SATURDAY ESSAY
ID has a place, just not in science
By BARRY LEFF
EINSTEIN said "God does not play dice with the universe."
The smartest man to ever live believed in Intelligent Design.
So do I. Intelligent Design says the world is too complex to have happened
randomly.
Look at a car: thousands of parts, all milled with great precision, many of
them critical for the car to function at all. Obviously someone pretty
intelligent came up with the design. Extrapolate that idea to the universe.
The universe is too intricate to have happened by accident.
However, even though I believe in Intelligent Design, I also believe U.S.
District Judge John Jones ruled correctly that a Dover, Pa., school district
was forbidden to teach Intelligent Design in biology class.
That's because Intelligent Design is not science. It is theology.
Science explains what happens in the world around us, and how it happens. We
observe a phenomenon, and try to understand what caused it.
Theology is not about what and how. Theology is about why. Theology is about
meaning.
The proponents of teaching Intelligent Design as science argue that Darwin's
theory of evolution is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps." But that's
not a good reason to reject it as science.
When Einstein said, "God does not play dice with the universe," he was
criticizing the theory of quantum mechanics. He thought it was a bunch of
hooey.
Today, of course, virtually all physicists believe Einstein was wrong, and
quantum mechanics is valid. That does not mean that the old Newtonian
physics is wrong. It's just incomplete. But that doesn't mean we throw it
out: if you're going to play a game of pool, a knowledge of Newton is much
more useful than understanding Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.
Even intelligent designers can sometimes do things that are pretty random,
or that fail. Look at the Edsel! Or as God (played by George Burns) put it
in the movie "Oh, God!":
"Avocados. I should have made the pits smaller."
As a licensed theologian I hate it when scientists muddle in theology. For
example, Dr. Norman Hall, a scientist specializing in molecular genetics and
cardiac biochemistry wrote, "Science has succeeded as a cooperative human
effort by asserting the belief that the universe can only be understood
through the values of integrity and truth-telling. In the process it has
become a system of values, and it has provided humankind with a language
which transcends cultural boundaries and connects us in a highly satisfying
way to all the observable universe. It has the potential to be used as the
basis for a workable and profoundly satisfying system of ethics."
Sorry, science cannot be used as the basis for a profoundly satisfying
system of ethics. That's been tried: Hitler thought he was being very
"scientific" in crafting a "master race," and thousands of highly educated
doctors, engineers, and scientists helped him commit mass murder. The roots
of the ethical lie not in science but in something transcendental - in God,
in the realm of theology.
Similarly, scientists are quite rightly upset when theologians try to muddle
in science. Scientists are like Sgt. Joe Friday in the old Dragnet show:
"Just the facts, ma'am."
Based on the facts, I believe in God and evolution. God, the Intelligent
Designer, chose to create the world through the Big Bang and evolution.
Those theories are certainly incomplete, and they contain gaps. But they
represent science's attempt to explain observable phenomenon.
What we see when we look at those gaps is clearly colored by what we want to
see.
John Wisdom described it well in his parable of the gardener. Two people
look at a long neglected garden. One looks at all the weeds and says "there
must not be a gardener." One looks at the flowers and says "there must have
been a gardener."
As a person of faith, I look at the world through "God-colored lenses." I
see evidence of God everywhere I look. But scientists are trained not to
look at the world with "God-colored lenses," at least not at work.
At work, they put aside pre-conceived notions, deal with the facts, and try
to explain them. And every so often, for many scientists and doctors, they
take a step back from their work and feel awe at being in the presence of
God who created such a wonder. But mostly they know enough to keep that awe
and sense of wonder separate from their scientific work.
Plugging a variable into an equation which says "insert intelligent designer
here" is not going to help us understand how the world works. It will not
help us unlock the mysteries of physics and cosmology. That would be a
cop-out on the part of scientists trying to understand God's world.
Jewish mysticism (Kabbalah) says that the very first act of creation that
God did was to hide - to engage in tzimtzum, which means "contraction." And
God did a good job of hiding.
The Jewish tradition teaches that God is hidden from our sight much the same
way that the soul is hidden from our sight. What's the difference between a
corpse and a live person? The presence of a soul, which science will never
find.
God is the soul of the universe. Scientists will never find God via the
scientific method, but God is what brings the universe to life.
By all means teach Intelligent Design in high school. But teach it in a
comparative religion class.
It does not belong in science class. Even if it's true.
Rabbi Barry Leff is the spiritual leader of Congregation B'nai Israel in
Toledo.
