I just read yet another op-ed column on the intelligent design/evolution debate and would like to offer a clarifying view. I am a molecular biologist at the National Cancer Institute, where I have been studying the role of mobile genetic elements in genome evolution for the past 20 years. Oops, said that word already, which I strongly accept as the guiding principal in biology. But being religious and believing in god is not incompatible with science. It all depends upon your frame of reference. Scientists like to ask questions as a way of testing a hypothesis, but not all questions can be answered scientifically. This way of thinking was first explained to me many years ago by Howard Temin, who happened to be religious, a nobel prize winner, and one of my undergraduate professors. Professor Temin simply said that science can address many questions, but not any that begin with WHY. "Why questions" belong to religion, philosophy or perhaps serendipidy for those atheists out there. So when we asked Professor Temin a "why" question in class, he always replied..."Let me rephrase your question in an experimentally testable form..." I think Temin was onto something we should remember today.

Bloom's God Rather Than That of Hawking

Charles Krauthammer ('Phony Theory, False Conflict',
Washington Post, 19 November) rightly stated that
Newton believed in the - for want of a better term and
if one has to be denominational- Christian 'God'.
Even though - to me- it is inferable from
Krauthammer's article, I believe that for reasons of
historical accuracy it needs to be specifically stated
that the 'God' of Einstein was not the same as the
Christian, Muslim or even 'Judaic' Deity (or deities).

Einstein's 'religiosity' was not at all based on the
traditional religious conception(s) of God, a 'Deity'
or a 'Supreme Being' that could be found in the
'Abrahamic' or theistic religions.

Krauthammer used the famous last phrase of Stephen
Hawking's book A Brief History of Time and claimed
that Einstein's entire 'vocation' was an 'attempt to
understand the mind of God'. I would state that as far
as the theological, moral and even political issues
are concerned 'the mind of God' had been made explicit
by human agents in the 'holy books' of the Abrahamic
religions. I find the statement by Harold Bloom that
'those who worship God worship a literary figure' to
be more on mark, true and fascinating than Hawking's
(rather than Einstein's) alleged attempt to
'understand the mind of God'.

If it is "only fair" to give equal time to Intelligent Design (which doesn't necessarily exclude evolution) and creationism (which does) alongside Darwinism in biology classes, then it is also only fair to teach the Earth is flat, possibly hollow, and fixed in space in Earth Science class, or that the Holocaust never occurred in World History class. Let's trot out every idea that has ever been offered to explain anything, and present them all to our students. Let the kids decide! It's only fair!

Thankfully, science is not a democracy since it relies on evidence not heartfelt opinions. It's time to grow up, folks, and put infantile ideas behind us.

For those who continue to insist that injecting religion into science classes might be somehow consistent with the supposed Christian principles upon which the USA was founded, I recommend you read some quotes from our Founding Fathers at:

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html

The Founders were anything but Christian idealogues -- they were in fact mostly deists who were often skeptical if not derisive of Christianity and favored reason and science over belief.

It puts the question of who is being radical in the science/religion debate in a whole different light.

Flying spaghetti monster. I just KNOW in my heart that this explains EVERYTHING and I insist that it be taught in public schools. Heck, I insist in be preached in the churches as well.

I believe in the old religion. I think that all students should play to Apollo each morning.

I believe in the old religion. I think that all students should pray to Apollo each morning.

As someone who lives in Kansas, I'd to say most of us aren't happy about the decision either.

When I look at the material reality of the world, from DNA and photosynthesis to '59 Cadillacs and little houses in Levittown I don't find it hard to believe it's been designed, but I've also seen simple programs create unbelievably comples images and system. So I see nothing that indicates it's anything other than a beautiful organic machine, unraveling over infinite time.

When I see thousands of people killed in a tsunami or earthquake, I find it hard to believe that there's a caring God. When I see so much hate and willingness to kill by so-called Christians, I surely can't believe it's anything Christ's God would allow.

The mystery of life, the universe and everything belongs in public discussion and religion/philosophy/social studies, not science class.

When the Intelligent Design guys come up with a better cell-phone battery or explanation of time/gravity/matter, let me know. That's what science gives us.

The good news about this latest round of debate on evolution/ID/creationism is one that we often overlook: science will continue to proceed as it has and, if the evidence continues to pile up as it has done so for decades, Darwinian evolution will remain the fundamental framework of modern biology.

No politician, priest, or ignoramus on the street will change that with their uninformed opinions and heartfelt beliefs. Science rolls on, staying focused on understanding what the universe IS rather than fantasizing about what we might like it to be. And science succeeds because it works, in tangible ways no one can deny.

Evolution/ID skirmishes in the local school boards may cause time-wasting hassles for teachers, students, and parents, but the greater battle is a steady retreat of tired old religious ideas before the progress of science. I hope I live long enough to see the final mop-up.

Evolution Devolves

The idea that if you doubt evolution will lead to 'doubting physics', etc. is interesting. It seems to me that doubting physics is how Newton and Einstein helped man understand physics. Doubting the nature of gravity, or light, as understood by established scientists would have precluded Relativity.
However, as some have stated, the belief in God doesn't necessarily belkong in the classroom. Obviously, science can only teach us so much. But science represents the upper limit of man's wisdom. I'm sure God doesn't want the acceptance of the fact of his existence to be dependent on how much the scientists know at any given time. Notice what he thinks of man's wisdom ... (1Co 3:19) "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness." It was right, in the scientific model, for Yuri Gagarin to say, I was in high orbit, but did not see God. We know that he did not go high enough to see God. And science still has not gone high enough.
But, if you want to know God, the advice of the Apostle Paul is wisdom enough ... (Rom 1:19) "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them."

(Rom 1:20) "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse"

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.