Science can never prove nor disprove the existence of a God. The argument is circular. If a higher power created the universe and established its rules, it could choose to remain forever anonymous.

But a twister is brewing in Kansas over revisions to science teaching guidelines which introduce “Intelligent Design” as an alternative to evolutionary theory, described by critics as dressed-up creationism with God and the Bible removed.

A contest of science vs. religion?

The ensuing media flurry seems to depict the contest as one of science versus religion. This, according to many religious evolutionary scientists, is a false dichotomy, guilty of gross disservice to both pursuits.

Evolutionary scientists can subscribe to a diverse array of religions, without being marginal scientists or marginal believers. Surprisingly, acceptance of evolution does not follow denominational lines. Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Buddhists, and adherents to all major world religions can embrace evolution (though individuals within those faiths may disagree).

Dr. Keith Miller, a paleontologist and Research Assistant Professor in the Department of Geology at Kansas State University , and a practicing evangelical Christian, rejects the Intelligent Design movement. In doing so, he is not unusual among his evangelical contemporaries. The director of the Human Genome Project, Dr. Francis Collins, is a born-again evangelical Christian.

Miller, editor of Perspectives on an Evolving Creation (2003, Eerdman's), says, “Some of the leading theologians of Darwin 's time, the founders of Fundamentalism, accepted Darwinism. And the majority of contemporary scholars, from evangelical theologians and Old Testament scholars, do not see their understanding of scripture and orthodox doctrine to be in conflict with evolutionary theory. But at the popular level, it's a different story.”

Miller is concerned that Intelligent Design “promotes a conflict view of science and faith, going so far (in Kansas ) as to redefine science, because they see it as inherently materialistic and naturalistic, which is deeply wrong. They want to broaden the power of science so it can talk about divine actions. But science does not have the tools to do that.”

Conflict rooted in educational shortfall

The problem lies, Miller believes, in the failure of theological and evolutionary scholars to effectively educate the public.

This may be a problem for many churches – general membership not understanding their own doctrine regarding evolution. Although Pope John Paul II stated in 1992 that “there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation,” Gary Belovsky, a biology professor at the University of Notre Dame, and a practicing Catholic, relates that “his 84 year-old mother is shocked that he studies evolution,” and recalls punishment by a nun in parochial school for his interest in it.

Likewise, Keith Crandall, Professor of Integrative Biology at Brigham Young University , says that many freshman walk into his biology classes believing Mormonism dictates creationism, unaware that church leadership articulated a policy of no position on evolution in 1925. Crandall describes the process by which he teaches evolution using his own research on HIV mutations which select for drug resistance, and, in companion discussion, illustrates how core creationist arguments differ from orthodox Mormon theology.

Nevertheless, says David McClellan, also a biology professor at BYU and a practicing Mormon, if the subject comes up in a discussion at church, “I still get a few people telling me it's ‘Evil-Lution.'”

Responses to Intelligent Design arguments

This lack of popular understanding of evolutionary science and of religious doctrine is exploited by the Intelligent Design movement, says Dr. Alan Templeton, Professor of Biology, Genetics, and Biomedical Engineering at Washington University . Templeton, who is Jewish, says of Intelligent Design proponents, “They distort what evolution says, thereby exploiting ignorance.”

One such area is the use of the word ‘theory' as applied to evolution, implying that it is a dubious proposition instead of a unifying framework for explaining phenomena. Likewise, proponents of Intelligent Design seize upon instances debate among evolutionists as proof that evolutionary theory is in scientific jeopardy.

At a conference of geneticists, would we find eminent researchers disputing the existence of evolution? “No,” says Karen Ober, Assistant Professor of Biology at the College of the Holy Cross, and a practicing Catholic. “The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Overwhelming .”

The “design by complexity” argument posits that nature's complexity demands an intelligent designer. “This is too complex to have evolved, so God must have made it.” But what if science can show how it could have evolved? “You lose all motivation to do any research once you declare that ‘this could only be the mark of a designer,'” says BYU biology professor Dr. Duane Jeffery. “You don't want further study to prove you wrong.”

Intelligent Design leaders unschooled in evolutionary biology

“They (Intelligent Design proponents) don't even understand evolution,” says BYU's Keith Crandall. “The scientists they find are not biology researchers. They're not in the right field so they simply don't know the realities. They need to understand the arguments.”

Indeed, of the major organizations advocating for Intelligent Design, there is no practicing research geneticist to be found. Reasons to Believe is led by a physicist; the Intelligent Design Network is led a nutritional biochemist and a lawyer; and The Discovery Institute has an executive team of public policy and philosophy specialists.

Dr. William Harris, who co-directs the Intelligent Design Network, is the closest these groups have to a biologist. His current work at the University of Missouri at Kansas City is in metabolism, vascular biology, and lipoprotein research. Dr. Robert Hagen, an evolutionary biology professor at the University of Kansas , once appeared on a radio talk show with Harris, and was astonished to find that Harris didn't understand the basic concepts of natural selection. Yet he is the spokesperson for a movement gaining in momentum that wants to suppress public understanding of evolution.

Impact of Intelligent Design on education and public policy

Intelligent Design not only impacts American science education, believes Templeton, but also public policy. He sees a uniquely American pattern of downplaying or suppressing biology wherever it comes into perceived conflict with religion, such as in discussion of stem cell research, genetically modified foods, and the environment. Science, because it is an international exercise, will march on, and stem cell research won't go away, “but the US can become an increasingly irrelevant player in these fields. South Korea is now light years ahead of the United States in stem cell research.”

BYU's Jeffery worries that private parochial and home-schooling will increase because more people are unwilling to let their children be taught evolution. “How will those kids be able to participate meaningfully in the discourse that goes on in our society, and then cast responsible votes?”

Kenneth Miller, Professor of Biology at Brown University (not to be confused with Kansas State's Keith Miller), is co-author of the most widely used biology textbook in America, and author of Finding Darwin's God (2000, HarperCollins). Miller has testified in Georgia and Pennsylvania court cases where school districts have required teaching Intelligent Design, or required that warning labels be affixed to his biology textbooks because they omit creationist viewpoints. He sees Intelligent Design as a “brilliant political strategy,” attempting to dodge Supreme Court rulings against mandating creationist instruction by changing the label, thereby enabling school districts and states to require creationism be taught as a viable opposing viewpoint.

Kenneth Miller says, “People say, ‘let's teach Intelligent Design out fairness. Let's see both sides of the issue.' Science is already the most open process we have. The ideas of intelligent design are welcome in the scientific community any time. But they avoid scientific audiences like the plague. In Georgia , Pennsylvania , and Kansas , they don't try to win the case scientifically, but to seek the assistance of government to inject their ideas into the classroom and do an end-run around science. They ask government to give them a victory that they can't win scientifically. And that would be a very poor lesson to students in the U.S. about how science works.”

Personal philosophy: where science and faith can meld

In their personal philosophies, many religious scientists can meld their religious feelings with evolutionary theory. Their views are highly individual. For some, such as Ken Miller, “the Heavens do declare the glory of God (Psalms 19:1), as does the increasingly rich and detailed scientific account of our evolutionary origins.”

But the scientists cited in this article all stress that you don't have to view science in this way. It is not necessary to conclude that a god must have made the universe. Natural processes can stand on their own.

Some might say this is weak or secularized faith, yet these religious scientists seem to be people of vibrant spirituality, quite willing to share their well-articulated religious feelings. Perhaps their faith is more secure because it's not tethered to the insufficiency of science.

© 2005, Julianna Berry.