© 2011 Carmelo Martínez
© 2011 Urantia Association of Spain
One Man’s Walk Through the Evolutionary Debate, an article published in The Fellowship Herald in the summer of 2011, is what its title suggests: the author’s (who remains anonymous at his own request) journey through the various positions on the theory of evolution, a theory pioneered by Darwin a century and a half ago that, despite initial uproar and rejection, has achieved virtually unanimous acceptance by the scientific community. The different positions on the matter are outlined (neo-Darwinism, creationism, intelligent design, theistic evolutionism) and the discussions between supporters of each are presented, especially between neo-Darwinists and defenders of intelligent design, particularly in the United States of America. Anyone interested in the subject can find in this article a fairly complete, in my opinion, although biased, compendium of the different points of view.
The author does not pretend to be impartial in his discussion and openly declares himself a defender of so-called “intelligent design.” He is even clearly hostile to the most modern version of the theory of evolution, neo-Darwinism, calling it “harmful” and “one of the greatest falsehoods in the history of human thought.” He attributes its persistence to the fact that “materialist philosophy has invaded science.” He seems to position himself against “strictly materialist” orientations in science and scientific development, and apparently also questions “methodological naturalism.”
Methodological naturalism advocates the separation of science and religion and asserts that theology cannot in any way influence scientific explanations or the development of their theories. This does not mean that true scientists must be atheists; rather, it means that when acting as scientists, they should not take the existence of God into account in their explanations of natural laws or in the formulation of their theories. A true scientist, following their knowledge of natural laws and their discoveries, might conclude that God exists, but the existence and actions of God should not be the basis or support, despite being a theist, of any of their theories if they have methodological naturalism as the basis of their scientific methodology.
Most scientists believe that methodological naturalism should be the basis of scientific methodology, and so they think that intelligent design may be philosophy, but it isn’t science. Rather, it’s an attempt to mix science and religion, to introduce the existence of God into science (the author calls this “nonmaterial causality”), something that strikes me as completely unscientific (science should only address material causality).
Given the evidence of the existence of the universe, what should interest science? Why does it exist and who created it, or what is its structure and how does it work? Given the complicated organization of atoms and molecules, what should interest science? Who designed that organization, or rather, what are its operating laws? Given the immense complexity of living organisms, what should interest science? Who designed them, or rather, how do they function, develop, and evolve? And the discovery of the laws of nature must be based strictly on observed facts and not on the existence of “creator” beings or non-material causes (matters outside of matter-energy itself); that is, on methodological naturalism. The development of science has a single tool: reason; religion is based on faith. They are two complementary and parallel fields of development; two fields whose object is entirely different. Why, then, contaminate either with the conclusions and methods of the other? Intelligent design does that.
As I was saying, most of the scientific community claims that intelligent design is not a scientific theory because it bases its explanations on a non-material cause, on the existence of an intelligent being prior to life (the designer), who designed all living organisms and even their evolution over time. Defenders of intelligent design insist that it is a scientific theory, even though its proposals and method run counter to methodological naturalism. Naturally, they are forced to question this methodological naturalism and blame it for the supposed “materialist orientation” of science (its failure to take God into account).
Science, as The Urantia Book says, is “man’s attempt to study his physical environment, the matter-energy world,” and serves to “control, and to some extent dominate, [the] physical environment.” The objects of science are therefore matter and energy, and it is therefore logical that it should be “materialistic.” Science, The Urantia Book asserts, can “trace nature back” to a first cause, although it cannot conclude, through scientific reasoning alone, that this first cause is the God of religion, the Universal Father. What science should not do, in my opinion, is base itself on a first cause as a starting hypothesis. Its starting point must, of course, be the facts of its observations, which will serve reason (as the only tool) to reach conclusions about the laws that govern the functioning of matter-energy.
The strongest argument in favor of intelligent design put forward by its proponents is that the complexity of life is so immensely great that it can only be explained because it was designed by an intelligent being. This seems to me to be a very weak justification. Apparently, for them, there is nothing between neo-Darwinism and intelligent design that can explain evolution. It is true, in my opinion, that neo-Darwinism—that is, evolution through random changes and natural selection—cannot explain the complexity of life, no matter how hard the strictest neo-Darwinists try to do so. But it is also true that new ideas and new visions of evolution are emerging from the study of genes, the genome, and the dynamics of their functioning in cells. A few years ago, I came across the explanations of a scientist who had calculated that, based on the probabilities that can be inferred from random changes, the development of evolution as it has occurred would have required many more years than it actually has. He concluded that there must be some mechanism that somehow guided evolution, such that not all mutations were possible, but only some of them, and he believed he had found that mechanism in the internal structure of elementary particles. I don’t know whether such a theory makes sense or not, but we can hope that recent research will yield insights into gene dynamics that will lead to a revision of the mechanisms of evolution; in fact, this is already happening. And such insights are not, and will not, be based, in his explanations, on the existence of God but on the natural laws that are being discovered.
