More to the point, Mr. Duran

suggests that "Creationism to any degree" requires the conclusion

that "most sciences are wrong." Indeed, he insists that, "genetic

engineering would be impossible if creationism were even remotely possible."

And he ranks creationism with the daily horoscope and the psychic hotline.

To embrace any form of creationism is apparently to assume the role of

Elmer Gantry, shouting absurdities at Albert Einstein. Jeremy, these are

challenges that are certainly worthy of your attention.

Now just how is Mr. Duran's

argument supposed to go? What is meant by "creationism to any degree"?

I believe the universe to be the creation of an infinite and personal

Creator. Does this belief, by itself, entail that I should think that

paleontologists are sinister and that plate tectonics is an underground

conspiracy? And does my theistic commitment preclude my thinking that

God may have employed lawful processes that are discoverable and, perhaps,

repeatable, by careful human endeavor?

Perhaps Mr. Duran shares a

widespread assumption about the nature of science: "good science,"

rules out appeals to "design" a priori. "Creationism to

any degree" violates this strict adherence to methodological naturalism.

Creationists who appeal to divine activities as the best explanation of

observed phenomena are akin to those who would posit leprechauns to explain

why the book fell from the shelf. Tough-minded inquirers such as Mr. Duran

know better: a naturalistic explanation waits in the offing and may be

discovered by the patient investigator. I have several objections to the

"good science is naturalistic" thesis, but for want of space,

will discuss only one now and hope for a future opportunity to say more.

It seems possible in principle

that the best explanation of a phenomenon may very well be obtained through

appeal to intelligent design. Consider the SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial

Intelligence) project, as featured in the movie "Contact."

Suppose that researchers pick

up a radio signal from deep space with a pattern that, with a modest bit

of decoding work, yields a message: EATMORCHIKINSIGNDTHECOWZ. Would we

think it reasonable for a skeptical scientist to rule out intelligence

as a source and to hold out indefinitely for a model of explanation that

appealed to chance? Would we think it a hallmark of rationality were she

to insist that "simply because science presently lacks such a model

is no reason to pounce on the intelligence hypothesis"?

Now suppose that, one fine

morning, the world were to awaken to a message emblazoned in the skies

and seen from all continents: DON'T MAKE ME COME DOWN THERE ­ GOD.

We might wonder whether such

a phenomenon was the result of human intelligence (perhaps the Trinity

Broadcasting Network has discovered a new use for their ample satellite

equipment). We certainly would not attribute such a phenomenon to, say,

chance solar flares or the like.

But should such messages continue

(I REALLY MEAN IT THIS TIME GOD), and should such anthropocentric explanations

be ruled out, would it be reasonable to insist that a truly "scientific"

explanation would entail our ignoring the possibility that the message

is of divine origin? (I suppose we might consider extraterrestrials with

a truly wicked sense of humor.)

The inference to intelligent

design is already part and parcel of a variety of scientific disciplines,

including the forensic sciences (who dunnit?) and archeology (is this

an artifact or just a rock?). Why suppose that the creationist's claim

that natural phenomena are best explained by appeal to intelligent design

is any different?

As a matter of fact, a great

deal of ink has been spilled in recent decades concerning the apparent

"fine-tuning" of our universe at its inception. In short, the

fact that our universe came into being in such a way as to make life in

any form possible is wildly improbable on a chance hypothesis. Roger Penrose,

Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at Oxford and Stephen Hawking's sidekick,

calculates the odds of our universe forming without superintendence as

requiring "... an accuracy of one part out of 10 to the power of

10 to the power of 123."

Knowing that such a figure

would be lost on the likes of me, Penrose illustrates just how wild this

improbability is. What would it be like trying to write this number down

in standard notation (a one followed by a bunch of zeros)? Even if we

were to write a zero on each separate proton and on each separate neutron

in the entire universe and we could throw in all the other particles as

well for good measure we should fall far short of writing down the figure

needed.

Michael Turner, an astrophysicist

at the University of Chicago, illustrates just how lucky we are to be

here if there is no intelligent designer behind the scenes. He suggests

that the precision of the fine-tuning of our universe "is as if one

could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bulls eye one

millimeter in diameter on the other side."

No wonder a scientist no less

eminent than Fred Hoyle could conclude a common sense interpretation of

the facts suggests that a superintendent has monkeyed with physics, as

well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth

speaking about in nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined

the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear

physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences

they produce within stars. Mr. Hoyle is, I think, in no danger of turning

to horoscopes or reading goat entrails. Here is a scientist's scientist

who concludes that the hypothesis of design is rationally preferable to

naturalistic chance explanations.

Those today who appeal to

intelligent design as the best explanation of certain organisms offer

an argument at the biological level that parallels the above arguments

at the cosmological level: purely naturalistic explanations that preclude

intelligent design are ultimately implausible. Whether the designer in

question is identical to the being in whom Christians believe is, admittedly,

a question that transcends science.

High school biology students

need not bring their Bibles to class. But whether the evidence points

to intelligence responsible for the phenomena in question (and, of course,

an intelligence that is at least consistent with the object of theistic

belief) strikes me as a good question that is safely within the purview

of science.

Jeremy, don't believe people

who tell you that "creationism to any degree" is unscientific,

irrational or infantile.

Mark D. Linville

Fayetteville