Science, Religion and the Constitution

The President mentioned intelligent design in response to questions from the press.[1] The comments shown below were brief:

In an interview at the White House on Monday with a group of Texas newspaper reporters, Mr. Bush appeared to endorse the push by many of his conservative Christian supporters to give intelligent design equal treatment with the theory of evolution.

Recalling his days as Texas governor, Mr. Bush said in the interview, according to a transcript, "I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught." Asked again by a reporter whether he believed that both sides in the debate between evolution and intelligent design should be taught in the schools, Mr. Bush replied that he did, "so people can understand what the debate is about."

Mr. Bush was pressed as to whether he accepted the view that intelligent design was an alternative to evolution, but he did not directly answer. "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," he said, adding that "you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."

This presents an opportunity to reflect on religion, science and the U.S. Constitution. I have some biases that need to be revealed. I am a scientist. I am an American. I believe deeply in the U.S. Constitution. I am deeply religious. I was raised in a Judeo Christian household. I believe deeply in the teachings of Jesus Christ and their logical evolution. I am an atheist. I do not believe in the supernatural, the soul, or the spirit. I also believe that there are many things that are unknowable to me and to everyone.

Science is a religion. Many scientists deny that science is a religion. One can argue that science is based on evidence and religion is not. One can argue that science is based on knowledge and religion is not. One can argue that there are many things other religions hold sacred that science does not.

There are some principles (sometimes called dogma) that science holds sacred. One is observation sometimes referred to as the collection of evidence. Two, is that under similar conditions similar events occur. Three, hypothesis can be tested (tests are called experiments). Four, given two explanations for the same phenomena the simpler is more likely to be true than the more complex (Ockham's razor).

Science also has what could be called priesthood; complete with a hierarchy; a means of gaining entry to the priesthood; and a means of gaining promotion. The knowledge (beliefs) gained from applying scientific principles (dogma) are constantly changing. Gaining acceptance of beliefs is through a means of publishing results, in such a way that others (scientists) believe the results. Basically this means observations must be observable to others; explanations are a better fit to the evidence than other explanations; explanations are simpler than other explanations; hypothesis can be tested; and tests are repeatable.

Science is clear that the principles (dogma) are basic and should be embedded in the teaching of science. Science is also clear that until beliefs have gained acceptance as science those beliefs should not be taught as science. There is some interesting evidence suggesting that intelligence contributed to DNA and the creation of everything.[2] This evidence is of an information theoretic nature and has not yet convinced any significant (say 10%) number of scientists in the field of biology that intelligent design is a viable to be taught[3]. Until intelligent design gains acceptance in the field, the theory does not deserve to be taught as science.

What of the Constitution and the first amendment? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" is the relevant clause. Science is also explicitly mentioned in the clause "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" Science is implicitly referred to in the clause ". . . and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"[4]

I see or read implicitly in the first amendment the words "except for science." Thus the first amendment really reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of re . . . with the exception of science;" I make this interpretation based on the founders not thinking of science as a religion. I would love to see what Judge Roberts thinks about this complex subject.[5]

My crystal ball tells me that sometime the teaching of science in public schools will be challenged under the separation of church and state. This may be much more interesting than Roe versus Wade.

[1] See Bush Remarks Roil Debate over Teaching of Evolution by Elisabeth Bumiller published: August 3, 2005 in the New York Times.

[2] Intelligent design starts with proposition that only an entity that is intelligent can create a complex pattern. Since DNA is complex and a pattern (some might say a program or a message) then it must have been created by an intelligent being. The field of genetic programming uses pseudo random numbers to generate designs that people never thought of and are better than the designs people created in past to perform the same function. Does this make those programs intelligent entities? Interestingly enough the designs created by genetic programs show similar properties of redundancy and unused features that DNA exhibits.

[3] I am suggesting that the theory might hold some interest, just that the evidence is very slight.

[4] Taken directly from the US Constitution.

[5] His confirmation hearings are imminent.