The author of the article seems to suggest that The Urantia Book develops a scientific theory supporting intelligent design (the author speaks of “the growing agreement between recent research in evolutionary science and key concepts concerning evolution presented in The Urantia Book” and asserts that “The theory that comes closest to the evolutionary explanation presented in The Urantia Book is intelligent design”). The Urantia Book explains that life is planted on planets, that it is a Spirit bestowal, and that it is designed in laboratories on the Life Carrier worlds; I believe this to be true. But such statements are not science; scientists must investigate the facts and discover from them the laws that govern nature, and particularly those that govern genes and their functioning in the mechanisms of species evolution. I believe that evolution is a fact and that it is the method God chose to create species. To this end, He established the laws of nature in general and biology in particular. But once He did so, He let nature follow its course according to these laws. And this is precisely the field of science: the laws of nature, not whether or not the God who promulgated them exists. There is nothing in The Urantia Book that allows one to affirm the reality of intelligent design as a scientific theory, and to pretend otherwise seems to me an attempt to exploit revelation for spurious purposes. (A little later, I will discuss the “wedge strategy” that some ultraconservative movements are implementing.) Nor is there anything in The Urantia Book that supports using the existence of God as a scientific hypothesis; quite the opposite, since it clearly differentiates the fields of science and religion and defines them as different disciplines.
It is true that many modern scientists, including many neo-Darwinists, think and claim that modern science proves there is no God and use science as a battering ram for their atheism. They are materialists, and they have every right to be, but they should be clear that they should not mix these ideas, which are philosophical, with their scientific work, nor should they exploit their scientific authority to spread their atheism throughout society. Likewise, defenders of intelligent design use their pseudoscientific reasoning to claim that science has proven the existence of God. The existence of God is unprovable, which is precisely why it is a matter of faith (that is, of religion, not science).
Some people have taken this idea of theism in science too far. There is a non-profit organization in Seattle (Washington State, USA) called the Discovery Institute that is the center of the intelligent design movement. This organization has launched a political and social action plan aimed at: (I quote directly from Wikipedia) “defeating scientific materialism” represented by evolution, “reversing the materialistic worldview and replacing it with a scientific vision consistent with the convictions of Christianity and theism,” and “affirming the reality of God.” Its goal is to “renew” American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christianity, primarily evangelical and Protestant values.“ They have called this action plan ”the wedge strategy."
I couldn’t disagree more with this plan of action; it strikes me as a colossal mistake and an attempt to impose (once again!) religion (a certain vision of religion, to be exact) on society. And it seems to me that the author of this article, in addition to being a defender of intelligent design, is putting into practice with his article the wedge strategy directed, in this case, at members of the Urantia movement. And this wouldn’t be of greater importance if it weren’t for the fact that he attempts to rely, as I said before, on the teachings of The Urantia Book._ The Urantia Book_ is addressed to individuals, not communities; it doesn’t claim to have any authority in science, and it doesn’t identify with any current or past idea or movement (except the true teachings of Jesus of Nazareth). If we allow any group of people to exploit revelation for their own purposes, even with the best of intentions, we will have gravely jeopardized its future (let us not forget, for example, that Christianity is widely rejected in large areas of our planet). Revelation is for everyone, regardless of their ideology or their political or “religious” leanings.
The main teaching of The Urantia Book is that we are all children of God and brothers by faith, that we have in our minds a divine spark that is a fragment of the Universal Father, and that this fragment guides us toward salvation and eternity. God, then, is within us, not outside. Each of us is a facet of the infinite personality of the First Source and Center. And each of us represents the Father and brings to others the perspective of that specific facet of the Father that He is. “The law of God” therefore acts from within (from the person, from their mind) outward (toward the community), not from without inward. Each of us puts into practice “the law of God” (the will of God) as we interpret it from our particular facet of the Father. Trying to impose a particular idea of God on others (which is what the wedge strategy proposes and what so-called “institutional religions” have been doing throughout history) is therefore not only a colossal error, but an attempt to restrict free will, the most sacred aspect of creation. The Father has given us our minds to use, and in this way we seek and find Him “in our own way,” not in someone else’s way. The Father has given us free will so that we may give Him the only thing that is truly ours (because He so desired): our free decision to do His will. We can and should help others find their way to the Father, but in no case, in any way, does this mean that our way to the Father must be His way.
There is no law of God for societies, but for individuals, and it has its voice in each person’s thought adjuster. The Father does not want to manifest himself in and of himself outside of people, but within (each of) us and through (each of) us. The Father does not want to influence societies directly, but through the action of each of us. The Father wants each of us to be co-creators with Him and with His creator children. He has moved away from direct action because He wants us, not Him, to decide how things should be. So that we do not make mistakes and follow His plan (so that we do His will), He gives us a fragment of Himself in the form of a thought adjuster.
The wedge strategy, in my opinion, runs counter to the teachings of The Urantia Book. For this reason, and for the sake of the revelation, we must not allow anyone to exploit it for their own ends, and I repeat, no matter how well-intentioned.