Like Megan, I believe that many of the articles and excerpts in todayÕs reading assignment are very one sided and biased. And, even more importantly, they fail to argue their points well. From THE WEEK article, the following statements made me want to know more about the authorÕs perspective: ÒThis sneaky new strategy is workingÓ and ÒScientists say itÕs Ôbeneath themÕ to even consider the possibility that something outside the natural realm was at workÓ (259). I donÕt see how intelligent design is a Òsneaky strategyÓ and I would like to know which scientists consider religion Òbeneath them.Ó Several years ago I had the opportunity to go with my family to A&M to hear Stephen Hawking give a speech. (For those unfamiliar with the name, Stephen Hawking is among the most prominent physicist alive today. He has developed the idea of black holes and space physics quite a bit and has several very successful books including A Brief History of Time and The Universe in a Nutshell. ) Although he is not a biologist and his speech had nothing to do with evolution, it does serve as a good example of the unification of science and religion. Throughout the speech, Hawking made subtle and often humorous references to God, or a god, and I felt he indicated that he Ð one of the most prominent scientists of our time Ð believed in a higher power, if not a single God. ÒIf at one time, one knew the positions and velocities of all the particles in the universe, the laws of science should enable us to calculate their positions and velocities, at any other time, past or future. The laws may or may not have been ordained by God, but scientific determinism asserts that he does not intervene, to break them.Ó (speech text at http://www.physics.sfasu.edu/astro/news/20030308news/StephenHawking20030308.htm) This quote from his speech makes reference to God. However, I canÕt find the PowerPoint presentation that goes along with the speech online; the slides had better references to God in a positive light.
Further, I feel a very strong connection to pantheism, as defined in Professor BumpÕs reply to BradÕs post. Hopkins seems to have a leaning to this view of the world also, ÒIn contrast to the Ômuscular ChristianityÕ of Tom Hughes, Hopkins here exemplifies an Ôaesthetic ChristianityÕ which emphasizes the appreciation of beauty as a means to GodÕ (635, E 603A anthology). I was first introduced to the concept when reading Tess of the DÕUrbervilles by Thomas Hardy. ÒAngel, in fact, rightly or wrongly, É preferred sermons in stones to sermons in churches on fine summer daysÓ (Hardy, 166). In terms of evolution, I have always viewed intelligent design as the middle ground, where creationism and evolution mix. Although the readings portrayed it a little more harshly, I had always heard that intelligent design was basically a theory acknowledging that we as humans did and do evolve, but that a higher power may guide that evolution. In the same way, pantheism seems to say that God or a higher force can be found in anything and everything. Not everything is black and white; rather, a middle ground can be found. In HawkingÕs words, ÒUp to now, most people have implicitly assumed that there is an ultimate theory, that we will eventually discover. Indeed, I myself have suggested we might find it quite soon. However, M-theory has made me wonder if this is true. Maybe it is not possible to formulate the theory of the universe in a finite number of statements.Ó (Which is what Hawking spent some time trying to do, from what I gathered from his speech).