I wonder to what extent serious scientific discussions about intelligent design, creationism, and the like are just an American phenomenon. It seems that, outside America, nonreligious and religious people alike (including the pope, I venture) have less conflicting views. They have long understood that, in contrast to religion, science simply means a search for explanations of natural phenomena purely on the basis of physical and logical causation that is verifiable or falsifiable by observation and repeatable experiment, strictly without recourse to acts of God in whatever disguise.
That simple difference must first be made clear and then must serve as a guide in deciding what should and should not be taught in science courses. It would then become apparent that it makes no more sense to import religious beliefs into science than to devise and advocate nonreligious explanations for the Holy Trinity, original sin, or other articles of faith. In 1983, the television series NOVA aired an interview with Richard Feynman, titled "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out." A few of Feynman's comments from that interview would go a long way toward calming the waters.
My interest in science is to simply find out about the world. . . . When we go to investigate it, we shouldn't pre-decide what it is we're trying to do, except to try to find out more about it. . . . Altogether, I can't believe these special stories that have been made up about our relationship to the universe at large because they seem to me too simple, too connected, too local, too provincial. . . . I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong.1
Reference
1. R. Feynman, in The Pleasure of Finding Things Out: The Best Short Works of Richard P. Feynman, J. Robbins, ed., Perseus Books, Cambridge, Mass. (1999).
Featured Jobs
