the clashes between claims based in faith v. reason, it seems that most
people -- on both sides of the debate about religion and science in the
United States -- share a belief in a kind of magic. Sadly, this need for
magical thinking undermines the ability of religion and science to deal with
the complexity of the material world and the mystery of creation.
The difference between a belief in magic and
an appreciation of mystery has never been clearer than in the debate over
“intelligent design” and the alleged challenge it presents to evolutionary
biology. In claims that religious people make about a designer, as well as
many of the typical refutations of that position, we see our species’ hubris
Our predicament is simple: We humans know -- and are capable of knowing --
far less than we would like to know about how the world came to be and what
kind of beings we are. For all our cleverness and inventiveness, what we
don’t know still dwarfs what we do know. In the words of Wes Jackson, a
biologist and sustainable-agriculture researcher, we are fundamentally
ignorant. That doesn’t mean we know nothing, but simply that we don’t know
enough to understand as much as we would like, as deeply as we desire.
What to do in the face of those limits? One possibility is to acknowledge
them and understand life as an endless engagement with the mystery that we
can, at best, only partially comprehend. Another approach is to craft
magical “solutions” that purport to give definitive answers. Unfortunately,
too many take this latter path.
This is obvious in the arguments of
supporters of intelligent design, an approach that holds that “certain
features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an
intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural
Unlike traditional creationism, this approach doesn’t identify God as the
designer, though it’s nearly impossible to find an intelligent-design
proponent who doesn’t believe in such a God. But the shift from
God-as-creator to unidentified-designer is strategic not principled; by
declining to inject religion directly into the debate, intelligent-design
campaigners can make arguments that appear to be rooted in a call for
objectivity -- the “teach both sides” rhetoric. Instead of arguing for the
superiority of intelligent design, its backers simply argue it should be
taught as a competing scientific theory alongside evolution.
The problem, of course, is that intelligent design is not open to being
tested experimentally and has no basis in science. It is speculative
philosophy that could appropriately be taught in a course that deals with
various cultures’ origin myths. Such treatment is not disrespectful of
people’s religious beliefs, but simply intellectually honest.
Polls in the United States suggest that most people disagree. In
one survey last year, 65 percent of people favored teaching creationism
(not just intelligent design, but good, old-fashioned Christian creationism)
together with evolution in science classrooms, and 37 percent thought
creationism should be taught instead of evolution.
This reflects a need to articulate clear answers to questions that can’t be
definitively answered given the limits of human intelligence. Those folks
have cast their lot with magic, typically out of fear of mystery.
Secular people who believe science is a more compelling way to resolve this
question tend to find this perplexing and/or maddening. As one person put it
in casual conversation with me, “Why can’t they (creationists) just accept
that evolution is the answer?”
While I also weigh in on the evolutionary theory side of this debate, I am
uncomfortable with the declaration that there is any “the answer” concerning
the origin and development of life. Is not a belief in science’s ability to
provide definitive answers also a kind of magical thinking, a willingness to
believe beyond our capacity to know? Could there be forces beyond
evolution-through-natural-selection also at work that we don’t yet
understand? Can we be skeptical of mystical assertions and yet open to
alternative avenues of inquiry?
Both religion and science, when taken down these limited magical roads,
impoverish our imaginations. But the problem isn’t religion or science per
se; the best traditions in both realms don’t talk in such absolutes.
Science is based not on claims of absolute truth, but on evidence marshaled
to support a theory. It works on the principle of falsifiability: Ideas must
be capable of being proven false to be scientifically valid. Rather than
saying something is TRUE, we can only say that to date it has not been
proven false. And, of course, the history of science is a history of change,
as claims once widely accepted give way to more robust ideas.
Scientists know this, as do many lay people. But in a culture that glorifies
the products of the scientific method -- especially our dazzling
high-technology machines -- many believe that science offers definitive
answers. In that sense, the culture corrupts science by demanding magical
Much religion, on the other hand, is based on claims of truth. But the best
interpreters of religious traditions steer the discussion of faith away from
certainty and toward ongoing engagement with the questions.
Jim Rigby -- pastor of St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church in Austin, TX, and a
progressive theologian -- puts it this way: “Religion and science conflict
only when one or both forget their proper bounds. When religion makes
competing claims with science it is like a retina moving to the front of the
eye; it cannot help but stand in its own light. The proper concern of
religion is not declarations of truth, but the search for meaning.”
At their best, religion and science recognize mystery and reject magic. Both
accept the limited scope of their inquiry and encourage other forms of
On the origins of life, evolutionary theory appears to be a compelling
framework. It is folly to disregard it out of a need to believe in religious
magic. But it also is folly to believe evolutionary theory is the last word
on the subject and all that remains is to work out the details.
A more sensible path is to acknowledge that we live in a material world and
also are part of creation.
We can look at a material world and be grateful for how some scientists have
helped us understand, in limited ways, its workings. And we can be
disappointed in the way some science has contributed to the degradation of
the world’s ecosystems, in large part through arrogance and an
underdeveloped sense of our intellectual limits.
We can look at creation and be grateful for the ways that some religious
people have helped us understand, in limited ways, its meaning. And we can
be disappointed in the way some religion has encouraged people to narrow the
scope of inquiry into the meaning of human existence, in large part because
of that same arrogance and problems with comprehending limits.
As we struggle with the timeless questions about the meaning of creation, we
face the urgent problem of creating sustainable systems in the material
world. This is the task of our moment in history, and to succeed we will
need the best of both these traditions.
Robert Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of
Texas at Austin and a member of the board of the Third Coast Activist
He is the author of
The Heart of Whiteness: Race, Racism, and White Privilege and
Citizens of the Empire: The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity (both
from City Lights Books). He can be reached at:
Other Recent Articles by Robert Jensen
* The 1st
Amendment's Assembly and Petition Clauses -- Eviscerated by Big Money?
Thanks No More: It’s Time for a National Day of Atonement
Osheroff: On the Joys and Risks of Living Authentically in the Empire
The Challenge of a Broken World
Images Don't Bring Change
From Hiroshima to Iraq and Back with Sharon Weiner
Demonizing News Media is Attempt to Divert Attention from Policy Failures
* A New
“Citizens Oath of Office” for Inauguration 2005
Election Day Fears
Dams in India -- Temples or Burial Grounds?
Supports Anti-Democratic Forces in Venezuela Recall
Hypocrisy on the Vietnam War
“Fahrenheit 9/11” is a Stupid White Movie
Just the Emperor Who is Naked, but the Whole Empire
Strike Remembers the Victims of World Bank Policies
Condi Rice Wouldn't Admit Mistakes
President Bush Involved with Donation
to Group with
Observe Right to Unionize by Making it Reality
New Purported Bush Tape Raises Fear of New Attacks
General Boykin’s Fundamentalist View of the Other
Just the (Documented) Facts, Ma'am
Through the Eyes of Foreigners: US Political Crisis
“No War” A Full-Throated Cry
Media Criticism of Iraq Coverage Reveals Problems with Journalists'
Conception of News
Embedded Reporters Viewpoint Misses Main Point Of War
Fighting Alienation in the USA
Where's The Pretext? Lack of WMD Kills Case for War
For Self-Determination in Iraq, The U.S. Must Leave
The Images They Choose, and Choose to Ignore
Embedded Media Give Up Independence
On NPR, Please Follow the Script