The Catholic Church and Intelligent Design vs. Modern Geology, Biology and Newtonian Physics: How Faith and Religion Obscure Science

A LIL DISCLAIMER :-)

Having grown up in the Dominican Republic in a home of five evangelists, with a live-in-pastor who happened to be my grandma, my days consisted of school, homework, and church until, when I was eight, I moved to the United States. Before the move, when I was totally immersed in the traditions and faith of my mother’s side of the family, I understood that God’s power was the explanation for most of what happened in our daily lives: the power coming back on, a beach day, food on the table; God was to be thanked for all the good things that occurred in our household. From a young age, I was told that God created the nature and beauty around me. I vividly remember one day when I was picking leaves off of a bush and suddenly noticed a drop of water glide through the inner branches; it appeared similar to tear drops. For some odd reason, I found this moment to be particularly significant. I quickly ran inside to tell my grandma of this incident, and surely, she did not hesitate to reassure me that the bush was indeed crying because I had ripped out its beautiful hair, God-made hair. This was one of the moments where I truly was amazed the acts of God.

At the same time, my dad, who lived in silence among my mother’s overbearingly religious family, was not religious. He is an ambitious engineer who would provide me with logical explanations as to how the world works. Some of my favorite childhood memories include building a plywood spaceship, learning about the distribution of solar energy, as well as understanding the applications of mathematics. Because of this, I slowly began to realize that I was believing simply what I had been told without requiring much evidence. Regardless of my epiphany, I still attended church and believed in the influence of God. However, after my dad got a once-in-a-lifetime job opportunity in the United States a year later, my parents and my siblings and I quickly made the move. Upon my arrival in the U.S. I was exposed to new concepts, ideas, and hobbies and quickly became even more appreciative of science. I had an especially great interest in geology and soon my childhood dream job was to become a paleontologist. With this in mind, I would spend quite a bit of time learning about the Mesozoic Era and the Triassic Period, which did not depend on biblical explanations. This yearning for scientific knowledge conflicted greatly with my gratitude for God. I found myself going from “this is the work of God” to “physics tells me so and this is why I’m correct.”

Essentially, I stitched together my own beliefs and ultimately chose to follow science. Although my relationship with God has diminished since my childhood, I have a great appreciation for religion and how it managed to instill a sense of tranquility within me. I believe that everyone should stay true to themselves whether religious or not and have the right to feel reassured of their decision. Be that as it may, ambiguity is the antithesis of science and, for this reason, it is important to consider how some religious beliefs have and will continue to hinder achievement of scientific consensus and progress.

Me, circa 2012, convinced I will grow up and become Alan Grant😆

***

To illustrate, a distinctive example of delayed scientific progression was the discovery of planetary motion, the design that was a catalyst for scientific exploration, innovation, and the scientific revolution. In the field of astronomy, the acceptance of the modern models that demonstrate how the retrograde and prograde motion of planets behave was an approach that was long-delayed and questioned for centuries. In AD 150, Alexandrian mathematician and astronomer, Claudius Ptolemy, developed a geocentric model of the universe (the Ptolemaic system) in order to portray the retrograde motion of planets. His model depicted that the earth was located at the center of the universe where each planet rotates constantly in its own epicycle. Despite its inaccuracies today, Ptolemy’s model was logical had the earth in actual fact, been located at the center of the universe. 

The Bible suggests that the sun is in constant motion while the earth is still (Psalms 89:8-9) and Ptolemy followed this notion to explain his model. Although it lacked internal consistency, it was still endorsed by the church and believed to be true by the general public for centuries. In 1543, Ptolemy’s model was in conflict with Polish astronomer, Nicolaus Copernicus, and his own heliocentric model of the universe: the Copernican system. This model of the solar system depicted the sun at the center of the universe and explained that earth, along with the other planets, rotated around it. Although the Copernican system correctly described the sun in relation to its planets and demonstrated retrograde motion accurately without the need for epicycles and equants. However, Ptolemy’s model agreed most with biblical notions and therefore was trusted by those who were religious.

While openly asserting his findings and claiming his belief in the Copernican system, Italian physicist and astronomer, Galileo Galilei, made himself a target for the church. In favor of the Copernican heliocentric model, he made numerous celestial observations to help bring forward the Copernican system. Galileo was one of the first astronomers to use a telescope for his observations, with which he eventually discovered Jupiter’s moons and the phases of Venus. At the time, there was no separation between Church and State; The Catholic church was in control and punished anyone who did not believe in a geocentric model of the universe. Under those circumstances, having had his opportunity to teach revoked and been silenced, Galileo was determined to convince the church of the validity of his work and spent the following six years of his life writing mathematical equations to prove the earth was not at the center of the universe. Due to his disruption and problematic behavior, the church wanted to silence Galileo permanently, so he was imprisoned for the rest of his life. Eventually, on January 8th ,1642, he died in Florence, Italy.

