Science and religion are at odds in the debate over evolution and creationism, but when they recognize each other’s limitations and work together, they can explore deeper truths about the meaning and purpose of human existence. There is potential for a complementary relationship between science and religion, with science exploring the material world and religion exploring human values.
In a world dominated by creationism, the idea that God created the world and life, a man named Darwin came up with the theory of evolution. Evolutionary theory radically overturned creationism, which says that we were created by God. At the same time, science developed rapidly, and natural phenomena that had previously been explained only by divine providence and the devil’s mischief began to be explained by scientific logic. This led to a crisis in the dominance of religion over humanity’s worldview. The clear logic and hard evidence of science cut through the pretense of religion. Scientists even claimed that once science solved all the questions of nature, religion would no longer be necessary.
Intelligent design is a new pitcher that has come to the rescue of religion. According to intelligent design, the objects of nature that we should be focusing on are not the product of chance, but were created on purpose. The odds of life, i.e. humans, appearing on Earth since the beginning of the universe are extremely small. The likelihood that the various processes that led to that stage would have occurred would be almost miraculous, and therefore almost impossible to have occurred without some kind of external manipulation. Proponents of intelligent design criticize the scientific community for keeping religion out of their domain, and argue that theological explanations for questions that are not yet answered by science can be used to resolve them, or even provide science with a new window into the world. And they offer scientifically plausible evidence that such theology can be science.
Their first argument is irreducible complexity. Irreducible complexity is the property of a system that is composed of several parts that work together, but if any one part is missing, the whole system becomes dysfunctional. To use the example of the mousetrap in the book, if the mousetrap loses its spring, the whole thing stops working. This concept of irreducible complexity is used as one of the main arguments against evolutionary theory. According to evolutionary theory, the mechanisms that allow life to exist today have evolved over time, and in the past, their components must have been incomplete, so their functions must have been incomplete as well. This supports the argument that the system itself could not have been established in the past.
The second argument is that of the “finely tuned universe”. As explained above, there are many conditions for life to appear in this universe, and the probability of life meeting these conditions is almost miraculous, so that if the conditions were deviated from even slightly, life would not exist. Therefore, this miracle cannot be considered a chance occurrence, but rather an intentional act by an “intelligent being”. This is also quite convincing.
The next argument is “clear complexity”. It is argued that complex and clear things cannot exist by chance, and that ‘complex and clear’ life cannot emerge from a random process that relies on chance in evolutionary theory. This, in turn, can be explained by the intervention of an ‘intelligent being’. There are other arguments, such as the “clockwork argument,” but in the end, only the intentional intervention of an “intelligent being” allows life to exist.
By presenting these arguments, intelligent design challenges the theory of evolution through the philosophical questions we have about life. In response, the theory of evolution takes an empirical stance and tries to refute it by presenting evidence based on scientific logic. The limitations inherent in the theory of evolution are obvious. That’s where the theory of intelligent design comes in. Although the evidence in favor of evolution has been steadily accumulating for decades, it’s still nothing more than a hypothesis based on observation. It’s been proven time and time again, but we only accept limited information because our view of nature is constrained by the hypothesis. And because it’s a theory, it can be proven wrong with counterexamples, meaning that it’s still only a theory that’s close to being true, and it’s possible that it could be wrong. That’s why researchers are still working hard to elevate the theory of evolution from a speculation to a fully-fledged law.
To refute a theory, you need to find examples that don’t fit the logic of the theory. To do this, you need to find them carefully, and you need to pick them apart to see if they don’t fit the theory. To refute the theory of evolution, you need to give evidence against the theory of evolution. However, intelligent design does not provide evidence against evolutionary theory; rather, it relies on things that evolutionary theory, as well as other areas of science, has yet to explain. It claims that since evolutionary theory cannot explain these things, evolutionary theory must be wrong. Criticizes science’s attitude toward the origin of life and argues that only intelligent design can explain the origin of life. It does not provide clear evidence for this, but merely asserts that only “intelligent beings” are possible. Assertions alone do not constitute science. Only a clear logic, numerous challenges to verify it, and refinement based on those challenges can be called a scientific approach. It is reprehensible to simply gather evidence for refutation without such a discussion.
Positivist science is excellent at explaining the phenomena around us. However, it is true that it fails to explain the underlying causes that drive these processes. This is consistent with agnosticism. It may be impossible to recognize the nature of things on a human level. Science, after all, is a discipline that was created in the realm of human perception, so it may be difficult to find out the nature of things. It is natural that science is still powerless in the discussion of the origin of things. However, it is wrong to claim that logics that are different from science are unfounded and that they are right. Rather, it is an empty voice that is neither a science nor a theory. We should be wary of this attitude.
At the same time, the confrontation between science and religion has taken on a new dimension. Science is constantly coming up with new evidence and theories, trying to strengthen the theory of evolution. Religion, on the other hand, points out the limitations of science and argues for the existence of God and the possibility of creation. This conflict is more than just a clash of knowledge; it leads to deep philosophical questions about the meaning and purpose of human existence. There is also the possibility that science and religion can develop a complementary relationship, which can be realized when both fields recognize their limitations and work together. After all, the quest for truth is an endless one, and it is important for science and religion to recognize and respect each other’s presence along the way.
So instead of rejecting each other, we need to move toward collaborating and recognizing each other’s strengths. Science can be utilized as a tool to deepen our understanding of the material world, and religion can be utilized as a tool to explore the meaning and value of human existence. In doing so, we will be able to pursue broader and deeper truths, which will ultimately enrich human life.
