I’ve had a good education in science and the scientific method, and let me say up front that I am a firm believer in the Theory of Evolution.* I am also well-educated, however, (or trained, if you will), in religion, philosophy and ethics, and I pride myself (ah, pride) on looking at all sides of an issue before forming my body of opinion about it.

I must admit to having been remiss in that regard, with respect to my view of creationists and their opinions about evolution, Creationism and Intelligent Design. It took a recent article by William Salaten in Slate to set me straight. Among other things, he writes

They just want science to stop short of denying God’s possibility. A little bit of mystery, a parcel of unspoiled divine wilderness, is all they ask.

I was practically poleaxed by his well-reasoned and beautifully written piece. Is it possible that all that’s necessary to close this great divide among us is for scientists to simply admit, in so many words, that which is implicit in the scientific view to begin with: There is nothing in science that contradicts the existence of a god or gods?

Perhaps those of us who pride ourselves on our skillful thinking — and it is pride — need to give Mr. Saletan’s thoughts our consideration.

Namasté

*One needs to understand, and it may as well be mentioned here, that scientists do not use the word “theory” in the same way as laymen. To a layperson, a theory is an idea that may or may not be true, as in “Well, it’s only a theory, after all.” Scientists call that a “hypothesis.”

To a scientist, theory refers to a scientific concept supported by a specific body of fact, and presumed to be correct as far as it is currently understood — unless proven otherwise. Thus science gives no ground in referring to evolution as a theory. It is laypeople with an unskilled understanding of science and the scientific method, who give to the word less gravity than it requires.