Sharpening the Line

Religion and science are two realms that were not meant to co-exist in one plane. Religion serves an individual's spiritual and emotional purpose, while science caters to the reason and functionality of the universe.


I don't believe science are religion are meant to connect, but be used side-to-side for separate purposes.

By opposing Creationism and Intelligent Design, it is important to note that it is not the same as opposing spirituality and religion. There is nothing scientific about assuming that "gaps in the evolutionary record... can't be explained without God"(The Week, 259). Science requires some kind of evidence that is testable by the scientific process.


The Scientific Method has long been used to provide solid evidence and record observations.

I think Darwin supporters are correct when they "say we cannot interpret the source [of DNA] because to do so we are moving into the realm of theology, which only gives subjective, unprovable answers"(Studebaker, 261). John Studebaker's example of carving a name into a tree and seeing a cloud shaped like an animal is not entirely logical. Who is to say that the tree carving was created by an intelligent person, yet the cloud was not the work of god, rather it was "formed by natural causes"(Studebaker, 261). Also, I find many exaggerations in his work. "If [the earth's] tilt were just a bit more or less the temperature variance would be to great to allow for life"(Studebaker, 262) is a grossly exaggerated statement. If the earth tilted, there would be a temperature variance, but as we know through Darwinism, we would adapt to it. The variance of "a bit more or less" of a degree (very technical jargon, there) is not significant enough to destroy life's ability to sustain itself. For instance, look at the extremes in which plants can survive.


The Arctic Cotton Flower survives in harsh weather and poor soil.



On the other hand, even in the searing, dry desert, a cactus and its adaptions allow for it to produce beautiful blossoms like these.


One valid question Studebaker does bring up is "What are the chances of one planet having all the parameters necessary for life-support?"(Studebaker, 262) and the answer is probably one in a million. Lucky for us, there are way more than a million stars and planets. I believe there is life in other places, just life that we are unable to identify or reach. Also, many traits of life are linked, thus simple probability does not apply. Most features are conditional on one another.


The presence of many parameters of life is a complicated probability problem since many are linked.


I disagree with his idea that "a spiritual 'awakening' process [begins] based on simple reason"(Studebaker, 262-263). Spiritual awakening is an internal affair. It is not something you draw for your environment or from what you see. Studebaker himself states that "Christians... know they cannot prove God's existence to anyone"(Studebaker, 262) yet they believe in it. Faith without seeing is important. After all, the Bible itself inquires how "he that loves not his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?"(John 4:20). This encourages faith and a spiritual belief in god, while discouraging the search for scientific evidence of his existence.


Often, seeing is not believing. The essence of faith is to believe in what you don't need proven to you, but what you feel in your heart.


Even if "by examining the apparent design of the created world [we] deduct that a Grand Designer must exist"(Studebaker, 263), who is to say that that grand designer is Christ? This Grand Designer could be any force with whatever name we choose to call it by. There are thousands of gods worshiped all over the world, so why would this intelligent being have to be Christian?



For all we know, Rama could be the force behind intelligent design.


Religion does have it's own power. It brings many people strength, insight, and moral support. However, we can't use it to explain everything in the world. Olasky and Perry have the nerve to relate the teaching of Darwinism over Creationism in our classes to "the abandonment of absolute standards of morality and behavior"(Olasky & Perry, 265) in America. Reality check: We're still a very religious country, and the majority of us don't even really understand Darwinism OR Creationism.


President Bush's largest support group was firmly Christian.


In fact, more individuals are familiar with the principles of Creationism than Darwinism, regardless of what name they may call it. Price reviews the book and points out the fact that "draconian drug laws, dearth of sex education, [and] the pressures of commerce -- are never considered"(Price, 265) as factors.

Is there a compromise? Maybe. Hopkins was definitely on to something when "he recognized the importance of personification... imagining God in the flowers and waters... [and] a belief that they were alive"(Bump, 272).


Pocahontas vouches that everything in nature "has a life, has a spirit, has a name."

He takes a very spiritual view on nature, and although he is "sure of the presence of God in this world"(Bump, 271), it does not necessarily mean that he believes God created each plant individually. We can still accept the idea of Darwinism alongside God if we redefine our image of god as a collective life energy rather than a person. God is a spirit ever-present in so many things, yet we do not doubt what science proves to us about creation. So essentially, the co-existence of Intelligent Design/Creationism and Darwinism? Illogical. The co-existence of religion/spirituality and Darwinism? Quite possible.