Ben Stein’s recent movie Expelled (“Is I.D. Ready for Its Close-up?” May/June 2008) asserts that intelligent design is better than Richard Dawkin’s “blind chance.” Expelled claimed that “Big Science” fired advocates of ID. However, it ignored that fact the leading design proponents have not been expelled: for example, Professor Michael Behe at Lehigh University and Professor William Dembski at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.
The either/or approach polarizes the science and religion dialogue. The scientific evidence is that nature’s creativity arises from the interplay between chance and design (laws). Darwinian evolution is characterized by the interplay between variations (chance) and the natural selection law (design). Recent advances in complexity theory and Madelbrot’s “Fractal Geometry of Nature” confirm that Darwinian processes characterize nature. As chaos theorist Joseph Ford put it: “God plays dice, but the dice are loaded.”
This interplay can be extended to science and spirit. Spirituality, the source of religious meaning, provides the ‘why,’ which complements the ‘how’ of science. The complementary beauty of spirit and science is needed to prevent terrorism and materialism. Spirituality without scientific validation can lead to religious extremism, as in 9/11. Science and technology without spiritual and moral constraint can result in the exploitation of nature’s intrinsic beauty, the environmental challenge.
Paul H. Carr, Ph.D.
Bedford, New Hampshire
Regarding David Wilkinson’s essay “The End of the World and the New Creation” (March/April 2008), we should take seriously the “degree of freedom” that Wilkinson refers to, and assume it includes the freedom to not believe in God. Anyone who wants to can see God performing private wonders in answer to their prayers. This is what fills houses of worship—no matter the type of worship—century after century. But if God’s gift includes free will, then we cannot expect public “miracles”—such as water being turned into wine—to occur in the scientific era.
Long ago, people believed God could part the Red Sea; so perhaps it was possible. Such public demonstrations have no place in today’s world, however. Public proof of God’s power would force the materialists to believe, taking away the first of God’s presumed gifts: freedom (to believe or not). Thus, proof of God’s existence is mutually exclusive with freedom.
The point being: Lack of proof of God’s existence should not be a stumbling block to those seeking divine guidance for their New Creation, whatever it be. God is a ready-and-willing partner. The uncertainty of faith is simply the price we must pay for the freedom to create.
Peter Wilson
Phoenix, Arizona
David Wilkinson responds: Peter Wilson raises some interesting points. Of course the open view of the universe means that not only does God respect our freedom and the freedom inherent in the physical process of the universe—it also means that we have to respect God’s freedom to do new and surprising things.
