Render Unto Caesar...
Refocusing the Debate between Evolutionary Theory and Intelligent Design

by James P. Evans, MD, PhD
Director, Clinical Cancer Genetics and Bryson Program in Human Genetics
Carolina Center for Genome Sciences
Departments of Genetics and Medicine

------

This summer marks the 80th anniversary of the Scopes “Monkey Trial” in Dayton, Tennessee and the national debate still rages between two competing views of human origins. Its latest incarnation revolves around whether science texts used in public schools should be required to display a disclaimer questioning the validity of the theory of evolution and whether schools should be required to teach a different notion of life’s origins, termed by its proponents Intelligent Design (ID).

Those who support ID contend that evidence for the presence of a creator or “designer” is implicit in the natural world, is required to explain life, and that these ideas should be part of public school science curriculum. The scientific establishment largely sees the ID movement as a thinly veiled effort to teach religion in school and maintains that Darwin’s theory of evolution has been the central unifying principle underlying our understanding of the natural world.

Neither side has much hope of convincing the other of the ultimate validity of their own position. Arguments regarding who, at the deepest level, is right are probably futile. But clarity can be brought to this debate by addressing a much simpler question: what is science? The answer to this question will clarify what belongs in the science curriculum of our public schools.

Science is simply a process which humans have developed to better understand the world. The cardinal feature of this process is the search for natural explanations to the phenomena of the universe. This is not an arbitrary convention but rather the linchpin upon which the scientific process hinges. The scientific process depends on testable assumptions, not unshakable faith or beliefs. When we stray beyond the natural and invoke supernatural explanations for the world we have not necessarily erred, but we have most assuredly left the realm of science.

Not too long ago, humans hadn’t a clue as to how the sun “moved” across the sky each day. Had we been satisfied with supernatural explanations (such as one popular version which held that Apollo drove his golden chariot across the heavens) the actual explanation for the movement of astronomical bodies would not have been elucidated. Why bother with investigation if we already know the answer? The progress of human knowledge would have been stopped dead in its tracks.

Those who espouse “Intelligent Design” in order to explain biology assign those aspects of our understanding which are currently unknown to a creator or “designer”. In so doing they have veered from science to theology. If we incorporate such notions into the fabric of science where do we stop? Why confine intelligent design just to the recesses of biology? What is to stop us from applying these arguments to any area of science that is enigmatic at present? Turn to the weather page of your newspaper and you will readily appreciate how limited human understanding is about the natural world. Yet most agree that it is inappropriate (or at least outside the realm of science) to invoke supernatural explanations for the weather. In the face of our ignorance about the weather should we place stickers on our children’s science texts warning that “modern meteorology is only a theory and should be critically evaluated”? All science should be critically evaluated; indeed critical evaluation is the very essence of science. The invocation of a deity does nothing to advance science and is inconsistent with its pursuit. Attributing gaps in our knowledge to supernatural explanations is not part of the scientific process.

Proponents of Intelligent Design appeal heavily to the natural human instinct to seek order when confronted with life’s myriad complexity. Lamentably, however, “gut-feelings” are a poor guide to external reality. Who does not have to remind oneself that it is actually the earth that is spinning and not the sun that moves around our planet each day? We realize that our intuition is wrong. And we understand this because we were willing, at least in a certain sphere of our life, to give up supernatural explanations and intuition and instead look to science for an answer.

Religion has inspired great deeds and has often brought out the best in human beings. However, its explanatory power over the observable world has been painfully limited. Likewise, science has given us startling insight and a profound degree of control over our world, but there is much for which science cannot provide an answer.

So what is the fuss all about? Instead of wasting energy arguing about who is right and who is wrong, let us rather recognize that science and religion deal with different, arguably complementary, facets of the human quest to understand ourselves and our world. “Render unto Caesar” the things of the natural world, those things which are the domain of science. Let us teach science in the science classroom and religion in the theology classroom and in Sunday school.