 Ptolemaic System 

Copernican System

The influence of the Bible and religion can create unscientific bias in observations of the natural world. It is imperative to recognize what could have happened if the ideas of Copernicus and Galileo were believed during their time. If the church had not obscured these definitive discoveries, and had not imprisoned Galileo for life, the scientific revolution could have begun centuries earlier. Scientific progression would be more advanced today and our lives would have been completely altered, perhaps for the better. Scientific research was highly controversial and although physics proved otherwise, that ignorance that was inflicted on society was damaging to future students, mathematicians, and engineers.

A point that is often overlooked, the New Testament excludes the concepts of electrons, protons, transistors, transistor logic, genes, DNA and so on (everything that is vital to the explanation of objects, life, electricity, and energy). The argument for intelligent design is one that concludes that life is a complex concept that is impossible to explain by natural selection and, for this reason, it must have been purposefully designed by a higher power, often God. “Irreducible Complexity” is a belief within the argument for intelligent design which explains that complex biological systems are not able to adapt or evolve by successive small modifications. The argument challenges that since biochemical systems rely on each other for complicated interactions and feedback loops, if you were to remove one component of the system the entirety of it will be dysfunctional. And because of this, this intricate system could not have gradually evolved over time. Science writer for educational website “Learn Religions” Bob Strauss, went against this belief and argues that “it's possible that the first primordial ribosome only began functioning when a random molecular component was removed, rather than added (which is an extremely improbable event in itself, but one with a high probability over hundreds of millions of years of trial and error).” Strauss also argues that, “it's often the case that the components of a biological system evolve for one reason (or for no reason at all), and then are later "exapted" for another purpose. A (previously useless) protein in a complex biological system may "discover" its true function only when another protein is randomly added—which eliminates the need for an Intelligent Designer.” To put it another way, many proteins that exist in our body did not have an original purpose as they were a result of a mutation.  However, over hundreds of millions of years they could potentially interact with another molecular component which may or may not be beneficial, but evolution takes its course and proteins that turn out to be beneficial stick around.

Given these points, one sees how the lack of scientific elucidation initiated a debate for intelligent design that was invalid and incomplete from the start. If the foundation in favor of intelligent design was presented with verifiable evidence, it could not have been debunked so simply. Yet, because believers in intelligent design do not understand the details of the theory, they also fail to comprehend the evidence that shows its inaccuracies. This collective ignorance is threatening to a potential concord in science because a general public will then begin to doubt and challenge peer-reviewed evidence. This is important because when a community of people begin to doubt science, they are all less likely to trust valuable data and eventually become more susceptible to false information.

At the same time, many people practicing religion believe that The Bible is a reliable source for explaining how the Earth was made. According to its introduction (Genesis 1:1) “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” This notion concluded that the entire Earth was made in six days. Consequently, many people believe that the earth was created only 6,000 years ago. “This age is determined by counting the generations of biblical figures recorded throughout the Bible, starting with Adam in the Garden of Eden,” says Bradford G. Schleifer in, “The Real Truth: A Magazine Restoring Plain Understanding.” For this reason, any religion that excludes the evidence of modern geology is not credible or accurate. Notably, Scottish geologist, James Hutton, was an originator of one the fundamental principles of geology: uniformitarianism. This principle carefully explains that the geological processes of the earth behave in the same way and with the same intensity that occurred in the past as they do in the present. With attention to how this uniformity is ample to narrate all the changes that have happened geologically, this law has been the foundation for analysis and critical thinking of all geological structures. For that reason, relying on a religious book to explain the formation of our Earth and life is, once again, threatening to a potential consensus and promotes a deceptive bias. Biblical beliefs have generated arguments such as the earth being flat (Isaiah 40:22) which has fabricated the false notion that Earth’s origin is disputable. Having a consensus-like environment in science gives rise to more effective performance and discoveries.

Similarly, Newtonian physics explains the arrangement of much of our physical universe. Also known as classical mechanics, this field is mathematically simple and is used to calculate the motions of almost every object whether it be mechanical parts, planets, or supernovas. Newtonian physics is inherent in the explanation of how everything behaves and can be used to predict forces and motions of objects at a certain time. In detail, it is challenging to refute this law of science, which approximately simplifies the motion of bodies. This discipline is applied to all areas of science that require gravity, force, and motion which, as aforementioned, are absent in the Bible.

All things considered, my admiration for faith and God were not lessened due to an internalized ambiguity. Rather, it was the synchronicity and alignment of my childhood events and love for science that ultimately altered the way I viewed the world around me. Altogether, I advocate for the public to live and lead an examined life and to take into consideration not only faith, but scientific reasoning about our life, our universe, and our experiences.