[Buddha-l] Buddhism, Science, and Intelligent Design

[Erik Hoogcarspel]

Peter D. Junger schreef:

>I have noticed repeated claims--some made on this very list--that
>science and religion deal with different types of issues and thus
>cannot come into conflict--or, though this is less often stated,
>be in agreement--with each other.  Of late, such claims turn up 
>chiefly in the context of the dispute over the teaching of 
>so-called "Intelligent Design" and of evolution.
>  
>
If there would be a scientific proof that telepathy is impossible and we 
know that sound doesn't go beyond a mile, would that prove that praying 
is useless? I would say it doesn't because people wouldn't stop praying, 
so they still feel the usefullness. Even the existence of God is no item 
in science. So science and religion have different discourses. This 
doesn't stop however some ignorant religious leaders from trying to 
dominate the scientific discourse. One way is to propagate the 
ID-theory. But what does this mean? There are several possibilities:

   1. sometimes it looks like nature has been designed by an intelligent
      agent (the answere here would be that this could very well have an
      psychological explanation, because we human beings tend to see
      traces of human activity whereever we can)
   2. there is proof that the universe has been designed by an
      intelligent agent (this means that coincidence must be excluded,
      it's like when someone has fallen from a roof: how do you know if
      he was pushed? you have to find fingerprints and traces of what
      went on earlier, but how do you identify God's fingerprint and how
      do we find traces of what went on before creation? Moreover the
      examples are nothing but a very limited number of typical cases
      that need much further inquiry, so it's like a D.A. trying to
      convict someone in order to close the case in order to cover up
      the fact that the death has been an accident)
   3. there is proof that God created the world (this is simply untrue,
      as Hume stated: even if the world has been created, there is no
      evidence whatsoever that the creator and God or Allah are the same
      person)

>These claims rather trouble me as a would-be follower of the
>Buddhadharma, since I cannot help but notice that the idea that
>the world was created by an intelligent designer does not seem
>compatible with the Buddhist teachings and that the theory of
>evolution, on the other hand, is perfectly consistent 
>with--and, in fact, a good example of--the truth of the
>basic teaching of dependent origination: this arises, therefore
>that arises.
>
>And when one comes to the relatively recently recognized field of
>cognitive science it seems to me that the efforts of Buddhist 
>practitioners to understand the workings of their minds cannot
>be distinguished in theory from the efforts of scientists to
>arrive at a similar understanding.  Marvin Minsky's "Society of
>Mind", for example, strikes me as being an updated version of the 
>metaphor of the chariot in the Milindapanha.
>
>If it is establishing religion to teach intelligent design in the
>public schools, then why is the teaching of evolution in those 
>schools not an establishment of (the Buddhist) religion?
>
>I suppose that one answer could be that Buddhism is not a 
>religion; but if that be the case what would happen to the tax
>exemption of institutions like the Cleveland Buddhist Temple?
>  
>
If you teach science you must show that science doesn't take sides and 
never makes definitive claims. It doesn't interfere with the liveworld. 
Technology does, but only after the theory.

>
>Erik
>
>
>www.xs4all.nl/~jehms
>weblog http://www.volkskrantblog.nl/pub/blogs/blog.php?uid=2950
>