The Infallibility (Double) Standard

Intelligent Design (ID) remains a hot issue around the country, even in Utah.

I think the push for ID is a losing cause, since it's essentially one side trying to win the battle on the other side's home turf.  Most schools, for example, have both literature and math classes, with lit and math teachers, respectively.  Suppose the math teachers demanded that the literature teachers couldn't discuss any literary work in their class until they proved mathematically that the work was 'quality literature'.  Is there a mathmatical proof that, for example, demonstrates conclusively which one of Shakespeare's plays is the best?  A literature teacher would roll his/her eyes at such a question...

You can't judge, analyze, or even understand literature looking at it through the lens of mathematics.  Any amount of time the literature department spent trying to meet the math department's requirement of 'proof' of the veracity of literature would be a waste of time, since (1) it's not possible, and (2) by trying, they're essentially conceding that math is the appropriate venue for discussing literature in the first place.

The purpose of ID is to provide some sort of a scientific basis for creationism, without necessarily involving any religious components.  By moving the battle to the scientists' turf, though, it's doomed to fail, since by doing so it validates the idea that science is the fundamental basis for explaining everything.  If it were that easy to use mankind's understanding of natural laws and processes in the universe to explain every element of creation, it would have been done long before now.  The best ID can do is simply list things that 'science hasn't explained yet'--an inherently weak "anti-" position since there isn't much of a "for" position to take...(in the realm of science, anyway).

There's a double standard involving proof when it comes down to science vs. religion.  Here's a good analysis of the current state of evolutionary theory from Left2Right's J.David Velleman:

No scientist would deny that there are gaps in our current ability to explain the origins of human life. The theory of evolution is, not a complete explanation, but what philosophers of science call an explanation-schema -- a general template for developing explanations of many different phenomena. The template outlines how to explain life-forms in terms of inheritable mutations and natural selection; the specific mutations and the specific forces of selection vary from one case to another. This template has enabled scientists to explain innumerable observations of life now existing or preserved in the fossil record. But scientists have nothing like a complete, step-by-step account of how our species developed from the first organic molecules, and there is plenty of room for controversy as to how the evolutionary template should be applied to some cases, whether it has yet been applied successfully to others, and how the template itself might be elaborated or tweaked.

Given a successful explanation schema, the scientific approach (I won't call it a "method") is to continue applying it to new cases, adjusting it as the need arises.

Now, the first sentence should probably read "No scientist should deny..." since, of course, there are many scientists who do act as if evolution has already provided the "complete, step-by-step account" of the origin of man, but that's beside the point.  The point is that science--good science, anyway--is always in a state of flux.  Evolution (for example) takes some established scientific facts, and creates a framework (or 'explanation-schema') of theories for how everything else that hasn't been proven might fall into place.  As Velleman notes, that framework will change from year to year as new discoveries are made, and new theories are presented.  No scientist need be afraid of new information that seems to contradict an existing theory...you just accept the new information and adjust the framework around it.

My question: how come science doesn't give religion the same margin of error?

The idea that, given an Intelligent Designer in the universe, He/She/It could reveal everything there is to know about all the natural laws and processes at play in the universe...and be comprehended by mankind is rather silly.  The scriptures have many simple answers to complex questions, but there does not seem to be as much flexibility given to religious apologists to adjust interpretations according to newer theories or discoveries.  Lots of people interpret Genesis 1 as demonstrating the Earth was created in six 24-hour periods.  Upon reflection, maybe each 'day' represented something a little more abstract than the literal concept of day we use today?   Maybe it turns out Noah didn't have two (or seven) of every animal on earth in the ark, or that the flood didn't cover the entire Earth (just the entire Earth that Noah was aware of...)

And yet, science proponents do not give religion the flexibility to change.  If there are/were X number of religious people who say each 'day' was exactly 24 hours, then that's what 'religion' will be judged against.  If that claim cannot be proven by science, then 'religion' can be discredited entirely...just throw the entire 'explanation-schema' of religion out the window.  If science held itself to such strict standards, the scientific framework would have been discarded long ago...

If science has the flexibility to change based on new information or theories...why not religion, too?  A fundamental principle of the gospel is that truth is revealed "line upon line, precept upon precept"...and that understandings from a religious perspective can and do change over time. Imagine a 21st century astronomer reading in the Book of Mormon where Ammon explains to King Lamoni that God dwells 'above the Earth', and then 'disproving' it immediately with his telescope.  Can he then conclude that the existence of God is a 'myth' since this so-called prophet of God gave a scientifically 'incorrect' explanation?  Whether Ammon believed God lived in the sky above the Earth, or just gave that as a simple explanation to an investigator, what makes Ammon's explanation any more binding to the field of religion than the claims from early scientists that the Sun revolved around the Earth are to science?

(Side note: many other churches do the same thing--holding the Book of Mormon to a different standard of proof than they do the Bible.  If early Saints thought the Book of Mormon represented the history of ALL Native Americans in North and South America, then that's what they will be judged on, even though the limited geography theory appeared within 15 years of the Church's founding.  Interesting that those same churches turn a deaf ear to scientific and historicity issues raised by others about the Bible...)

As I've long maintained, there is no conflict between science and religion.  They both approach the issue of explaining the laws and processes that govern the universe from opposite directions, and should both be given flexibility in expanding their frameworks--adjusting for newer discoveries--until one day they meet in the middle somewhere...