Science and Religion Three-Way Blog

Thank you for directing us to the articles on Pat Robertson and Rick Sternberg (11/14). They are very interesting and I think that both issues should have been covered by the media. However, the one about Sternberg should have been reported even more than the one on Robinson (which was highly covered). The one about Sternberg seems more novel (as you implied) and more secretive – something that the public would probably not be aware of or even guess. However, the Robertson article was also important, allowing the public to consider that his statement might be true.

It is horrible that the Smithsonian could do all of the things stated in the article to such an editor as Sternberg. Sternberg wasn’t saying that the Smithsonian’s scientific viewpoint is wrong – all he did was publish a credible article espousing another fully possible scientific theory, which he himself does not even agree with. Intelligent Design is possible from a physical standpoint because we see all of the intricate creatures of this world and their equally intricate relationships, which are hard to imagine having “worked out” all on their own. Additional support for the idea that Intelligent Design is a true scientific possibility is the fact that (as far as I can remember) Dr. Michael Behe, one of the main scientists backing up ID theory, is not religiously affiliated. Therefore he does not have religious beliefs as a motive for espousing ID. Scientists should consider all possibilities, because the purpose of science should be to seek the truth about the physical world, whether or not it is what we expect or desire to find.

Intelligent Design and evolution are both possible systems of creation, as far as science is concerned. Neither has been scientifically proven, so I strongly believe that schools should teach both theories. This would not go against any religious or non-religious teaching that parents want to give at home. Parents can tell their children which view they believe is correct, but children should be taught about both because as far as scientific proof goes, either theory could be the truth. On the contrary, teaching that evolution is a fact, even though it is not proven, does oppose freedom of religion. Someone who learns evolution as a “belief” may more easily come to believe that their religion is not true because it does not support evolution. Therefore, when kids come home to parents with religious beliefs contrary to evolution, who wish to teach their children what they believe, the parents have no ground to stand on – even though the “ground” does exist. We must know all that scientists have observed, because the true “religion” does match what is observed - there is only one truth. I believe that God, the “Intelligent Designer,” has created everything in complexity so that we can observe His Majesty.