“People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive” (Pascal, qtd. in Goodreads). This is the reality that we face in our understanding of the origin of the universe. Pascal’s statement has been proven in both science and religion. While science is constantly seeking to prove theories of the origin of life, the core question about how life began remains a mystery. Therefore, beliefs must develop out of fascination for a particular theory of the origins of life. Since scientists readily admit that no one can know for sure how life began and believers in a divine being have little scientific proof for him, it is clear that all scientific or religious conclusions must be based on faith. With this in mind, we ought to be wary of dismissing altogether the possibility of intelligent design.
No matter how much evidence seems to exist, even prominent Darwinists willingly admit that no one knows how life began. The well known scientist in the world of Darwinism, Richard Dawkins, admits this (Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed). Michael Shermer, founder of the Skeptics Society, says of intelligent design that “it is unproven, so in that sense it’s nonsense” (Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed). Unfortunately for Shermer, even Darwin himself admits that, “Science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life” (qtd. in Today in Science History). In Sheremer’s reasoning, science also provides a nonsensical way of explaining the origins of life.
In his article on science and religion, Gregg Easterbrook provided evidence of the growing importance of intelligent design to science. He revealed how scientists are becoming increasingly open to the idea of the spiritual aspect to the origin of the universe, stating that, “many scientists are reaching out to spiritual thinkers to help them comprehend what they're learning” (Easterbrook). After briefly presenting the beliefs of Georges Lemaître, Edwin Hubble, and other cosmologists, he made the statement that, “Nobody knows beyond foggy conjecture what caused the big bang, what (if anything) was present before that event, or how there could have been a prior condition in which nothing existed” (Easterbrook).
Before moving any further, let us consider what scientific knowledge is. Why should we trust scientific explanations more than religious explanations? What are the processes that scientists use to form theories on the origins of the universe, and are those processes absolutely reliable? According to Aristotle, scientific knowledge is obtained when we know “the cause why the thing is, that it is the cause of this, and that this cannot be otherwise” (“Aristotle’s Logic”). Since we cannot prove with absolute confidence what caused life, we cannot have scientific knowledge, as defined by Aristotle, regarding universal origins. There has not yet been a scientist who has been able to successfully prove what the cause of life is, that it is the cause of life, and that this cannot be otherwise. That is why scientists formulate theories. That is why there are multiple theories.
Many scientists have rejected intelligent design as a legitimate option for years. All people searching out the answer for the question of how life began in the first place, however, must face the possibility that there was a designer. But, why should they even give that possibility the time of day? To say that there is a designer is to step out of science and into the supernatural. This reasoning is what has caused the separation between science and religion. They are thought of as two separate entities and two different ways of thinking. In order to accept the concept of the supernatural in creation, one must be willing to redefine their understanding of science. In order to redefine their understanding of science, they must address what their understanding of science has been based off of. Going back far enough to the very root of science, before laws and processes were developed, they will find that they must address the issue of faith.
What many atheistic scientists have failed to realize is that the base from which they understand the universe is very similar to theistic scientists and believers in intelligent design. While the structures that have been built look absolutely opposite, the foundation remains the same. They both start from the same place. Because the origin of life is a mystery to every person, theories and beliefs must be based on faith. The theory that is most appealing is typically the theory that a person will choose. Those who hate the idea of god, whatever the reason may be, will most likely agree with theories that do not include the hand of a higher being in the formation of life. Those who believe in god, whatever their reasons may be, will most likely agree with explanations including the hand of a higher being. Either a person has faith in chance or a person has faith in God. What a person believes about the origins of the universe is the base from which they form their worldview. Why, then, should intelligent design be any less legitimate of an option than any other theory?
Pascal made the statement that, “Faith indeed tells what the senses do not tell, but not the contrary of what they see. It is above them and not contrary to them” (qtd. in Goodreads). Faith excluding God says that somehow a universe emerged from nothing and that all elements needed to support life emerged out of nowhere creating out of perfect chance an environment that has successfully sustained life for billions of years. Faith including God says that though we cannot see him, he is the one who creatively formed a universe and that he is the force sustaining life. What is causing our hearts to beat right now? Certainly, we do not have the ability to give ourselves life. There really are only two options: chance or God.
We have seen that since faith is the base of both belief in intelligent design and any other theory about the origins of the universe, no matter how much can be explained by science after life’s origins. People believe what is most appealing. Even some of the most accomplished and respected scientists have admitted that the origin of the universe is a mystery and cannot be fully explained by science. Therefore, what is believed must be based on faith. Intelligent design should not be dismissed because it seems more supernatural and therefore less scientific or reliable. Intelligent design is just as reasonable as anything else. Before dismissing the possibility of God altogether, I challenge you with this wager from Pascal:
“Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists.” (qtd. in Brainy Quotes)
It is just as much of a wager to believe that the universe is the product of chance.
Works Cited
“Aristotle’s Logic.” Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2011. Web. 10 Nov. 2011.
Dawkins, Richard, and Michael Shermer, perf. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Dir.
Logan Craft, Walt Ruloff, and John Sullivan. 2008. Rocky Mountain Pictures.
Web. 17 Nov. 2011.
Darwin, Charles. Today in Science History. N.p., 2011. Web. 27 Nov. 2011.
Easterbrook, Gregg. "Wired 10.12: The New Convergence." Wired.com. Dec. 2002.
Web. 10 Nov. 2011.
Pascal, Blaise. Brainy Quotes. N.p., 2011. Web. 27 Nov. 2011.
Pascal, Blaise. Goodreads. N.p., 2011. Web. 27 Nov. 2011.
