Creationism vs Imagination

One of the interesting aspects of teaching creationism or "Intelligent" Design is the way in which it would, if adopted, inhibit the principles of imagination and wonder that are so important to science. These "theories" presume to give pat answers complicated questions -- and if you already have the answers, what's the point of continuing to search?

Robert Koehler wrote a few years ago:

Forcing biology teachers to present intelligent design within a scientific context may do more to hasten the concept's demise than banning it. I don't think it's any match for the spirit of human inquiry, which, rather than any particular scientific hypothesis, is its true enemy. This spirit presses against every orthodoxy -- including scientific orthodoxy -- until that orthodoxy cries "Uncle!"

What is lost in the debate, as it plays itself out in the media, is that there is a tentative, subject-to-revision quality to even the most solid of "facts" grounding any scientific hypothesis. That's the whole point. Science is continually pushing the envelope of what it knows, then creating new theories to encompass the expanded data.

In contrast, Bible-based "science" has one aim only: to find bits of data proving, suggesting or giving hope that the timeline of Genesis is factually accurate. It doesn't want to open up any faith-shaking cans of worms. Its research serves only to confirm the beliefs the researcher had starting out.

I am offended by the closed inquiry of intelligent design, appalled that its raison d'etre is to reduce the size of my universe from infinite space and time to a doddering, 6,000-year-old patriarchy. I consider the determination to wall us off from the unknown a sin against possibility and the human imagination. To put it in slightly archaic language, I'd call it blasphemy.

Koehler hits upon a very important issue here, I think. Genuine science involves not just coming up with answers to our questions, but also discovering new questions and learning how much we already don't know. Science is driven by the unknown and mystery.

Creationism, regardless of what label it is given, is driven by a desire to defend traditional religious orthodoxy. It's driven by a desire to defend traditional answers that were written down centuries or millennia ago. Creationists already think that they have the answers and are merely looking for some means to prove that their position has some merit.

This is also true of the Intelligent Design form of Creationism. Intelligent Design presumes to provide answers, but offers no new questions. It doesn't have any experiments to test its claims and offers no research projects for discovering new facts about our world. Despite its main defender, the "Discovery Institute," adopting the name "Discovery," the ideology offers us no way to ever discover anything new.

There are a lot of reasons why creationism doesn't qualify as science and none of the above is usually listed as technical characteristics of science. Nevertheless, the absence of a spirit of inquiry and a desire to learn about the unknown may be one of the most fundamental things that prevent creationism from being scientific -- and that will ensure its ultimate failure.