, by the way, would tend to believe in abiogenesis; that is, that life was created out of non-living material. And, you are right in that should “science” prove abiogenesis, many Creationists would respond, “so what?” Showing how God did something, or designed a process, does not disprove God.
The problem comes in when fundamentalists on both sides of the fence take “either-or” positions. Science hasn’t always been right about the world, and neither has religion. But, even making this statement errs in implying that science is somehow the antithesis of religion, which it clearly is not. Science is about understanding the material world; religion (in general terms) is about understanding God. The 2 realms intersect, but they are neither opposite nor equal.
Taking the issue of common descent, for example, IDists can disagree on the basis of evidence which is not in line with the various ideas about how it happened. Creationists (and some IDists) can also disagree with it because of theological beliefs which are not compatible with common descent. These are not scientific arguments, but they are valid in the larger scheme of things. If I see 2 conflicting propositions, I must either reconcile them or discard one, preferably the one with the least support. First, however, we must be sure that they conflict, and also be careful not to overlook conflicting propositions under the guise of compromise. Scientists, obviously, must do the same. Again, I think errors are made in both camps in dealing with the issues.
However, reading between the lines of your article, I get the feeling that what you would really like is simply for people to disagree with aspects of evolutionary theory to simply go away, rather than point out the ugly bits of data and logic that don’t seem to fit. A true skeptic, on the other hand, should welcome the challenge.
Che and Alden, it looks like I utterly failed at getting my point across, and I sincerely apologize. Writing about religion and philosophy is a new experience for me, so I hope you’ll be patient. I’m tempted to delete this one and start over, but I think that would be dishonest – please allow me to turn to a fresh page – What ID should focus on (take 2).
They rail at materialism and relativism, and then practice both!
You’re right. Thought-provoking analysis, and, IMHO, a proper conclusion.
Do you have friends in Texas who could help us out?