The Second Eclectic

Technology changes how we relate to God and each other

Thoughts and Reasons, Part Five

Mr. Cawelti,

I reread your article on why religion and science can't meet. I will grant you that proof is the dividing wall between these two worlds--you will not find physical proof that an Intelligent Designer exists, unless, of course you believe that the existence of anything at all is evidence itself. That's for another time.

ID theorists are looking at Evolutionary theory, then looking at the complexity of the basic cell and they are seeing a discrepancy in the standard explanation. They are saying that the evolutionary theory fails to sufficiently explain the most basic cell. It is too complex a system, they argue, to have arisen by chance. So, they say that this begs the question:

evolutionary theory + basic cell complexity = ?

This is really the issue for all scientists: to explain how the cell in its least complex form developed. There are any number of ways to try to answer this. Those who are committed to evolution should concern themselves with modifying the theory to account for this, or develop a new theory which will.


On this account, ID theorists are a step ahead, they have looked at the facts (evolution, basic cells) and said that evolutionary theory is insufficient.

This sounds remotely familiar: Newtonian physics could no longer explain science's discoveries sufficiently, enter Quantum mechanics. The geocentric theory no longer withstood scientific scrutiny, enter Copernicus, Galileo, and heliocentrism. Evolutionary scientists are currently running the risk following in the footsteps of 16th and 17th century religionists who decried Copernicus and Galileo as heretics against the present ideology. Evolutionary theorists are otracizing honest scientists for questioning the status of evolution's sufficiency. Will these evolutionary theorists commit themselves to evolution or science? It's funny how interchangeable those two words are.

With the question raised by the basic cell, the ID theorists have taken steps to answer it. Like any good scientist, with the facts before them, they have suggested a logical option. Every time we do an experiment, we use logic to help us understand a correlation or a cause. In this case, ID theorists are logically concluding a possible cause for the basic cell. No, it can't be tested, not yet at least. But it still withstands logical scrutiny, under which evolutionary theory is beginning to crack.

I hope that my clearer understanding of your position has helped me to clearly explain my own. I am sure that you are busy and I want to respect your time, so I hope that this is not too long. I've left off right at the point, the ability for humans to reason, where Lewis picks up. I will look for Dragons soon, and let you know when I pick it up.



Note -- As of October 28th, 2005, I have heard no response from Mr. Cawelti