After two years of a broad yet vague education in life sciences, I was excited to finally study macroevolution, a topic at the heart of my evolutionary biology degree. I remember buying the textbook before the course even began, something I had never done before.
Perhaps evidence of some divine irony, professor Dan Brooks lectured like a Baptist reverend possessed— all sulphur, fire, and brimstone. The heat of his vitriolic, scientific rhetoric seared our arched eyebrows. He stood with a pointer in one hand— looking comically similar to Walter from the Big Lebowski—speaking words of objective scientific fact with as much conviction as I have seen men of faith muster. Among his warnings was the danger of treating intelligent design as science. This was branded into the pliable putty of my mind with hardly a hallelujah—and with more force than any sermon or homily I had ever witnessed.
After this class, an uncomfortable thought sits awkwardly in the back of my mind: I am unsure of the stance that my faith takes on evolution. When that thought grows legs, it constantly reminds me that I am also unclear on how science treats religious pursuits.
Akin to the devout praying to the saints, I turn to the writings of paleontologist Stephen J. Gould for direction. Gould treats the apparent conflict between religion and science in a remarkable way: in his words, science is the “how” and religion is the “why.” Suddenly, I realize something. There should be no conflict here; the shadows cast do not overlap.
I need to corroborate this satisfying conclusion with my religious beliefs. Finding myself flipping through the Catechism of the Catholic Church for clarification, the picture only grows dimmer. While it does make clear that science is a good thing:
“The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man.”
The Catechism also highlights the need for a capital ‘C’ creator to give credit for making an unholy mess. Could a Prime Mover have created the Big Bang and set things on their own course? If so, I do not see why evolution and religion are in any position of conflict.
Is it simply the nature of religion to divide rather than unite? Is science out to destroy religion?
I spoke to Denyse O’Leary, a Catholic and supporter of intelligent design here at U of T. While she has a lot of interesting things to say, I could not buy the argument of intelligent design. Holes in our knowledge do not mean that the scientific approach and findings are wrong. It seems to me that the “proof” for the presence of a designer is simply that science hasn’t yet explained every single tiny detail of the process of evolution. To pass off this unscientific intelligent design “science” as an appropriate addition to the world’s empirical knowledge is immoral and wrong. Intelligent design has no place in the classroom. It is not a valid alternative to evolutionary theory and it never will be.
My father always offered me a simple analogy when I was young and full of questions about the world: if all the accumulated knowledge we have is a point of light in the dark room, as the point gets bigger, so too does the amount of darkness that this point comes into contact with. I refuse to take a shortcut and attribute the mysteries of life to the hazy, immaterial idea of “intelligent design.” And so, I will take the long, dark road.
Fighting science with religious doctrine is a pointless endeavour. Why should the lines of these two disciplines with completely different ideological foundations ever intersect? By forcing additional and unnecessary doubt on scientific pursuits that acknowledge their own shortcomings, a toxic atmosphere of mistrust leaches out from the folds of ignorant minds. Science seeks to advance our knowledge so that we can better our human race, though admittedly, it is not always used for this cause. Yes, disciples of Darwin spun his findings into a shameful ball of yarn known as eugenics. And yes, Richard Dawkins’ outspoken atheism makes it seems that scientific progress sets out to destroy religion. But this was never the case. How could it be? Religion operates on a completely different level—one that is beyond the grasp of the empirical tradition. Mrs. O’Leary, with all due respect, I disagree. Those who support intelligent design and its attacks on the scientific method are playing with fire. And they are starting fires where there should be none.
Editor’s Note: I was once a good Catholic, I suppose. But after enough time, faith becomes difficult to find and the Church becomes a bitter pill to swallow. Having already inscribed a personal moral code—informed by years of schooling and effective parenting—there seems to be no need for inflexible doctrines and arbitrary rules. Be good. Be just. Be kind. If I am all these things, why should I be holy?
This aspect of my life—conflict between religion and my own conscience and personal beliefs—is a chapter that is many pages removed from my scientific pursuits. It may be a story without conclusion, an unfinished work languishing at the bottom of my soul.
