More on Evolution in Kansas

In my previous comments on the evolution debate in Kansas schools, I have described the "revisionist" view as reasonable at face value, but a smokescreen for their real ambition, which is to turn religion into science. I guess the smoke is clearing because they are getting quite open about it. The AP reports

The Kansas school board's hearings on evolution weren't limited to how the theory should be taught in public schools. The board is considering redefining science itself. Advocates of 'intelligent design' are pushing the board to reject a definition limiting science to natural explanations for what's observed in the world.

Instead, they want to define it as "a systematic method of continuing investigation," without specifying what kind of answer is being sought. The definition would appear in the introduction to the state's science standards.

Stephen Meyer argues that the current definition of science, which focuses on the natural world, is "not neutral. It's actually taking sides" on the question of natural versus supernatural explanation. Well, yeah. Science searches for logical, demonstrable, reproducible explanations for the phenomena around us. That naturally precludes a supernatural explanation. Christians will argue that God is omnipotent, so He can do whatever He wants. Therefore, since God can do anything he wants, there is no way to predict what will ever happen if you bring God into your theory.

If I pick up a pencil and drop it, what will happen? If I take a scientific explanation, I can answer that. I can predict the path it will take, how long it will take to fall to my desk, and how fast it will be travelling when it hits the desk. But if I bring God in, how do I predict what will happen? I cannot. If God can do whatever He wants, then that pencil can follow any trajectory, move at any speed, do anything God wants it to do. There goes any element of predictability in science. This is why God is not part of any scientific theory.

Ironically, what these Christians are doing is basically undermining God. They are saying that even God is subject to the laws of nature. Science is the quest to understand those laws, so if God is part of a scientific understanding, then He is subject to those laws. Even He cannot break them. In other words, God is not omnipotent. This is why, as a Christian myself as well as a scientist, I find this whole line of argument disturbing. God cannot be put in a box, and why these Christians are so insistent on doing so is perplexing.

Fundamentally, we're comparing apples and oranges. On the question of the origins of the universe of or life on Earth, science looks at the "how" and religion looks at the "who" and the "why." As a Christian, I say God created the universe and created all life on Earth. That statement does not address the question of how He created the universe. Science attempts to provide an explanation of the how. Rather than fight against scientific discovery, Christians should be embracing science as a means of further understanding the mind and ways of God. The Bible tells us that God is understood through creation (Rom 1:20). So why do they want to quash that understanding of creation so much?