Imputing Design to Nature
Last week, Archbishop Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna penned a Op-Ed piece in the NY Times in which he states that "Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science." I agree. Sort of.
The archbishop, however, must also concede the corollary statement. Any system of thought that imputes or seeks to assign a designer to biological phenomenon is ideology, not science. Science seeks to explain the physical, not the metaphysical. In using only non-physical explanations, religion leaves the realm of science (e.g., "by the use of reason alone mankind could come to know the reality of the Uncaused Cause, the First Mover, the God of the philosophers"). Whether there is a designer or not is not the purvue of science. Similarly, whether biology requires a designer or not is not the purvue of religion. Faith that requires proof is not faith at all.
The archbishop, however, must also concede the corollary statement. Any system of thought that imputes or seeks to assign a designer to biological phenomenon is ideology, not science. Science seeks to explain the physical, not the metaphysical. In using only non-physical explanations, religion leaves the realm of science (e.g., "by the use of reason alone mankind could come to know the reality of the Uncaused Cause, the First Mover, the God of the philosophers"). Whether there is a designer or not is not the purvue of science. Similarly, whether biology requires a designer or not is not the purvue of religion. Faith that requires proof is not faith at all.
posted by Mike Kelley at 12:47 PM
|
