Religion and science: Is God a lab rat?

By Dr. Larry Hudson

March 2005

"What miraculous sign will you give that we may see it and believe in you?" (Jn 6:30)

Intelligent design (ID) proponents suggest that the tools of science can be used to find and explain signs in nature that are unnatural. They deny trying to sneak God into the science books because signs of biological design could also be due to a superintelligent extraterrestrial, a visitor to earth long ago. The ID movement is not propelled by the burning desire to teach Johnny about a possible space alien, however; it is driven by a belief that the scientific theory of evolution is consistent with the view that life is godless and meaningless.

Both ID proponents and advocates of atheistic materialism attribute to science the power to make definitive truth claims on the question of theism. True science must decline to deal with this philosophical question. Science is only equipped to test and model the natural world and its processes. A common complaint from the ID movement is that science unfairly denies any supernatural explanation. Since science is the study of the natural, of course it does not admit supernatural explanations. Understand, though, that this is consistent with the scientific method; it is not a philosophical claim about ultimate reality. Rather than reflecting arrogance or unfairness toward other explanations, it is a reflection of the reach of science that is limited to the probing of natural and testable processes. To imbue science with the ability to probe the supernatural is to demote God to the status of a lab rat.

Besides requiring belief in God for a passing grade in school, there would be theological consequences if the Judeo-Christian God were "discovered" by a scientific experiment. For example, the Bible teaches that God's greatest desire is not to convince persons of divine existence. What is sought is a relationship that is uncoerced, joyously authentic, and transforming of the person. All meaningful relationships are built upon more than intellectual assent; they are characterized by faith and self-giving love. Persons of faith have always found the glories of nature consistent with their belief in a generous God and a source of comfort and hope. This is far different from ID, which claims to have answered the question posed of Jesus, "What miraculous sign will you give that we may see it and believe in you?"

Are there not gaps in the explanations of science, and could not the Judeo-Christian God have miraculously filled those gaps? Yes, gaps will always exist in human knowledge about the workings of the natural world. This does not mean that a particular phenomenon is unexplainable; nor does it constitute evidence that any of the alternatives (of which ID is only one) are true. Subscribers to this "god-of-the-gaps" theology over the past few hundred years have worshiped an incredibly shrinking god, thanks to scientific advances. Twenty-first century scientists may well develop natural understandings of the two largest remaining gaps: the rise of life and the rise of the mind. As far as the development of the natural world is concerned, many persons of faith do not assume that God's role is that of direct designer. They tend to locate divine agency and design "in the beginning," in a Cosmic Designer that is responsible for fine tuning the natural laws and initial conditions that lead to the diverse and contingent world we enjoy, and suffer in, today. Is it not more impressive to create a world that in a sense creates itself?

It has been suggested that the Age of Science has replaced the Age of Miracles. This is because mysterious phenomena in nature and surprising events in the lives of people, once attributed to angels and demons, are increasingly understood by evoking natural law. Some persons of faith resist the distinction between the natural and the supernatural and profess to see "every common bush afire with God" (Browning). Others see both natural and supernatural causality acting at different levels simultaneously; to identify an immediate cause does not exclude the existence of an ultimate cause. In general, science is mute on miracles because they are not reproducible or otherwise amenable to study. They are, in the end, a matter of faith, a faith that sees God as much more than an explanation.

At first glance it seems reasonable to conclude that the appearance of complex design in biological structures constitutes strong evidence for the existence of a designer. However, many of the examples put forth by the ID movement over the past few years have been explained subsequently by using natural mechanisms. In the case of biological systems, evolutionary theory has shown how random variations can be acted upon by natural processes to produce over long periods of time complex and diverse changes. Historically, the so-called arguments from design for the existence of God evoke the classic example of finding a pocket watch on the ground and inferring from it the existence of a watchmaker. This analogy is wanting in nature, not because there is no watchmaker, but because there is no watch. Design arguments fall short because they do not account for those features in nature that do not reflect direct, or at least benevolent, design. More than 99 percent of all species that have ever lived are extinct. Most organisms die because they are maladapted or born deformed. Nature is "red in tooth and claw," and there is much suffering, contingency, and waste. Decline and death constitute the price of admission to the blessed tragedy of life. Rather than hands-on design, biological species exhibit exquisite adaptation. That humans have five fingers is an extremely useful adaptation to our particular environment. Humans reflect God's image by being rational, volitional, creative, and lovingly relational, not by the details of a body plan.

While today's consensus science convincingly rejects the ID movement, persons of faith need not conclude that God lacks existence, intelligence, or design. For the first time in the study of natural history, science can begin to piece the puzzle of interlocking data gathered from the various disciplines of astronomy, physics, and biology. What is coming into focus is a picture of a seamless evolutionary process—from the big bang to the big brain. This is a story of the dance of randomness and contingency with the amazing natural laws to produce ever-increasing organization and complexity and even us. Persons of faith see a direction in this creative and contingent process that ultimately will result in God’s purposes being accomplished.

In this view, creation is seen as an unfolding event, erupting with novelty and potential. While this view of a generous Cosmic Designer who does not micromanage the details challenges some models of divine sovereignty, it is more consonant with the witness of God's creation.

The ID movement's strategy has consisted mostly of trying to discount evolution rather than provide positive evidence for ID. Well, is not evolution "just a theory"? Absolutely! But in science a theory is not a hypothetical conjecture. It is a coherent model that includes mechanisms, evidence, and explanatory power that can make predictions that withstand further testing. It is modified or expanded as new data are accumulated. It belongs in our science books not because it is the last word, but because it is the best scientific understanding presently available. ID does offer a mechanism: God did it. This is a science stopper—no need to investigate further. Until ID produces testable hypotheses, evidence, and publications in peer-reviewed journals, it is "not even a theory" and belongs in the metaphysics section of the library.

Persons of faith may celebrate the creating and sustaining glory of God as revealed through his natural laws, and hold the Bible as something that teaches, to quote Galileo, "how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."

Dr. Larry Hudson resides in Gaithersburg, Md., and is a physicist at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. He is a member of First Baptist Church, Gaithersburg.